Russia and the European Human Rights System: ECHR Accession, Strasbourg Judgments, and 2022 Withdrawal
Russia’s relationship with the European human rights system has been one of the most complex and contested dimensions of its post-Soviet legal development. Russia acceded to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in 1996, became a full member of the Council of Europe in 1998, and was subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) until its expulsion from the Council of Europe in 2022. During this period, the ECtHR issued thousands of judgments against Russia, addressing violations of almost every article of the Convention. The interaction between the Russian legal system and the European human rights framework has been marked by periods of cooperation and conflict, culminating in Russia’s withdrawal from the Council of Europe and the denunciation of the ECHR in 2022.
ECHR Accession and Ratification
Russia signed the European Convention on Human Rights on 28 February 1996 and ratified it on 5 May 1998. The ratification law (Federal Law No. 54-FZ of 30 March 1998) provided that the Convention and the protocols thereto ratified by Russia are part of the Russian legal system. Article 15(4) of the 1993 Constitution already provided that generally recognised principles and norms of international law and international treaties of the Russian Federation are part of the Russian legal system and prevail over domestic law in case of conflict. The ratification of the ECHR thus incorporated the Convention into the Russian legal order as a source of law directly applicable by Russian courts. The Federal Law on the Ratification of the Convention expressly recognised the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights as binding on Russia and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court for the consideration of individual complaints. The ratification was a landmark in Russia’s post-Soviet legal development, subjecting the Russian legal system to international human rights oversight and providing Russian citizens with access to an international judicial remedy for human rights violations.
Strasbourg Judgments Against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights issued over 3,000 judgments against Russia between 1998 and 2022, making Russia the respondent state with the highest number of judgments in the ECtHR system. The judgments addressed systemic human rights violations across multiple areas. The most significant cases included: Markin v Russia (2012), which found that Russia’s restriction of parental leave for military servicemen violated Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 8 (right to respect for family life); Anchugov and Gladkov v Russia (2013), which found that the blanket denial of voting rights to prisoners violated Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections); Khashiyev and Akayeva v Russia (2005), concerning violations arising from the Chechen conflict; and OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v Russia (2011), which found violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 (right to a fair trial) in the tax enforcement proceedings against Yukos.
The ECtHR also found systemic violations in cases concerning access to courts, the length of proceedings, the enforcement of domestic judgments, conditions of detention, the use of force by law enforcement, and the conduct of criminal investigations. The Court’s pilot judgment procedure was used for Russia in several contexts, including the non-enforcement of domestic judgments (Burdov v Russia, 2009) and the conditions of pre-trial detention (Ananyev v Russia, 2012). The execution of ECtHR judgments — including the payment of just satisfaction, the adoption of individual measures, and the implementation of general measures — was the responsibility of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. The Russian government implemented many ECtHR judgments through legislative amendments, policy changes, and individual compensation, but compliance was uneven, and certain judgments — particularly those involving politically sensitive issues — were not implemented.
The Markin Case
Markin v Russia (Application No. 30078/06) was a landmark judgment concerning discrimination in parental leave rights. Konstantin Markin, a Russian military serviceman, applied to his military unit for three years of parental leave to care for his child. The application was refused on the ground that Russian law granted parental leave only to female military servicemen. The Russian courts rejected Markin’s challenge, holding that the restriction was justified by the special requirements of military service. The ECtHR found that the difference in treatment between male and female military servicemen amounted to discrimination under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8. The Court held that the Russian government had not provided sufficient justification for the gender-based distinction, and that the reference to the special requirements of military service did not justify the blanket exclusion of men from parental leave. The Markin judgment was one of the most significant ECtHR judgments against Russia on gender equality, and it required amendments to Russian legislation on parental leave for military personnel. The judgment was implemented through amendments to the Federal Law on the Status of Military Servicemen, which extended parental leave rights to male military servicemen.
