Violation of his constitutional rights. Complaint about violation of constitutional rights and freedoms

We are constantly being told that we live in a legal state based on respect for the rule of law and complete personal freedom. Let's look together at how and in what ways constitutional human rights are violated. Let's look not as political scientists, sociologists and legal scholars, and certainly not as human rights activists, but as ordinary citizens of Russia, who you and I actually are.

What will we be guided by and how to consider violation of constitutional human rights here in Russia? Each person is inherent in logic and tends to draw conclusions from the facts, so let’s do this, together, let’s take the article of the constitution, compare it with the facts and draw a conclusion - the fundamental law of Russia is being violated or not, constitutional human rights are being violated or not.

So let's get started:

Can it be changed Chapter 2. Rights and freedoms of man and citizen constitution of Russia? The unequivocal answer is no, and not by any additions or amendments adopted by legislators, the same constitution speaks about this - Article 135,
Chapter 9 – Constitutional amendments and revision of the Constitution. It says that if you want to change Chapters 1, 2 and 9 of the constitution, the Constitutional Assembly must be assembled and when deciding to change these chapters, a popular vote must be held. Why did I sharpen the question at this point? And so that someone does not want to say that they say that additions and changes have been added to Chapter 2 of the constitution. Whoever could add this is a state criminal - he will be sent to prison for a long time, for violating the fundamental law of the state and adopting any amendments to Chapter 2 of the constitution without a popular vote.

And so we established that Chapter 2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation is unshakable, incomplete, and unchangeable without a popular vote. Now let's move on to the analysis of Chapter 2 of the constitution itself.

Chapter 2. Rights and freedoms of man and citizen

Article 17

1. B Russian Federation the rights and freedoms of man and citizen are recognized and guaranteed in accordance with the generally recognized principles and norms of international law and in accordance with this Constitution.

2. Fundamental human rights and freedoms are inalienable and belong to everyone from birth.

3. The exercise of human and civil rights and freedoms should not violate the rights and freedoms of other persons.

Analysis: Let's agree that this article, well, let's say not violated because it's too general concepts. But the rights and freedoms of man and citizen are recognized and guaranteed and whether these guarantees are fulfilled is another question.

Article 18

The rights and freedoms of man and citizen are directly applicable. They determine the meaning, content and application of laws, the activities of the legislative and executive powers, local self-government and are ensured by justice.

Analysis: Does justice ensure the rights and freedoms of citizens? The answer is simple - read about violations committed by law enforcement agencies, courts and legislative and executive branch and as a conclusion, this article of the constitution is violated. The guarantors of the constitution themselves do not ensure its observance.

Article 19

1. Everyone is equal before the law and the court.

2. The state guarantees equality of rights and freedoms of man and citizen, regardless of gender, race, nationality, language, origin, property and official status, place of residence, attitude to religion, beliefs, membership in public associations, as well as other circumstances. Any form of restriction of the rights of citizens on the basis of social, racial, national, linguistic or religious affiliation is prohibited.

3. Man and woman have equal rights and freedoms and equal opportunities for their implementation.

Analysis: 1 Everyone is not equal before the court - violated. Maybe someone will argue that the mayor’s son will go to jail for a fight that he himself started and in which his nose was bloodied? No, the one who defended his honor and dignity will go to jail.

2 But the second part is nonsense - everyone is equal before the law, regardless of property and official status. Yes, exactly, you tell this to those who were hit by the car of a boss or a big businessman, who lost in court a case that was absolutely clear to everyone, but not to a fair judge. This means that paragraph 2 of Article 19 is violated.

3 Well, let’s not argue about gender equality, we’ll decide – it’s not violated. Everything again comes down to point 2, what position a man or woman occupies. If it is the daughter of the chairman of the regional election commission who knocked down a mother and children, then this is normal, but if she is beaten by a (man), say, the governor’s son, then she is to blame, and he is right. Equality among equals, in a word, and inequality among unequals, a direct pun, and not compliance with the constitution.

Article 20

1. Everyone has the right to life.

2. Until its abolition, the death penalty may be established by federal law as an exceptional measure of punishment for especially serious crimes against life, providing the accused with the right to have his case heard by a court with the participation of a jury.

