Amendments to the Constitution: Will Russia Continue Paying the "Western Bills"?


One of the fundamental changes to the basic law of the country, adopted as a result of the nationwide referendum held in Russia, is the amendment to the 79th article of the Constitution, establishing the full and unconditional primacy of our own legislation over any interstate agreements, as well as decisions adopted by international structures and bodies, if they come into conflict with Russia's interests, they are, in essence, interference in its purely internal affairs.


Some people doubted the need for such an amendment. Well, just a few days ago, thanks to the publication of the data of the domestic Accounts Chamber, it became known for certain what the country had to do with the earlier “priority of international law over Russian laws” - with specific amounts spent from the treasury to fulfill the whims of those who believe that Russia should live according to the rules dictated by them. Now the main question is whether this practice will stop, or will this amendment to the Constitution turn out to be just an empty declaration, which will have to be sacrificed for further attempts to "flirt" with the West?

Or God in the Constitution, or punks in the temple


I must say that the legislative change we are talking about initially did not like our Western "teachers" who are trying to "set the right path," by which they mean only their own path, "lost" Russia. In particular, among the members of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, who are considered great specialists in the field of constitutional law, it caused downright indignation. Local lawyers directly demanded the new version of Article 79 not to include in the updated basic law, or at least “reformulate”. Obviously - until its true meaning is completely changed. What has so excited and angered EU lawyers? In this constitutional amendment, they saw, first of all, the possibility of Russia not to comply with the decisions of the Strasbourg European Court of Human Rights, immediately taking it as "Russia's refusal to fulfill its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights." Well, well - that's just about the "wise" decisions of the ECHR and their real cost for our state, and we'll talk.

The report on the results of the audit carried out on the budget execution by the domestic Ministry of Justice, published by the Accounts Chamber of Russia, clearly states that in 2019, this department paid 1.1 billion rubles in accordance with more than 1.2 thousand decisions taken in Strasbourg. Moreover, more than 850 million rubles in execution of the ECHR verdicts were not paid as of the beginning of this year due to “too late receipt of documents”. Presumably, they will pay off. Let's not even try to discuss the issue of what the state could usefully spend such huge sums on - I am sure that each of you will have a lot of options. Let's talk better about who and for what exactly received them in reality.

We will not dwell in detail on payments made last year, compensation by Strasbourg to relatives of the victims of the terrorist attack in Beslan, and even more than 30 thousand euros received by the wife and mother of Sergei Magnitsky, who died in jail. Let us dwell on the most, perhaps, illustrative example - our country's diligent implementation of the ECtHR decision on the payment of 37 thousand euros to the members of the scandalous "group" Pussy Riot, who in 2012 staged a blasphemous and sacrilegious "punk prayer" in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. European judges recognized the poor people as having endured horrific torment and hardship, and, most importantly, completely unjustly condemned for their vile, offending feelings of not only Orthodox believers, but also every normal person, trick. And their paddy wagons were cramped, and the dog was too scary during the trial, and the videos cannot be considered extremist in any way, and in general, for an “attempt at self-expression” they had to be praised, stroked on balaclavas, and it is desirable to also reward in some way ...

All this, excuse me, nonsense, unconditionally supported by six out of seven members of the court (only the representative of Spain, Maria Elosegi, was opposed, apparently, Catholic education), formed the basis not only for the moral justification of presumptuous girls, whose "creative path" is a continuous series organizing in public vile obscenities with political overtones, but also demanding a very solid material compensation for them! For the received, you see, "moral and psychological damage" ... And they paid, how cute! In the interviews handed out later, the self-satisfied “prisoners of conscience” openly admitted that at least part of the funds received were used to continue and expand their own activities, including in the media space. To finance, in fact, anti-state activities from state funds? This, sorry, already smacks of masochism. At this point, either the mention of God, also included in the Russian Constitution, must be removed, or it must be done so that no "punks" and other evil spirits even have a thought about the desecration of the saint.