The Anchugov and Gladkov Case
Anchugov and Gladkov v Russia (Applications No. 11157/04 and 15162/05) addressed the compatibility of the Russian constitutional prohibition on voting rights for convicted prisoners with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR. The Russian Constitution, in Article 32(3), expressly deprives convicted persons serving sentences of imprisonment of the right to vote. The ECtHR found that this blanket and automatic restriction violated the right to free elections under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, which requires that restrictions on voting rights pursue a legitimate aim and be proportionate. The Russian government argued that the constitutional provision could not be overridden by an international treaty. The Anchugov and Gladkov judgment created a direct conflict between the Russian Constitution and the ECHR, setting the stage for the constitutional confrontation that followed. The Russian Constitutional Court, in its subsequent review of the implementation of the judgment, held that the Russian Constitution’s prohibition on prisoner voting could not be overridden by an ECtHR judgment and that the implementation of the judgment was constitutionally impossible without a constitutional amendment. The case became a symbol of the limits of international human rights law in the Russian legal order.
Constitutional Court Review Law (2015)
Federal Law No. 7-FKZ of 14 December 2015 amended the Federal Law on the Constitutional Court to grant the Constitutional Court the power to review the constitutionality of the implementation of decisions of international courts (including the ECtHR). Under the amended law, if a state body or official concludes that the implementation of an international court decision in Russia would violate the Constitution, the matter may be referred to the Constitutional Court for review. The Constitutional Court determines whether the international court decision can be implemented in Russia consistently with the Constitution. If the Court finds that implementation would violate the Constitution, the decision may not be implemented in Russia. The Constitutional Court applied this power in its 2016 ruling on the Anchugov and Gladkov judgment, finding that the implementation of the ECtHR’s judgment requiring amendments to the constitutional provision on prisoner voting was constitutionally impossible. The Constitutional Court also reviewed the implementation of the ECtHR’s judgment in OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v Russia (2016), finding that the implementation of the compensation award would violate the constitutional principles of equality and proportionality. The 2015 law established a mechanism for the constitutional review of international court decisions that effectively subordinated international human rights obligations to the Russian constitutional order.
The 2022 Withdrawal from the Council of Europe
Russia’s membership in the Council of Europe was suspended on 25 February 2022, following the commencement of the special military operation in Ukraine. On 15 March 2022, the Russian Federation notified the Secretary General of the Council of Europe of its withdrawal from the organisation. On 16 March 2022, the Council of Europe excluded Russia from membership with immediate effect. Russia’s withdrawal from the Council of Europe entailed the denunciation of the European Convention on Human Rights and the termination of the ECtHR’s jurisdiction over Russia effective from 16 September 2022 (six months after the withdrawal notification). The ECtHR has continued to process applications against Russia concerning facts that occurred before 16 September 2022, and the execution of judgments rendered before that date remains the responsibility of the Committee of Ministers. The Russian authorities have indicated that they will not implement ECtHR judgments rendered after the withdrawal. The 2022 withdrawal marked the end of Russia’s 26-year engagement with the European human rights system and raised fundamental questions about the protection of human rights in Russia without the oversight of the ECtHR.
Significance
Russia’s interaction with the European human rights system was a defining feature of its post-Soviet legal development. The ECtHR provided a remedy for thousands of Russian citizens whose rights were violated by state action, and its judgments led to significant legislative and policy reforms. The relationship was marked by increasing tension as Russia asserted constitutional supremacy over international human rights obligations, culminating in the 2015 Constitutional Court review law and the 2022 withdrawal from the Council of Europe. The legacy of the ECtHR’s engagement with Russia includes a significant body of human rights jurisprudence, the development of domestic human rights remedies, and the continuing influence of ECHR standards in Russian legal practice. The post-withdrawal period presents challenges for human rights protection in Russia, including the absence of an effective international judicial remedy and the need to develop domestic mechanisms for the implementation of international human rights standards.