Magellan is burning. Magellan and the first circumnavigation of the world. Discovery of the Mariana Islands

Democracy in Russian style continues to improve. On June 18, 2017, a law came into force that equated meetings of deputies with voters to rallies. How can you now not meet with the population? To answer this question, we carefully studied the four laws that were amended, and now we are telling you in our traditional Question and Answer column.

What's new in the law?

To be precise, in the laws. Changes have been made to the laws on rallies, on the status of State Duma deputies, on regional deputies and to the law on local government bodies.

According to the new amendments, in some cases a deputy of any level will have to notify the executive branch of his intention to hold a meeting with voters. Even at the discussion stage, the law raised many questions. What is considered a public event for the purpose of informing voters about your activities? On what terms will the premises be provided? Only law enforcement practice will provide answers to many questions.

Where can a deputy meet with the population?

There are two options for meetings for State Duma deputies, regional and municipal levels with voters:

  • In specially designated areas and in courtyards. Officially, it sounds like this: “premises, specially designated places, as well as in courtyard areas, provided that their implementation does not entail disruption of the functioning of life support facilities, transport or social infrastructure, and communications.”

The law on regional and municipal deputies adds to this wording the words that a meeting with voters should not create “interference with the movement of pedestrians and (or) Vehicle or citizens’ access to residential premises or transport or social infrastructure.”

  • In the form of a rally, procession, demonstration or meeting according to the rules for conducting these events.

By the way, wording was added to the law on rallies about the purposes of a public event: informing voters about their activities when a deputy (regional and local level) meets with voters. In other words, the meeting of the deputy with voters has now become a public event.

Does such a meeting need to be coordinated?

If a deputy holds a meeting with voters in the form of a meeting or single picket(carried out by one participant without the use of a prefabricated prefabricated structure), then there is no need to agree.

There is no need to coordinate a meeting at " premises, specially designated areas, as well as in courtyard areas provided... (hereinafter referred to in the previous paragraph)."

But if it's public event in order to inform voters about their activities", then regional and local deputies must notify the authorities about its conduct in advance 5-10 days.

For State Duma deputies, holding a public event is equivalent to holding a rally, demonstration, or procession. Special conditions the law on the status of a deputy of the State Duma does not stipulate time limits, which means that the notification rules under the law on rallies apply. You must notify in advance 10–15 days. This is an important point, and some media portray it inaccurately.

Here’s another interesting point: State Duma deputies elected in a single-mandate constituency can meet with voters only in their constituency without notifying the authorities.

What are these specially designated places where meetings can be held without approval?

Designated areas are meeting places designated by authorities.

For the law to work according to all the rules, changes to the federal law must first be spelled out in the regional law. In the Altai Territory, according to a correspondent, this issue will be discussed no earlier than at the August session of the ACLC.

However, the adoption of the procedure for determining locations and conditions (the option of determining fees for the use of premises is not excluded) is possible even before the regional law is updated. It is not yet clear which path they will take in the Altai Territory.

Why did they do all this?

Managed democracy requires strict rules of the game. Especially in relation to the opposition. It is unlikely that deputies from the party in power will suffer particularly from these innovations, but it will be more difficult for the opposition.

The official version is as follows: “To maintain public order, ensure the safety of participants in public events and other citizens, the uninterrupted functioning of public transport, other organizations that ensure the normal life of any settlement in the Russian Federation."

On the one hand, previously deputies could use their right to hold events without approval and hold unauthorized rallies. But, on the other hand, there were situations when local authorities prevented undesirable deputies from holding meetings with the population, even if they complied with all formalities.

Can a deputy be refused a meeting?

They can, as they can do in relation to rallies and pickets.

Administrative liability will be introduced for obstructing a meeting of deputies with citizens. But there are many pitfalls here, and the fact of obstruction still needs to be proven.