Analysis: Yes, everyone has the right to life, but to a very different one. The death penalty is not carried out - this is also indisputable. The general conclusion is that this article is not violated.

Article 21

1. Personal dignity is protected by the state. Nothing can be a reason to belittle him.

2. No one should be subjected to torture, violence, other cruel or humiliating human dignity treatment or punishment. No one can be subjected to medical, scientific or other experiments without voluntary consent.

Analysis: 1 How does our state protect dignity? How, how, and if you don’t know, then go to an unauthorized rally and there they will explain to you with a baton on the back.

2. Read about torture, violence and other cruelties in official sources on violations of our law enforcement officers and what they do for this, what kind of punishment - a reprimand if a serious scandal is expelled from the guardians of the law for six months. Are they conducting medical experiments on us? The answer will be given by the mothers of babies who died from experimental vaccines and the injured patients on whom the doctor tested the imported medicine, well, not for free, of course, pharmacists feed doctors very generously. The final conclusion is that Article 21 is violated in full.

Article 22

1. Everyone has the right to freedom and personal security.

2. Arrest, detention and detention are permitted only by court decision. Pending a court decision, a person cannot be detained for more than 48 hours.

Analysis: In general, briefly - within 48 hours you need to extract testimony and confessions of all crimes that the person did not commit. You've seen how the constitution is implemented - if you're not a weakling and don't break within 48 hours, you'll be released, go for a walk, kid, you're free.

Article 23

1. Everyone has the right to privacy, personal and family secrets, protection of their honor and good name.

2. Everyone has the right to privacy of correspondence, telephone conversations, postal, telegraph and other messages. Restriction of this right is permitted only on the basis of a court decision.

Analysis: Here, the leaders in maintaining family secrets and confidentiality are hospital institutions. Half the district center will know tomorrow that the unmarried Manya is pregnant, just go to the reception, it’s the same as putting an ad in the newspaper. Or who doesn’t know the situation, Vanya took the test, and he has a venereal disease, of course everyone will know about it in 5 minutes, and Vanya picked it up in an everyday way, runs to his wife and yells, you know what. The family is falling apart, but maybe the wife would have believed it if it weren’t for the publicity, but what about living with a traitor? She also believes that he cheated. The general conclusion is that all private life is a secret to the whole world - the article is violated. If you want everyone you know to know about your health problems, don’t write an ad in the newspaper - go to the hospital, they may not be cured, but they will tell the whole world how seriously ill you are.

Article 24

1. Collection, storage, use and dissemination of information about the private life of a person without his consent is not permitted.

2. Organs state power and local government bodies and their officials are obliged to provide everyone with the opportunity to familiarize themselves with documents and materials that directly affect their rights and freedoms, unless otherwise provided by law.

Analysis The same as in the previous article, plus the fact that some documents can be obtained from administrations of any level only by court decision, and the court may even decide that the reason why 3-4 acres were cut off from your garden does not concern you. The article is undoubtedly violated.

Without a doubt, we can analyze all 64 articles of Chapter 2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and we will find violations everywhere. See which of our rights are not violated. Yes, violations go along the list from Article 17 to Article 64, with rare exceptions, mainly due to the vagueness of the wording.

Let's look at a couple more articles, well, very relevant ones, which are not just violated, but violated maliciously and deliberately.

Article 28

Everyone is guaranteed freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, including the right to profess, individually or together with others, any religion or not to profess any, to freely choose, have and disseminate religious and other beliefs and to act in accordance with them.

