Scientists challenge the law on foreign agents in the Constitutional Court

The legislation on NPOs and foreign influence does not allow for the distinction between scientific and political activities, while scientists are recognized as foreign agents for scientific research. This is indicated in the complaint of the Institute of Law and Public Policy (recognized as a foreign agent) to the Constitutional Court (CC) of the Russian Federation. The applicant is confident that the status of a foreign agent “derogates the rights of scientific organizations.” Co-author of the relevant legislation, deputy Oleg Matveychev, considers scientific and political activities “separated”, but calls for other scientists, for example, specialists in the field of green energy, to be declared foreign agents.

ANO “Institute of Law and Public Policy” (IPPP) complained to the Constitutional Court “about the violation of rights and freedoms” by the provisions of two laws – on NPOs and “On the control of persons under foreign influence.” Thus, the STI disputes the inclusion of an organization in the register of foreign agents, claiming a violation of Art. 44 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation on freedom of scientific activity and Art. 29 on the right to freedom of speech and dissemination of information. The applicant finds that the rights of scientific organizations are being diminished, referring to Part 2 of Art. 55 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation (prohibits the issuance of laws “abolishing or derogating the rights and freedoms of man and citizen”).

“The law does not allow us to distinguish between scientific and political activities. The definition of political activity and its form practically coincides with the scientific one. Although the law stipulates that science cannot be a political activity, it is impossible to distinguish between them in practice,” complains STI lawyer Ivan Brikulsky. Indeed, in Art. 4 of the Law “On the Control of Persons Under Foreign Influence” states that “political activities do not include activities in the field of science.” But the same article states that political activity can take the form of “public debates, discussions and speeches,” appeals to authorities, dissemination of opinions about government decisions, and “the formation of socio-political views and beliefs.” The complaint to the Constitutional Court (Kommersant has the text) draws attention to the fact that scientific activity can also take place in the form of debates and discussions, and appeals to authorities are an “integral part of the work” of scientists: “Any science inevitably influences the formation of views and beliefs.” Complaint No. 10675/15–01/2023 was accepted for consideration by the Constitutional Court on November 10.

The STI was recognized as a foreign agent in July 2021. The Ministry of Justice explained the decision for a number of reasons: the submission of scientific expert opinions (amicus curiae) to the Constitutional Court, the publication of analytical and expert reports, the holding of public debates, the signing of a petition for the examination of the Venice Commission on amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the development of amendments to the law on the rehabilitation of victims of political repression . At the same time, the IPP insists that they are engaged in scientific activities and legal education, and constitutional justice is the “main vector of activity” of the organization. Let us note that, for example, in 2021 after the decision of the Constitutional Court to recognize Art. 116.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on beatings and unconstitutional STIs sent his conclusion to the highest authority, stating the insufficient protection of women and children in Russia from violent acts in the family. Ivan Brikulsky also recalls the existence of Constitutional Court Resolution No. 10-P of April 2014, which states that scientific activity “even with foreign funding cannot be recognized as political.”

Co-author of the law on foreign agents, State Duma deputy Oleg Matveychev (United Russia) considers scientific and political activities to be “strongly differentiated.” “Political activity is still connected with participation in actions, be it a demonstration, some kind of public statements, or, ultimately, participation in elections. Scientific activity does not imply such things. When a person writes scientific articles, books, speaks at scientific conferences, gives lectures at universities, this is a different matter,” explains Mr. Matveychev. However, the deputy allows for “intersection”: “When a scientist, instead of doing science, begins to come out with political slogans. Then he crosses the line separating science from politics. When it turns out that he systematically abuses the right of a scientist and turns the department into a tribune, then the law begins to act against him.” At the same time, Oleg Matveychev simultaneously calls for “taking a closer look at scientific funding.” “There is even such a meme – “Soros textbooks.” The same applies to research in the field of green energy and in the field of gender issues, where a political ideology and a certain position are being pushed. We need to think about whether to declare such people as foreign agents,” the deputy said, not excluding the possibility that under the guise of research, “espionage is flourishing.”

Alexander Voronov, Ksenia Veretennikova