In February of this year, United Russia deputies representing Moscow voters introduced a bill to the State Duma on the issue of deputies of all levels of government holding meetings with their voters in the form of public events (No. 92912–7). Of the seven deputies who joined the legislative initiative, five soon withdrew their signatures. This could be due to the negative publicity that the bill generated. However, on April 5, the draft was adopted by the State Duma in the first reading.

WHAT WILL CHANGE?

The bill involves introducing amendments to four federal laws: “On the status of a member of the Federation Council and the status of a deputy of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation”, “On general principles organizations of legislative (representative) and executive bodies of state power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation”, “On the general principles of organizing local self-government in Russian Federation", "About meetings, rallies, demonstrations, processions and pickets." The first three laws are amended to require deputies to comply with the procedure for holding public events when organizing meetings with voters. The law on rallies introduces special rules for holding public events in relation to deputies. Accordingly, the concept of a public event is changing: now the concept of a public event will include informing voters about their activities during a meeting of a deputy of a legislative (representative) body of state power, a deputy of a representative body of a municipality with voters.

Article 5 of the law on rallies, which contains the responsibilities of the organizer of a public event, is amended according to which deputies who organize a meeting are allowed not to have a special organizer badge if they have a deputy badge. This is also a very serious “simplification” of the order. Another change to the law on rallies concerns the procedure for notification of a public event - a meeting of a deputy with voters. The current general procedure requires the submission of written notification no earlier than 15 and no later than 10 days before the day of the public event. It is proposed to reduce the deadlines for deputies: notification must be submitted no earlier than 10 and no later than 7 days before the day of the public event. The clause “with the exception of meetings and picketing conducted by one participant without the use of a prefabricated prefabricated structure” looks somewhat strange when we are talking about an event held by a deputy “in order to inform voters about his activities when meeting with voters.”

From this formulation it follows that a meeting of a deputy with voters can be held in the form of a picketing carried out by one participant (it looks like this: one deputy stands at the “picketed object” with a poster, and the poster, apparently, should contain information about his activities) .

The authors of the bill propose a reduction in terms for simplifying the procedure for notifying a public event. But can this be considered a simplification? As a rule, deputies have a schedule of work and meetings with voters. That is, such meetings are usually pre-planned events. This means that it would not be difficult to agree on them in two weeks. The bill also does not provide deputies with opportunities for operational maneuver: the deadline for submitting a notification is only 3 days less than in the general procedure. Of course, this is very cunning: make it difficult for deputies to organize meetings with voters by establishing a special procedure, and then immediately “simplify” this procedure compared to the general one, reducing the time frame.

There are no other concessions for deputies. Amendments to the bill are already being prepared. In particular, it is proposed to make an exception to the rule of mandatory approval of a public event if the deputy does not intend to use sound-amplifying equipment - in this case, there will be no need to coordinate the meeting with voters.

The rules on mandatory coordination of meetings between deputies and voters are already in effect in Moscow. Moscow deputies tried to appeal the law in court, but were rejected by the Moscow City Court and filed an appeal. Most likely, the appeal will also remain unsuccessful. Approximately the same prospects await the case in the Constitutional Court, which the communists want to organize after the adoption of Irina Belykh’s bill. Considering that the initiative to equate meetings of deputies with voters with rallies has reached the federal level, the courts will side with those who stand behind this initiative. It is obvious that it is not the deputies who are behind it, because in fact the law is not adopted in the interests of the deputies (a rare case when deputies pass a law against themselves). Such a law is also not adopted “at the request of the workers” - the workers hardly care about the procedure for organizing meetings of deputies with voters. That is, there is no need to talk about protecting the interests of the people when adopting this law. Then whose interests does this law protect?

QUI PRODEST?

