ANCHUGOV AND GLADKOV CASE AND THE DECISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, BODIES OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROL OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES

This paper presents an analysis of the content of Part 3 Art. 32 of the Constitution, which enshrines the prohibition citizens held in places of deprivation of liberty by a court sentence to participate in the electoral process. The author highlights some features of electoral rights formulated in the decision of the European Court of Human Rights dated July 4, 2013 in the case "Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russian Federation": the right to vote is not a privilege; presumption in favour of inclusion (universal suffrage should be the main principle); the availability of good and compelling reasons for restrictions of the electoral rights of prisoners. The author considers the legal position laid down in the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of April 19, 2016 No12-P regarding the applicability of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. The article analyses foreign practice of dealing with similar cases: United States Supreme Court decision in "Richardson v. Ramirez" (1974); the practice of the Supreme Court of Canada ("Belczowski v. the Queen", 1991; "Sovje case", 2002); the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of South Africa in "August and others v. Electoral Commission, and others"(1999); the practice of the Supreme Court of India ("Jan Chaukidar (Peoples Watch) v. UOI Ors&." 2004; "Rama Prasad Sarkar v. The State Of West Bengal & Ors., 2011). The author considers in detail the reasons for a series of rulings by the European Court of human rights, preceding the decision against the Russian Federation (the case of "Hirst v. United Kingdom", 2005; "Frodl' Prouty Austria", 2010; "Skoppola v. Italy", 2011). The author supports the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the non-applicability of the judgement of the European Court of human rights in the Russian Federation due to contradictions presented by interpreting the provisions of the European Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

the electoral law, the constitutional prohibition, the convict, serving imprisonment, the sentence of the Court, disenfranchisement, European experience, the Constitutional Court of Russia, the European Court of human rights, the applicability of the regulations

1. Гомьен Д., Харрис Д., Зваак Л. Европейская конвенция о правах человека и Европейская социальная хартия: право и практика. - М., 1998.

2. Де Сальвиа М. Прецеденты Европейского Суда по правам человека. Руководящие принципы судебной практики, относящейся к Европейской конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод. Судебная практика с 1960 по 2002 г. - СПб., 2004.

3. Зорькин В. Д. Диалог Конституционного Суда Российской Федерации и Европейского Суда по правам человека в контексте конституционного правопорядка: Доклад на XIII Международном Форуме по конституционному правосудию. СПб. 18 - 20 ноября 2010 г. // URL: http://www.ksrf.ru/News/Speech/Pages/ViewItem.aspx?ParamId=39.

4. Комментарий к Уголовному кодексу Российской Федерации (постатейный) / Ю. В. Грачева, Л. Д. Ермакова, Г. А. Есаков и др.; отв. ред. А. И. Рарог. - М., 2011.

5. Лапаева В. В. Возможные способы выполнения решения ЕСПЧ по делу «Анчугов и Гладков против России» путем толкования ч. 3 ст. 32 Конституции РФ // URL: http://www.igpran.ru/public/publiconsite/LapaevaVV_igpran2015.pdf.

6. Общество Джона Говарда // URL: http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/pub/A4.htm.

7. Эндикотт Т. Перспективы развития права в сфере прав человека // Право. Журнал Высшей школы экономики. - 2012. - № 2.

8. Guttman D. Before the High Court. Roach v Commonwealth: Is the Blanket Disenfranchisement of Convicted Prisoners Unconstitutional? // URL: http://sydney.edu.au/law/slr/slr29_2/Guttman.pdf.

9. Srivastava M. The Voting Rights of Prisoners: Examining the Indian stand in light of the recent ECHR Decision in Scoppola v. Italy // URL: http://humanrightsoncampus.wordpress.com/tag/scoppola/.

10. Right To Vote. Key Decisions in Felony Disenfranchisement Litigation // URL: http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/8735.pdf.

11. Sauve v. Canada (1993) - Voting Rights for Prisoners // URL: http://www.law.ualberta.ca/centres/ccs/rulings/Sauv%C3%A9_v_Canada1993.php.

12. Дуксин П. А. Конституционные ограничения избирательных прав граждан Российской Федерации, находящихся в местах лишения свободы по приговору суда: автореф. дис.. канд. юрид. наук. Саратов, 2010. С. 9.

13. Вестник Центризбиркома РФ. 2009. № 9.

14. СЗ РФ. 2002. № 24. Ст. 2253.

15. ВСНД и ВС РФ. 1993. № 32. Ст. 1227.

16. Бюллетень Европейского Суда по правам человека. 2010. № 11.

17. Бюллетень Европейского Суда по правам человека. 2011. № 7.

18. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-111044.

19. URL: http://www.law.uwa.edu.au/_data/assets/rtf_file/0005/1838147/Case-Study-Roach-Student.rtf

20. South Africa: Constitutional Court // URL: http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/1999/3.html.

21. Medha Srivastava. The Voting Rights of Prisoners: Examining the Indian stand in light of the recent ECHR Decision in Scoppola v. Italy // URL: http://humanrightsoncampus.wordpress.com/tag/scoppola/.

22. Sauve v. Canada (1993) - Voting Rights for Prisoners // URL: http://www.law.ualberta. ca/centres/ ccs/ rulings/Sauv%C3%A9_v_Canada1993.php.

23. Общество Джона Говарда // URL: http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/pub/A4.htm.

24. URL: http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-5826.html.

25. Европейский Суд по правам человека: Избранные решения: в 2 т. М., 2000. Т. 1. С. 532-537.

26. URL: http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2002/CDL-AD(2002)023rev-e.pdf.

27. URL: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/418/24/.

28. URL: http://fsin.su/structure/inspector/iao/statistika/Xar-ka%20lic%20sodergahixsya %20v%20IK