At a recent meeting in Kazan of the Consultative Council of Chairmen of Constitutional Courts of the Subjects of the Russian Federation, Deputy Chairman of the Constitutional Court Sergey Mavrin said that the subjects of the federation, more precisely, the constitutional justice of the republics, in fact, ensure the unity of the constitutional space in our country. A rather controversial statement, though not without a certain logic. And for what reasons.
According to the adopted legislative norms, the constitutional statutory courts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation are a legal institution that allows making decisions in the field of constitutional law directly at the regional level. Since the launch of judicial reform in the territory of the Russian Federation, eighteen such institutional entities have already been operating, mainly in the national republics.
At the same time, it was emphasized at the Kazan meeting that the regional authorities should cooperate with the federal Constitutional Court in resolving relevant issues, as well as problems related to social protection of the population. In this case, it turns out that Mr. Mavrin indirectly speaks of the absence of a single Russian constitutional space and, which seems even more significant, of a clear functional demarcation between courts of various levels.
According to the accepted logic, the subjects of the federation have the right (but are not obliged) to create statutory courts that determine the constitutionality of all regional legal acts, including legislative ones. In this case, local constitutional courts are automatically included in the general judicial system , but are not directly subordinate to the Constitutional Court of Russia. That is, the subjects of the federation receive the right to create their own internal constitutional space, which only formally corresponds to the all-Russian principles of constitutionalism. This is very similar to limiting the sovereignty of the entire state, but not to expanding the federal rights of the regions of the Russian Federation. And, as we understand it, we are talking about the reform of the judicial system, but not about the new federal model of the Russian state.
Another problem arises from this - this is a discrete administrative device. Different types of subjects of the Russian Federation have unequal federal rights with different, functionally eroded powers, economic potential and political significance. Thus, based on the norms of international law, it turns out that the subjects of the federation are unequal. The principle of equality of territorial subjects is violated. In this sense, the appeal of the deputy head of the Constitutional Court to the formation of a common constitutional space is quite logical and justified, both from a legal and political point of view. Another question: what to do if there is a constitution, but there is no constitutionalism?