Analysis: Let’s say I’m a convinced atheist, without any malicious intent or inciting anything, I say that all priests, mullahs, rabbis, Satanists are obscurantists who rob the already impoverished population. Well, you see, I have such convictions and at the same time I treat people who believe with respect, well, if they remain in my understanding at all. Judging by the actions of people, you cannot say this, who is now fulfilling the commandments of their gods, which, by the way, are very good commandments. Well, that means I'm violating the law on inciting religious hatred. So I do not call on Orthodox Muslims and Jews to fight, I call on them not to be mistaken and not to believe in this prehistoric savagery. But that’s not the case, I undermine all faith with my statements at once, and the authorities and the oligarchs need it so much, because how conveniently they hit you on the cheek - turn the other one, any government is sent by God. So the president comes out to pray in the synagogue or Orthodox church- he is good, but I say that he has no faith in God, the devil, or Allah, and even more so in people, I am an instigator of religious hatred. But what should I do if I am a militant atheist and really believe that believers are mistaken when they allow all sorts of scoundrels to rule them like a herd. The state doesn't care about my freedom of conscience. Well, you can write a treatise on the propaganda of religion of all kinds, there is definitely pressure at the state level, to believe is good, not to believe means to incite some kind of discord, well, we have a lot of incitement. He said that you are Russian, not a Russian and you are already a nationalist, let’s say the boy put on a T-shirt with the inscription “I am Russian”, that’s all, he is almost a fascist. Well, that’s how we have freedom of conscience and religion.

Well, now, wonderful Article 31 of the constitution, so to speak, for dessert.

Article 31

Citizens of the Russian Federation have the right to assemble peacefully without weapons, to hold meetings, rallies and demonstrations, processions and picketing.

Analysis: Are you still able to read everything with our guaranteed free education? Well, then, who will read to me here that before going to a rally or demonstration without weapons, you need some kind of permission or sanction from some administration? So I don’t see any permissions are required. So why are these permits given? Probably no one has read the constitution? No, many people have read it. So what's happening to us? But we are simply accustomed to the fact that the constitution is no longer the law in Russia, that anyone can violate constitutional human rights.

Well, on this life-affirming note, let me finish our thoughts about the violation of constitutional rights, about the violation of all human rights in general. So what kind of state are they telling us about? About the rule of law, well, whoever thinks that they live in a legal free state - read your rights written in the constitution and compare them with the existing state of affairs. Maybe someone will say that this is all a biased opinion? Now tell me, is it possible to be both a free man and a slave? Second question: how many of you haven’t taken out a bank loan? From what I know, very few, isn't this banking slavery? And who gave the right to moneylenders to fleece an already impoverished population, and no one, found such an article in the constitution. This is how we work out according to concepts and we live not according to the constitution, but according to concepts. Our state is an oligarchic and mafia structure - a vertical for the suppression of freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, in general any freedom in any manifestation. What can we say about the violation of human rights or violation of the constitution. The law is always the same - the mafia is always right.

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, composed of Chairman V.D. Zorkin, judges N.S. Bondar, G.A. Gadzhieva, Yu.M. Danilova, L.M. Zharkova, G.A. Zhilina, S.M. Kazantseva, M.I. Cleandrova, A.L. Kononova, L.O. Krasavchikova, S.P. Mavrina, N.V. Melnikova, Yu.D. Rudkina, N.V. Selezneva, A.Ya. Plums, V.G. Strekozova, O.S. Khokhryakova, B.S. Ebzeeva, V.G. Yaroslavtseva,

Having considered, at the request of citizen E. Murzin, the question of the possibility of accepting his complaint for consideration at a meeting of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, he established:

1. By the decision of the Ostankino District Court of Moscow dated February 15, 2005, citizen E. Murzin was denied the request to invalidate the decision of the registry office to refuse to register a marriage with citizen E.A. Mishin. The court indicated that in this case one of the provisions enshrined in paragraph 1 of Article 12 was not (and could not be) observed Family Code Russian Federation conditions for marriage, namely mutual voluntary consent of the man and woman entering into marriage. The cassation court left this decision unchanged.

In his complaint to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, E. Murzin challenges the constitutionality of paragraph 1 of Article 12 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation. According to the applicant, being a basis for refusing to register a marriage between persons of the same sex, it violates the rights guaranteed by Articles 17 - 19 and 23 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. In this case, the applicant refers to the experience of a number of European countries that recognize marriage or registered partnership of persons of the same sex.

The Secretariat of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, in accordance with the second part of Article 40 of the Federal Constitutional Law “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation,” previously notified the applicant that his complaint did not meet the requirements of the said Federal Constitutional Law.

2. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, having studied the materials presented by E. Murzin, finds no grounds for accepting his complaint for consideration.

