The Constitutional Court of Russia took former lovers under protection

The Constitutional Court of Russia has banned those convicted of domestic violence from being near the victims’ homes

The Constitutional Court of Russia issued a ruling regarding situations of domestic violence. According to the document, lower courts will be able to prohibit aggressors from visiting places where the victim may regularly be. In particular, they will be limited in their ability to come to victims’ homes and places of work.

Edition “Kommersant” with reference to experts, reports that this resolution can be regarded as an analogue of protective orders for victims of domestic violence.

It is clarified that the document was adopted after Russian woman Olga Balukova, who suffered from a former partner with whom she had been in a relationship for about three years, applied to the Constitutional Court of Russia. After their couple broke up, the man began to threaten his beloved with violence and pursued her. He came to the girl’s work, where he first beat her and then began to choke her until she lost consciousness. He also hit a colleague who tried to defend the Russian woman.

After investigative and judicial proceedings, the man’s freedom was restricted, prohibiting him from leaving his home at night, leaving Moscow and changing his place of residence without permission from the Federal Penitentiary Service. Olga filed an appeal, but the court rejected it. Appeals to cassation and the Supreme Court of Russia did not yield results.

In the summer of 2023, she filed a lawsuit with the Constitutional Court of Russia. Another Russian woman, Yulia Chernigina, who was tortured by her former partner, also turned there, and the courts refused to ban the man from approaching her, her home and place of work. The Constitutional Court of Russia consolidated the complaints and ruled that the courts can make a decision against convicted persons in the form of restricting visits to places “where the victim may regularly be.”

The publication clarifies that the ruling of the Constitutional Court does not imply the possibility of prohibiting the aggressor from approaching the victim outside the “prohibited” territories, but the federal legislator can “specify or supplement” the article on restriction of freedom.