ECHR as a weapon of destruction of Russia


As you know, every illegal act that is not followed by real punishment generates a sense of impunity. And not only among those who committed it - in our age of total awareness of everyone about everything, thus a general illusion of permissiveness is generated, pushing to active actions those who do not care about the Law, conscience, and even more so, someone's beliefs and traditions ... Best of all, he said about this, referring to all the same "creative" punks, the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill, who emphasized the inadmissibility of the mockery of shrines to be perceived by society, "as a kind of valor, as a kind of correct expression of political protest, as a kind of appropriate action or as a harmless joke. " In Ukraine, too, everything started with cooking eggs on the Eternal Flame - exclusively "as a sign of political protest" and for self-expression. Everyone knows how it ended. But it is precisely on the guard of such things (as well as "rights", and, for the most part, not ordinary Russians who have really suffered from the representatives of the authorities, but all sorts of sectarians, perverts and similar subjects, who are declared "prisoners of conscience"), is the ECHR, and in fact, the entire "collective West". However, not only - after all, the matter here, apparently, is much more serious.

For example, a gang of thieves from the ever-memorable YUKOS from the ever-memorable YUKOS found a lively participation and support from his judges, the retrospective collection of taxes hidden by them from the state and the imposition of fines for such frauds was declared "illegal" in Strasbourg. According to this verdict, Russia was supposed to give Mr. Khodorkovsky and the company almost two billion euros! This, by the way, is more than 95% of all the sums that harsh European judges have managed to "hang" on our country for as long as 20 years - from 1998 to 2018.

Cheered up, the businessmen from YUKOS rushed to storm the same court with a new lawsuit, in which they demanded that all the charges against them be declared indiscriminate, explaining their persecution for very specific economic crimes "political repressions ”, and again proclaiming themselves“ prisoners of conscience ”. This is despite the fact that all the main persons involved have long been pardoned and are at large. This escapade, however, suffered a fiasco, but there is no guarantee that the "second YUKOS case against Russia" will not emerge on a new one "at the right time." Moreover, no one is going to pay a dime even on the first decision. However, precedents are being created, and the further, the more incomprehensible and more unpleasant they are. Consider, for example, the decision of the ECHR of 2018 in the case "Volokitin v. Russia".

According to him, the state was obliged to fork out for solid payments (calculated mainly in thousands of euros) to a considerable number of applicants who believe that our country, as the successor to the USSR, is obliged to pay off (and even taking into account all conceivable and inconceivable interest) issued in the Soviet Union in 1982 premium bonds of the government internal winning loan. The question, no doubt, is extremely painful - we all lost something in the crazy and boundless years of "perestroika" and the unimaginable mess that followed. Deposits in savings books that have been accumulating all our lives, other savings that have depreciated to zero, work, our own place in life ... But what can I say, if we all lost our homeland then ?! On the one hand, the desire of fellow citizens to return at least something seems natural and fair. But on the other hand ... Should payments on Soviet securities be made only to them? And why?! Now let's imagine for a second that our government will begin to compensate everything and everyone - as expected, with an inflation rate and so on. What will happen with the financial system of Russia, with its economy in this case?

Hyperinflation, the dollar is not 100 rubles, but 100 thousand, "bursting" banks, total collapse and chaos - all this is absolutely inevitable. In the illusory pursuit of "justice" and in an attempt to compensate the citizens for the "dashing 90s", the state will be thrown back almost instantly in these very 90s. Did they understand this in Strasbourg, or did they deliberately create yet another extremely dangerous precedent fraught with a new explosion of social discontent and destabilization in society? Something suggests that the gentlemen from the ECHR were aware and are still aware of the consequences of their actions in the most remarkable way. They simply act in relation to Russia according to the principle: "the worse, the better." In Strasbourg, over and over again, with great relish, they recall the "primacy" of Russia in the number of lawsuits filed in the local court against it (about a quarter of the total in the last couple of years), thereby trying to emphasize certain "problems with the observance of human rights and freedoms" in our country. Or maybe it's something completely different? For example, in attempts to use this European structure as an instrument of support for all destructive forces in Russia and, therefore, as an instrument of its weakening and destruction?