2.1. The Constitution of the Russian Federation stipulates that in the Russian Federation the rights and freedoms of man and citizen are recognized and guaranteed in accordance with generally accepted principles and norms of international law and in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 17, Part 1), state protection and support for family, motherhood, paternity are provided and childhood (Article 7, part 2; Article 38, part 1), and care for children and their upbringing is an equal right and responsibility of parents (Article 38, part 2).

These provisions are in a systematic relationship with the norms of international treaties obliging the state and society to protect the family as a natural and fundamental unit of society, a natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members, especially children, including during the formation of a family, while its responsibility lies care for dependent children and their upbringing (Article 16(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 10(1) International Covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, preamble to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child of November 20, 1989, etc.).

Thus, both the Constitution of the Russian Federation and international legal norms proceed from the fact that one of the purposes of the family is the birth and upbringing of children.

Taking into account the above, as well as national traditions attitude towards marriage as a biological union of a man and a woman, the Family Code of the Russian Federation indicates that the regulation of family relations is carried out in accordance, in particular, with the principles of voluntariness of the marriage union of a man and a woman, the priority of family education of children, concern for their welfare and development (Article 1 ). Thus, the federal legislator, within the framework of the competence granted to him, included the mutual voluntary consent of a man and a woman as the conditions for concluding a marriage, which cannot be considered a violation of the constitutional rights and freedoms listed in the complaint.

2.2. Formally challenging the constitutionality of paragraph 1 of Article 12 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation, the applicant is actually demanding state recognition of his relationship with another man by registering it in the form of a special state-protected union.

Meanwhile, neither the Constitution of the Russian Federation nor the international legal obligations assumed by the Russian Federation implies the state’s obligation to create conditions for the promotion, support and recognition of same-sex unions, despite the fact that the absence of such registration in itself does not in any way affect the level of recognition and guarantees in the Russian Federation of the rights and freedoms of the applicant as a person and citizen.

The presence in a number of European countries of a different approach to resolving issues of demographic and social nature, especially since, by virtue of Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the right to marry and the right to found a family is recognized specifically for men and women, and Article 12 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms directly provides for the possibility of starting a family in accordance with national legislation governing the exercise of this right.

Based on the above and guided by part two of Article 40, paragraph 2 of part one of Article 43, part one of Article 79, Articles 96 and 97 of the Federal Constitutional Law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation", the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation determined:

1. Refuse to accept for consideration the complaint of citizen E. Murzin, since it does not meet the requirements of the Federal Constitutional Law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation", according to which the complaint is considered admissible.

2. The ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on this complaint is final and not subject to appeal.

Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of November 16, 2006 N 496-O “On the refusal to accept for consideration the complaint of citizen E. Murzin about the violation of his constitutional rights by paragraph 1 of Article 12 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation”

No. ___________, reported the following. As I indicated earlier, in accordance with Art. 4 of the Federal Law of July 25, 1998 N 128-FZ

“On state fingerprint registration in the Russian Federation”

State fingerprint registration is carried out in compliance with the rights and freedoms of man and citizen established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, in accordance with the principles of legality, humanism, confidentiality, a combination of voluntariness and obligation.

Violation of constitutional rights

Violation of certain constitutional and legal norms (constitutional torts) results in liability. It is carried by officials and government agencies.

This responsibility should be distinguished from responsibility for violation of constitutional and legal norms, which is borne by citizens and officials in other branches of law (criminal, administrative, civil). For example, the defense of the Fatherland is a constitutional duty and responsibility of a citizen of the Russian Federation, but for evading this duty a person bears administrative or criminal liability; Everyone according to the Constitution is obliged to preserve nature and environment, treat natural resources with care, but for violating this norm a person is liable under civil, criminal and administrative legislation. In all cases - Chapter 2. Sources and system of constitutional law 33

Constitutional legal responsibility sometimes represents the implementation of a sanction specified in a constitutional legal norm.

Such a sanction includes the repeal of illegal acts, dismissal from office (resignation), and deprivation of a deputy of his powers. Russian constitutional law enshrines the responsibility of the Government to the President, who, for example, has the right to dismiss any minister without giving reasons. The government also has a certain responsibility to Federal Assembly, which has the right to express no confidence in him.