It would seem that the answer to this question could be found in the explanatory note, which should contain a justification: why the new law is needed. The explanatory note says the following. The most common form of meetings between deputies and voters is a meeting, that is, a meeting with the people in a specially designated or adapted place. But deputies may wish to hold the meeting in a different form, so the legislator considers it his duty to introduce “additional legal regulation, including for the purpose of maintaining public order, ensuring the safety of participants in public events and other citizens, the uninterrupted functioning of public transport, and other organizations that ensure the normal life of any settlement in the Russian Federation.” That is, deputies want to protect themselves from violating public order when holding meetings with voters.

To answer the question posed above, we must remember that the bill appeared in February of this year against the backdrop of protests in St. Petersburg regarding the transfer of St. Isaac's Cathedral to the Russian Orthodox Church for free use. The deputies were accused of holding unauthorized rallies under the guise of meetings with voters. But it is not yet possible to hold deputies accountable for this: deputies are protected by their integrity. And if Irina Belykh’s bill is adopted, then it will be possible to hold people accountable (this will still require depriving deputies of immunity). It is interesting that in St. Petersburg, after the protests, a law similar to Moscow was also adopted. This is such a strange parliamentary solidarity in the context of the fact that this law seemed to condemn the actions of its St. Petersburg colleagues. The law was blocked by the Governor, which is also unusual. One way or another, it is clear that lobbying for the bill began in the capitals. It is possible that in other regions with major cities similar laws are being adopted.

The current law on rallies appeared in 2004, in Soviet time There was also some regulation of issues related to holding public events. It is logical to assume that deputies meet with voters throughout their existence - this is the meaning of their representative function. And for some reason, the question of the need for a special procedure for holding meetings with voters is only now arising. There is a suspicion that with this law they want to limit the ability of deputies, primarily opposition ones, to be active on the eve of elections (municipal or regional, as well as elections of the President of the Russian Federation), or on some topical issues. There are more and more reasons for this, for example, for Moscow the loudest reason can be considered.

IS IT LEGAL?

Deputies of the Moscow City Duma unsuccessfully challenged the legality of the Moscow law, which equated meetings of deputies with voters to public events: the court recognized these changes as legal. It is known from the media that deputies referred to the contradiction of the new rules to the principle of separation of powers: executive branch officials now have the opportunity to interfere in the work of deputies. It is no secret that the legal notification procedure for holding public events is in practice a permitting procedure. Public events are often denied for any reason, even far-fetched.

We see the following circumstance as the main contradiction of the new rules. According to Part 2 of Article 8 of the Federal Law “On the status of a member of the Federation Council and the status of a deputy of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation,” a State Duma deputy is obliged to hold meetings with voters at least once every six months. For deputies of legislative bodies of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, federal legislation does not establish a similar obligation. In regional legislation, this type of activity of deputies appears in the form of different structures. For example, in the law of the Moscow region on the status of a deputy, the construction of a statement of fact is used: “a Duma deputy informs voters about his deputy activities during meetings with them, as well as through means mass media" However, it would be logical to consider meetings with voters the responsibility of deputies at all levels.

In general terms, establishing a procedure for carrying out a duty is normal. For example, the federal law states that a deputy is required to meet with voters once every six months at least; in the bill under consideration, this duty would be supplemented by the duty to give notice of a meeting. But then the following situation may arise: a deputy submits a notification and receives a refusal. And this situation can arise repeatedly. The reason for the refusal, by the way, could also be the fact that another deputy decided on the same day to meet in the same square with his voters, even if there were only 10 people.

As a result, it turns out that obstacles are created for the deputy to perform his deputy duties. The federal law on the status of a deputy contains Article 41, which talks about liability for creating obstacles in the activities of a member of the Federation Council or a deputy of the State Duma. However, in fact, the Code of Administrative Offenses includes liability for failure to comply with the legal demands of a member of the Federation Council or a deputy of the State Duma, and the Criminal Code includes liability for the use of violence against a representative of the government and insulting a representative of the government. For example, in relation to various commissioners for rights in the Code of Administrative Offenses, the composition is formulated more broadly; there is responsibility for “obstructing the activities of the Commissioner for Rights... in another form.” This means that creating obstacles in the implementation of deputy activities in the form of refusal to approve a public event will not constitute an offense, although in fact this is a very effective means of obstructing the activities of a deputy.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no doubt that the United Russia bill will be adopted with certain amendments that, nevertheless, preserve the original meaning and goals of the bill.