It is difficult to disagree with the proposal recently made by the speaker of the State Duma of Russia Vyacheslav Volodin regarding the urgent need that arose after the adoption of amendments to the basic law "to revise all international agreements concluded by our country for compliance with its Constitution." And also - official notification of all international organizations without exception about the domination of domestic legislation over their decisions. The head of the domestic parliament considers these actions "to protect the sovereignty of Russia and prevent external interference in its affairs." To this we can only add that such a policy is dictated simply by elementary logic - why, otherwise, would the Constitution be changed, if we are further ready to follow someone else's will?
24 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.
I have an account? Sign in
  1. yuratanja1950 Offline yuratanja1950
    yuratanja1950 (Yuri) 21 July 2020 10: 53
    +2
    ... the urgent need that arose after the adoption of amendments to the basic law "to revise all international agreements concluded by our country for compliance with its Constitution" ...

    It is high time... good
  2. Vladimir Tuzakov (Vladimir Tuzakov) 21 July 2020 10: 56
    +2
    Most importantly, the amendment became necessary due to the flagrant bias of European and other courts in relation to Russia. If the courts were fair and neutral, such an amendment was not needed ... A fierce war is waged by the NATO countries and their satellites, inspired by the US globalists, by all means to influence the Russian Federation, wanting to crush and bring to surrender ... In war, as in war, is waged economic and informational, the RF nuclear weapons do not allow starting a hot war ...
  3. steelmaker Offline steelmaker
    steelmaker 21 July 2020 10: 58
    +4
    To finance, in fact, anti-state activities from state funds?

    And when the films "Stalingrad, Rzhev, Viking" are financed from state funds. Or does someone think that our youth should be brought up on these films? Article 13, part 1-2 of the Constitution recognizes ideological diversity, and in essence, Russian ideology cannot be supported by the state. And then we wonder, where does "Koli s Urengoy", blasphemy of eternal fire come from? According to the author's logic, "Kolya s Urengoy" is allowed under our Constitution and is not subject to punishment, but should we not pay according to EU courts? Why does Russia itself climb into this "dovecote"? They kick us out, and we climb! Our Constitution allows you to educate all kinds of freaks who can mock teachers. And this is not subject to revision.

    Russia should have given Mr. Khodorkovsky and the company almost two billion euros!

    And how did Khodorkovsky become the owner of state property at all? People were not paid their salaries for 4-6 months, they bought shares for a penny, and this is not considered a crime? And pay your people? And all these changes were necessary so that Khodorkovsky and Pussy Riot would not pay! This has nothing to do with the people! As they scoffed, they will continue to scoff! As they violated the rights of people, they will continue to do so!
  4. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 21 July 2020 12: 09
    -2
    Some kind of nonsense. The Russian Federation voluntarily signed the convention on human rights, voluntarily entered the ECHR with the obligation to comply with court decisions. At any time, the Russian Federation could leave this council and not comply with the court's decisions under the old Constitution. The changes do not affect anything.
    1. Oyo Sarkazmi Offline Oyo Sarkazmi
      Oyo Sarkazmi (Oyo Sarkazmi) 21 July 2020 12: 31
      +2
      Quote: Oleg Rambover
      The Russian Federation voluntarily signed the convention on human rights, voluntarily entered the ECHR with the obligation to comply with court decisions.

      All Europeans have signed. That did not stop to set up torturers in Europe, and kill dozens of people with impunity. The ECHR is not at all worried about it - a US gentleman said they were terrorists. And the word of a gentleman is above all laws in the world.
      1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 21 July 2020 14: 59
        -1
        It is doubly unclear why then voluntarily be a member of this terrible torture organization, pay dues and execute decisions. Straight hedgehog and cactus turns out. And this amendment actually does not change anything (if only in the head of the respected Neukropny), most likely, it is intended to blur the main change in the terms of the current president.
        1. Dear sofa expert. 21 July 2020 20: 44
          +2
          It is doubly unclear why then voluntarily be a member of this terrible torture organization, pay dues and execute decisions.

