The Constitutional Court refused to consider the complaint of State Duma deputy from SRZP Vadim Belousov

The Constitutional Court (CC) refused to consider the complaint of State Duma deputy from the party “A Just Russia – For Truth” (SRZP) Vadim Belousov, whom the Moscow City Court last year sentenced in absentia to ten years in prison for a bribe of 3 billion rubles, about the procedure for bringing the parliamentarian to criminal liability. Meanwhile, despite the fact that the sentence came into force six months ago, Mr. Belousov still retains the status of a deputy. His lawyer and colleagues are confident that this is a consequence of the fact that the Prosecutor General’s Office transferred the case to court without the sanction of the State Duma, and this was precisely made possible due to contradictions between the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and the law on the status of parliamentarians.

As follows from the refusal definition (.pdf), published on the website of the Constitutional Court, Vadim Belousov tried to challenge the norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of which the Moscow City Court in 2022 put him on the wanted list. The applicant’s lawyers insist that such enforcement is contrary to the constitutional principle of separation of powers and the principle of immunity of a deputy, since it allows, in order to ensure the execution of a sentence that has not entered into legal force, the detention and detention (indicated in the complaint as arrest) of a deputy without the consent of the State Duma. However, according to the Constitutional Court, lawyers Vyacheslav Plahotniuc and Daria Pesetskaya did not submit a power of attorney to conduct the case specifically at the Constitutional Court, and the warrant on the basis of which they have acted until now only works in a criminal court.

Let us recall that in August 2022, the Moscow City Court sentenced Vadim Belousov to ten years in prison and a fine of 500 million rubles. for receiving a bribe in the amount of more than 3 billion rubles, he is also prohibited from holding positions related to organizational and administrative activities for three years (see “Kommersant” dated August 4, 2022). The judge demanded that the deputy be taken into custody in the courtroom, but this turned out to be impossible, since he did not appear at the announcement of the verdict (he was under recognizance not to leave). His lawyer Lyudmila Aivar says that Mr. Belousov does not even communicate with his defenders and they do not know where he is (according to the border service, he did not leave the country).

Nevertheless, he still retains the status of a deputy, although the sentence that has entered into force is the basis for early termination of powers.

But, Ms. Aivar explains, for this, the Duma must receive a certified copy of the verdict from the court. This has not yet happened, perhaps because the legality of the verdict raises reasonable doubts, the lawyer suggests.

The deputy’s party members also agree with this. In such cases, the Prosecutor General’s Office appeals to the Duma, and it lifts immunity and gives permission to initiate a criminal case, Dmitry Gusev, deputy head of the SRZP faction, reminds Kommersant. This procedure was also carried out with Vadim Belousov. But after the investigation takes place, the Prosecutor General’s Office again appeals to the Duma for permission to transfer the case to court, but this appeal was not made in this case.

Therefore, the case was appealed to the cassation instance – the Supreme Court – and is awaiting consideration, and only after that “can some decisions be made,” Mr. Gusev believes.

This is not the first time Vadim Belousov and his lawyers are trying to draw the attention of the Constitutional Court to this situation: back in 2021, a deputy filed a complaint there, claiming that the trial was started in violation, since the Prosecutor General’s Office did not receive the consent of the State Duma to transfer the case to court. But the Constitutional Court then refused to accept the complaint (.pdf) with reference to the fact that the court continues to consider the applicant’s case, which means that he has not yet exhausted all domestic remedies (according to the law, this is a mandatory condition for applying to the Constitutional Court).

In May 2023, the verdict against Vadim Belousov, after being confirmed on appeal, came into force, and his lawyers again appealed to the Constitutional Court. They complained about the contradiction between the norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the law on the status of senators and deputy of the State Duma. According to this law, recalls Lyudmila Aivar, the Prosecutor General must request the consent of the Duma first to bring a deputy to criminal liability, and then to transfer the case to court. In the case of Vadim Belousov, this was not done: the Duma only agreed to lift his immunity after the initiation of the case. At one time, such a condition was provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure, but then the reference to the need for the second stage was removed, the lawyer recalls. However, this provision remained in the relevant law, and the Constitutional Court, according to Ms. Aivar, was asked to “determine what comes first: the chicken or the egg.”

By the way, last year Mr. Belousov personally tried to eliminate the “incompleteness of procedural guarantees” by initiating the corresponding amendments to Art. 441 Code of Criminal Procedure.

The absence of a requirement in it to coordinate with the Duma the referral of a deputy’s criminal case to the court “gives rise to difficulties and a lack of uniformity in law enforcement,” the author of the draft argued. As an example, he referred to his own case, because until 2020, the procedure prescribed by the law on the status of a deputy was strictly observed, and the Prosecutor General requested permission from the Duma to transfer the case to court. He did not deviate from the general principle in 2022, when requested consent to transfer the case of communist deputy Valery Rashkin to court.

However, Vadim Belousov’s bill still remains without movement. At the same time, the conclusion of the relevant committee on legislation states (.doc), that the issue of the procedure for sending a criminal case against a senator or deputy to court does not require additional regulation, since it is already regulated by the law on the status of a deputy. In turn, the government, in its response to the project, asserts (.pdf), that one should be guided, first of all, by the norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure: “the consideration by the chambers of the Federal Assembly of the materials of the criminal case would predetermine the question of the guilt of the accused… which is the exclusive prerogative of the court,” the document says.

Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Legislation and former prosecutor Yuri Sinelshchikov (KPRF) also believes that the norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure in this case receive priority: according to the Code of Criminal Procedure itself, in criminal proceedings, a federal law that contradicts the code cannot be applied. The deputy notes that the Communist Party of the Russian Federation has always sought strict adherence to the procedure in cases where there was a question of lifting the immunity of its deputies. At the same time, he recalls, in the situation with the deprivation of powers of Valery Rashkin, no problems arose with the court notifying the State Duma: this was done literally on the same day as the verdict came into force.

Anastasia Kornya, Ksenia Veretennikova