All state bodies are responsible for the compliance of their acts with the Constitution of the Russian Federation; this responsibility is exercised by the Constitutional Court. As we see, such forms of responsibility come for

New in blogs

Violation of constitutional human rights in Russia.

The Constitution is not the basic law of the state, but a collection of human rights that must be violated

Chapter 2.
Rights and freedoms of man and citizen

2. Fundamental human rights and freedoms are inalienable and belong to everyone from birth.

3. The exercise of human and civil rights and freedoms should not violate the rights and freedoms of other persons.

Men and women have equal rights and freedoms and equal opportunities for their implementation.

Analysis: Yes, everyone has the right to life, but to a very different one.

The death penalty is not carried out - this is also indisputable. The general conclusion is that this article is not violated.

Personal dignity is protected by the state. Nothing can be a reason to belittle him.

Analysis: 1 How does our state protect dignity? How, how, and if you don’t know, then go to an unauthorized rally and there they will explain to you with a baton on the back.

Everyone has the right to freedom and personal security.

1. Everyone has the right to privacy, personal and family secrets, protection of their honor and good name.

Collection, storage, use and dissemination of information about a person’s private life without his consent is prohibited.

Let's look at a couple more articles, well, very relevant ones, which are not just violated, but violated maliciously and deliberately.

Well, now, wonderful Article 31 of the constitution, so to speak, for dessert.

Citizens of the Russian Federation have the right to assemble peacefully without weapons, to hold meetings, rallies and demonstrations, processions and picketing.

CRIMINAL CODE - Chapter 19

The same act, which through negligence resulted in the death of a person, is punishable by imprisonment for a term of up to three years, with or without deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years. Article 144. Obstruction of legal professional activity journalists 1.

Obstructing the legitimate professional activities of journalists by forcing them to disseminate or refuse to disseminate information is punishable by a fine of up to eighty thousand rubles or in the amount wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to six months, or compulsory work for a period of up to one hundred and eighty hours, or correctional labor for a period of up to one year.2.

The Constitution is not the basic law of the state, but a collection of human rights that must be violated

So let's get started:

Chapter 2. Rights and freedoms of man and citizen

Article 17

1. In the Russian Federation, the rights and freedoms of man and citizen are recognized and guaranteed in accordance with the generally recognized principles and norms of international law and in accordance with this Constitution.

2. Fundamental human rights and freedoms are inalienable and belong to everyone from birth.

3. The exercise of human and civil rights and freedoms should not violate the rights and freedoms of other persons.

Analysis: Let's agree that this article, well, let's say not violated, because the concepts are too general. But the rights and freedoms of man and citizen are recognized and guaranteed and whether these guarantees are fulfilled is another question.

Article 18

Analysis: Does justice ensure the rights and freedoms of citizens? The answer is simple - read about the violations committed by law enforcement agencies, courts and the legislative and executive branches and as a conclusion - this article of the constitution is being violated. The guarantors of the constitution themselves do not ensure its observance.

Article 19

1. Everyone is equal before the law and the court.

3. Men and women have equal rights and freedoms and equal opportunities for their implementation.

Article 20

1. Everyone has the right to life.

Article 21

1. Personal dignity is protected by the state. Nothing can be a reason to belittle him.

2. No one should be subjected to torture, violence, or other cruel or degrading treatment or punishment. No one can be subjected to medical, scientific or other experiments without voluntary consent.

Analysis: 1 How does our state protect dignity? How, how, and if you don’t know, then go to an unauthorized rally and there they will explain to you with a baton on the back.

Article 22

1. Everyone has the right to freedom and personal security.

2. Arrest, detention and detention are permitted only by court decision. Pending a court decision, a person cannot be detained for more than 48 hours.

Article 23

1. Everyone has the right to privacy, personal and family secrets, protection of their honor and good name.

2. Everyone has the right to privacy of correspondence, telephone conversations, postal, telegraph and other messages. Restriction of this right is permitted only on the basis of a court decision.

Article 24

1. Collection, storage, use and dissemination of information about the private life of a person without his consent is not permitted.

2. State authorities and local self-government bodies, their officials are obliged to provide everyone with the opportunity to familiarize themselves with documents and materials that directly affect their rights and freedoms, unless otherwise provided by law.