          And what is there that is incomprehensible?
          To follow the signed conventions and, most importantly, to comply with the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights - this was nothing more than a payment for Participation in the Council of Europe. And this, in turn, gave Russia the right to officially maintain an additional staff literally in the heart of Europe, the opportunity to participate in prestigious international projects. Membership in the Council of Europe allows the Russian Federation to influence it in one way or another and use it as a tribune. And that's all.
          But after Vladimir Putin's "Munich speech", the war with Georgia and the events of 2014 in Ukraine, relations between the Council of Europe and official Russia soured.
          Therefore, Russia's membership in the Council of Europe is becoming less and less demanded. Accordingly, there is no longer the need to stay further under foreign jurisdictions and to comply with biased decisions of European courts. Nothing personal - just parted ways, roads.
          1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
            Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 21 July 2020 21: 05
            -3
            There is a lot of incomprehensible things. For example, if the paths diverged six years ago, what are they waiting for? What does the constitutional amendment have to do with it? And of course, who is to blame and what to do?
            1. Dear sofa expert. 21 July 2020 21: 39
              +1
              There is a lot of incomprehensible things. For example, if the paths diverged six years ago, what are they waiting for?

              Not 6, but even more. The paths, you know ... they slowly diverge sometimes. And not necessarily forever.

              What does the constitutional amendment have to do with it?

              Previously, the constitution ordered to obey other people's authorities, now it prescribes not to obey them anymore, but prioritizes its own. Legalized. And they did the right thing so that whoever comes after Putin does not squander his country.

              And of course, who is to blame

              The court decides.

              What to do?

              With this question to Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky.
              Good luck)
              1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 22 July 2020 00: 44
                +1
                Quote: Dear sofa expert.
                The paths, you know ... they slowly diverge sometimes. And not necessarily forever.

                Dear Necropny cannot sleep, he is worried, and you cut off his wings for his dreams.

                Quote: Dear sofa expert.
                Previously, the constitution ordered to obey other people's authorities, now it prescribes not to obey them anymore, but prioritizes its own. Legalized. And they did the right thing so that whoever comes after Putin does not squander his country.

                That is, before the Russian Federation, when signing the agreement, promised to abide by it, and now, when signing the agreement, the Russian Federation says that it is not necessary to comply with it. Well, that's cool.
                1. Dear sofa expert. 22 July 2020 08: 02
                  +2
                  Dear Necropny cannot sleep, he is worried, and you cut off his wings for his dreams.

                  And I see no contradiction. In the current situation there is no other way out. But time passes, the pictures around us change.

                  That is, before the Russian Federation, when signing the agreement, promised to abide by it, and now, when signing the agreement, the Russian Federation says that it is not necessary to comply with it.

                  Yes, the need has disappeared due to bias on the part of the West. See above.
                  1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 23 July 2020 01: 13
                    -3
                    Quote: Dear sofa expert.
                    And I see no contradiction. In the current situation there is no other way out. But time passes, the pictures around us change.

                    What has changed?

                    Quote: Dear sofa expert.
                    Yes, the need has disappeared due to bias on the part of the West. See above.

                    Well, before, when they wanted, they did it (payments on small things), when they didn't want to, they didn't pay (the Yukos case). What changed?
                    And by the way, are Sberbank and Rosneft becoming outlaws, since they comply with the sanctions of other countries and do not open branches in Crimea?
                    1. Dear sofa expert. 23 July 2020 08: 11
                      +3
                      What has changed?

                      Specify the question.

                      Yukos case

                      As far as I know, the Dutch court annulled the decision of the international arbitration tribunal, which in 2014 awarded the former Yukos shareholders compensation in the amount of $ 50 billion. There is no court. Sorry, I do not particularly follow this obvious fiction.

                      and do not open branches in Crimea

                      I don't know what the sanctions have to do with the decisions of the ECHR.
                      I am not familiar with the topic of banks in Crimea.
                2. plabu Offline plabu
                  plabu 26 July 2020 22: 31
                  0
                  Quote: Oleg Rambover
                  .
                  Quote: Dear couch expert.
                  Previously, the constitution prescribed obeying strangers authorities, now orders them to no longer obey, but prioritizes their own. Legalized. And they did the right thing so that whoever comes after Putin does not squander his country.

                  That is, before the Russian Federation, signing agreement, promised to comply with it, and now, when signing the agreement, the Russian Federation says that it is not necessary to comply with it. Well, cool.

                  Even more fun, what's the difference for you between authorities и an agreement there is no - well, if you judge by your comment ... bully
                  You have once again confirmed your "literacy", congratulations. hi
                  1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 27 July 2020 00: 02
                    -1
                    Ooooh, hello !!!! How is your health, don't you cough?
                    Imagine that the Russian Federation obeys other people's authorities, it usually signs an agreement with these authorities. But who cares about such trifles. You certainly don't care.
                    1. plabu Offline plabu
                      plabu 27 July 2020 08: 12
                      0
                      Quote: Oleg Rambover
                      … How is your health, don't you cough? ….