Irina Belykh’s bill can be seen as another “tightening of the screws” regarding the holding of public events, mainly by opposition-minded deputies.

MORE ON THE TOPIC

A group of deputies of the State Duma asked judges to study the amendments to the Federal Law “On Meetings, Rallies, Demonstrations, Processions and Picketing,” which came into force this summer. They considered that the requirement to hold meetings with voters in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation on meetings, rallies, demonstrations, processions and pickets creates restrictions “for deputies of all levels of their responsibilities for holding meetings with voters.” In addition, the need to inform the executive authorities about future meetings violates the constitutional principle of independence of power - the legislative branch must obey the decision, that is, the permission of the executive. Thus, more than a dozen provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation are violated, including Article 31 on guarantees of the right of citizens to assemble peacefully and without weapons.

However, according to representatives of the authorities that adopted and signed the contested normative act, the contested requirements do not violate the Basic Law of the country. The notification procedure for holding a meeting of deputies with voters only allows for ensuring the safety of both the event participants and uninvolved citizens, because officials cannot refuse to hold a meeting. And deputies cannot neglect the requirements established for the harmonization of public and private interests. As for spontaneous meetings of deputies with voters, they are not subject to this law at all, stated Mikhail Barshchevsky, a representative of the Russian government, during public hearings.

The Constitutional Court actually agreed with these arguments. The provisions of 107-FZ of June 7, 2017 were recognized as not contradicting the Constitution of the Russian Federation, but they needed clarification, the judges considered. At the same time, as Judge Nikolai Bondar explained, the interpretations are given in the order of abstract normative control, since a comprehensive interpretation is still hampered by the lack of law enforcement practice.

The simplest question is about the division of power. The Constitutional Court indicated that meetings of deputies with voters are held on a notification basis. You can only regulate the time and place of such a meeting, and then only if there are serious arguments. “Only alternative options, but no prohibitions,” Bondar explained. At the same time, a place for holding meetings is provided to deputies of all levels without paying a fee on a first-come, first-served basis, that is, without taking into account the level of the deputy and his affiliation with a particular party. This directive must ensure “respect for the constitutionally justified rights of the opposition.”

The Constitutional Court also indicated that the Constitution of the Russian Federation does not directly regulate the procedure for holding meetings of deputies with voters, which gives the federal legislator broad powers to establish such a procedure. Within the framework of these powers, several types of public events are defined, which differ in terms of holding. For example, a meeting, which is “the presence of citizens in a specially designated or adapted place for collective discussion of any socially significant issues,” does not require prior notification.

The legislation on public events does not apply to all meetings of deputies with voters, but only to those that are held in the form of rallies, explained Nikolai Bondar. - If a deputy considers it appropriate to hold a meeting in this form, then the general requirements apply to him as the organizer of the meeting.

The most difficult point in such cases is to distinguish between forms. The law defines a rally as “a mass presence of citizens in a certain place for the public expression of public opinion on current issues of a predominantly socio-political nature.” And if the meeting develops into a rally, then theoretically the deputy is obliged to suspend it, give a notice and resume it after fulfilling all the requirements of the law. How this will actually happen, the future will show. According to Nikolai Bondar, reclassification of parliamentary meetings is possible even in court.

Based on this practice, the legislation on holding meetings of deputies with voters may continue to change in the future. The decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation directly states that “the legislator has the right to further improve the procedure for holding meetings of deputies with voters, including from the point of view of the extent to which the legislation on public events applies to such meetings.”

 

It might be useful to read: