Key Russian Constitutional Court Decisions: The Chechen Case, Communist Party Case, and Others

The Russian Constitutional Court has decided a series of landmark cases that defined the contours of Russian constitutionalism. Beyond the foundational cases of the early 1990s, the Court addressed questions of federalism, treaty supremacy, fundamental rights, and the death penalty. This article examines the Tatarstan sovereignty case (2000), the death penalty moratorium rulings (1999, 2009), and related constitutional adjudications that shaped the Russian legal order.

The Tatarstan Sovereignty Case (2000)

The Tatarstan sovereignty case arose from the Republic of Tatarstan’s assertion of sovereignty within the Russian Federation. Following the 1994 Treaty on the Delimitation of Powers between Tatarstan and the federal government, Tatarstan’s Constitution declared the republic a sovereign state associated with the Russian Federation. The federal government challenged these provisions, arguing that they violated the constitutional prohibition on republican sovereignty. The Constitutional Court, in its judgment of 7 June 2000, unanimously declared that the Constitution of the Russian Federation does not permit the sovereignty of republics within the Federation. The Court held that the Constitution recognises sovereignty only of the Russian Federation as a whole; republics are not sovereign and cannot claim the attributes of sovereign states. The judgment established that the declaration of state sovereignty in republican constitutions was unconstitutional and required amendment. This decision marked a decisive shift from the asymmetrical federalism of the 1990s toward the centralising vertikal vlasti (power vertical) that characterised the Putin era.

The Death Penalty Moratorium (1999, 2009)

The death penalty in Russia has been subject to a complex legal moratorium. In Ruling No. 3-P of 2 February 1999, the Constitutional Court declared that the death penalty could not be imposed until jury trials were available in all regions of the Russian Federation. The Court reasoned that Article 20 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and that the constitutional requirement of judicial determination of guilt by jury for capital offences made the death penalty impermissible where jury trials were absent. After the extension of jury trials to the Chechen Republic in 2010 — the last region without them — the question arose whether the moratorium remained in force. In Resolution No. 1344-O-O of 19 November 2009, the Constitutional Court confirmed that the moratorium had become permanent. The Court held that a legal regime had developed in which the death penalty could not be reinstated by simple legislative amendment. The Court cited Russia’s treaty obligations under Protocol No. 6 to the ECHR and the legal practice established during the moratorium period. The practical effect was that life imprisonment (pozhiznennoye lisheniye svobody) became the de facto maximum punishment in Russia, though the death penalty remains in the Criminal Code.

The Treaty of Union Case (1993)

In the Treaty of Union case, the Constitutional Court reviewed the constitutionality of the Treaty on the Union of Sovereign States proposed by President Gorbachev in 1991. The Court’s involvement in this case, alongside the Communist Party case and the 1993 crisis, demonstrated its engagement with the most fundamental questions of statehood and constitutional continuity. The Court addressed whether the treaty could coexist with the existing constitutional framework of the Russian Federation.

International Treaty Interaction Cases

The Constitutional Court also adjudicated the relationship between Russian constitutional law and international treaties. In a series of judgments culminating in the 2015 amendments to the Law on the Constitutional Court, the Court asserted its authority to determine whether international court decisions — including those of the ECHR — could be implemented in Russia if they conflicted with the Constitution. The Markin v Russia implementation ruling (2015) established that the Constitutional Court could review ECHR judgments for compatibility with the Constitution. This interpretive approach effectively subordinated international human rights obligations to the Russian constitutional order.

The Communist Party Case (1992)

The Communist Party (KPSS) case, decided on 30 November 1992, was the Court’s first major constitutional challenge. The Court upheld the dissolution of the Communist Party’s central structures and the confiscation of its property while ruling that local primary party organisations could not be banned, as they had not been shown to have participated in unconstitutional activities. This nuanced judgment, presided over by Chairman Valery Zorkin, demonstrated the Court’s ability to balance constitutional rights with the demands of political transition. The KPSS case established the Court’s authority to adjudicate politically sensitive questions and remains foundational to Russian constitutional jurisprudence.

The Chechen Case (1995)

In the Chechen case of 31 July 1995, the Constitutional Court reviewed President Yeltsin’s decrees authorising military force in Chechnya. The Court found that the President had acted within his constitutional authority to defend territorial integrity but held that certain provisions authorising the use of regular armed forces for internal policing without a legislative framework violated the Constitution. The case established that even national security decisions are subject to constitutional review, though the Court’s limited remedial powers meant its ruling did not alter the course of the First Chechen War.

Significance

These cases collectively demonstrate the evolution of Russian constitutional adjudication from the politically engaged Court of the early 1990s to the more restrained body of the 2000s. The Tatarstan case ended republican sovereignty claims; the death penalty rulings entrenched a human rights protection beyond what the constitutional text required; the international treaty cases asserted constitutional supremacy over international law. Together with the foundational KPSS and Chechen cases, these decisions illustrate the Constitutional Court’s central role in defining Russian constitutional identity, even as political constraints shaped the limits of judicial power.