                      And do not dream, do not wait. laughing

                      Quote: Oleg Rambover
                      ... Imagine that the Russian Federation is subordinate to foreign authorities, it usually signs a contract with these authorities. But who cares about such trifles. You certainly don't care.

                      I can't imagine when you will learn to coherently express your streams of "thought", and according to the content of your opus, you have no problem, but I do not recommend you to study jurisprudence, not to mention international law - all the same, there will be no sense for you - judging by your comments ... hi
                      1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 27 July 2020 09: 55
                        0
                        Quote: 321
                        And do not dream, do not wait.

                        Well, thank God.

                        Quote: 321
                        What I eat and feed my loved ones is completely different from what you were fed in childhood and what you feed your loved ones - namely, I hardly eat sausage ...

                        As you say, the main thing is not to be nervous, all diseases are from nerves.

                        Quote: 321
                        I can't imagine when you will learn to coherently express your streams of "thought", and according to the content of your opus, you have no problem, but I do not recommend you to study jurisprudence, not to mention international law - all the same, there will be no sense for you - judging by your comments ...

                        Thank you for your opinion, it is so important to me.
  5. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 21 July 2020 13: 42
    +6
    Bullshit question. I looked. You can leave the ECHR at any time. But for some reason they do not come out. They get paid, but they don't go out.

    She left the Hague Criminal in the 16th. Nobody interfered.

    On Arbitration, it would seem, you can score - whereas in the case with Naftogaz, they will begin to take away the accounts and property of state companies over the hill. All countries will happily rub their hands and rush to cut off the pieces.
    In the Yukos case, 7 billion dollars in fines came up, and they will cut more ...
    But the Authorities did not declare their refusal to pay, only the observers of the hurray-media fantasized (if it is mild) about the trials won and that that's all, there is no need to pay.

    Other courts do not come out of them either.

    The oligarchs, as they used to live over the hill, took everything over the hill and went to court in London, so they will. This is spelled out in the statutes of Norilsk Nickel and others. It is sacred and inviolable.
  6. Michael I Offline Michael I
    Michael I (Michael I) 22 July 2020 09: 28
    -1
    The Russian Federation will refuse to pay, according to decisions of international courts, and will begin to seize its assets, then what to do?
    Already today, no supplier is ready to sign a contract with Russian companies, if, in case of disputes, they need to be resolved in Russian courts. And with this amendment, they will refuse to sign contracts at all, because the decision of the Swiss or French arbitration will not be valid.
    1. Dear sofa expert. 22 July 2020 11: 54
      +2
      The Russian Federation will refuse to pay, according to decisions of international courts, and will begin to seize its assets, then what to do?

      Withdraw assets from such countries. Hold assets in countries that do not violate their own laws on the inviolability of someone else's property. Otherwise, arrest the assets of these countries.

      Already today, no supplier is ready to sign a contract with Russian companies, if, in case of disputes, they need to be resolved in Russian courts.

      Change suppliers to others.

      refuse to sign contacts

      Switch to contactless forms.
      1. Michael I Offline Michael I
        Michael I (Michael I) 25 July 2020 19: 04
        -1
        Let's just say that out of five suppliers from France, Spain, Israel and China, none of them agreed with this clause, and the Russian company had to agree to the terms of the suppliers.
        1. Dear sofa expert. 25 July 2020 19: 21
          +2
          The supplier is the one who supplies. This is the seller. Selling in a competitive environment is much more difficult than buying. The seller who didn't sell anything earned nothing. If you want to sell and make money on it, find a way to do it. There are many ways in trading to limit risks. The contract is not the only option.
          1. Michael I Offline Michael I
            Michael I (Michael I) 1 August 2020 18: 55
            -1
            You speak in theory, but I say what happens in fact. And Russian companies have to agree to those conditions.
            1. Dear sofa expert. 1 August 2020 21: 10
              +1
              companies have to agree to those terms

              Had come. Even now they can agree to any conditions, but in accordance with the amendment to the constitution.