Let's look at a couple more articles, well, very relevant ones, which are not just violated, but violated maliciously and deliberately.

Article 28

Analysis: Let’s say I’m a convinced atheist, without any malicious intent or inciting anything, I say that all priests, mullahs, rabbis, Satanists are obscurantists who rob the already impoverished population. Well, you see, I have such convictions and at the same time I treat people who believe with respect, well, if they remain in my understanding at all. Judging by the actions of people, you cannot say this, who is now fulfilling the commandments of their gods, which, by the way, are very good commandments. Well, that means I'm violating the law on inciting religious hatred. So I do not call on Orthodox Muslims and Jews to fight, I call on them not to be mistaken and not to believe in this prehistoric savagery. But that’s not the case, I undermine all faith with my statements at once, and the authorities and the oligarchs need it so much, because how conveniently they hit you on the cheek - turn the other one, any government is sent by God. So the president comes out to pray in a synagogue or an Orthodox church - he is good, but I say that he has no faith in God, the devil, or Allah, and even less in people, I am an instigator of religious hatred. But what should I do if I am a militant atheist and really believe that believers are mistaken when they allow all sorts of scoundrels to rule them like a herd. The state doesn't care about my freedom of conscience. Well, you can write a treatise on the propaganda of religion of all kinds, there is definitely pressure at the state level, to believe is good, not to believe means to incite some kind of discord, well, we have a lot of incitement. He said that you are Russian, not a Russian and you are already a nationalist, let’s say the boy put on a T-shirt with the inscription “I am Russian”, that’s all, he is almost a fascist. Well, that’s how we have freedom of conscience and religion.

Well, now, wonderful Article 31 of the constitution, so to speak, for dessert.

Article 31

Citizens of the Russian Federation have the right to assemble peacefully without weapons, to hold meetings, rallies and demonstrations, processions and picketing.

Well, on this life-affirming note, let me finish our thoughts about the violation of constitutional rights, about the violation of all human rights in general. So what kind of state are they telling us about? About the rule of law, well, whoever thinks that they live in a legal free state - read your rights written in the constitution and compare them with the existing state of affairs. Maybe someone will say that this is all a biased opinion? Now tell me, is it possible to be both a free person and a slave at the same time? Second question: how many of you haven’t taken out a bank loan? From what I know, very few, isn't this banking slavery? And who gave the right to moneylenders to fleece an already impoverished population, and no one, found such an article in the constitution. This is how we work out according to concepts and we live not according to the constitution, but according to concepts. Our state is an oligarchic and mafia structure - a vertical for the suppression of freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, in general any freedom in any manifestation. What can we say about the violation of human rights or violation of the constitution. The law is always the same - the mafia is always right.

P.S. If you are interested in issues of violation of constitutional human rights and violation of the Russian Constitution, then you can read this

An instructive case for companies working with consumers on the basis of public contracts.

The refusal to provide taxi service ultimately violated both consumer and constitutional rights.

Let me make a reservation right away: Svetlana Prosvirina, our client, does not hide her positive HIV status at all; moreover, she is a person who does a great deal of work to combat this terrible disease, is involved in its prevention, and is an active member and chairman of various public organizations. And this court case was extremely important both for her personally, as a person living with HIV (and I note, living successfully; not all healthy people show such civil position), and for all her social activities. Svetlana actively proves every day that HIV-infected people are not necessarily prostitutes, homeless people, drug addicts, and even if one of them is one, you cannot give up on him, you need to help find a way out and return to normal life.

Our law office, for its part, has long and fruitfully collaborated with various public organizations implementing socially significant projects. We have extensive practice in resolving cases on protecting the rights of socially vulnerable segments of the population, for example, the case of citizen X. regarding a residence permit, the materials of which I published a little earlier. So this time Svetlana turned to us for help.

The essence of the matter:

On July 27, 2009, Svetlana and her colleague Larisa Solovyova called a taxi to take social assistance to the tuberculosis hospital. The dispatcher said that the car would arrive any minute. The women left the building of the Center for Prevention and Control of AIDS to meet a taxi, and then the unexpected happened - the taxi driver, slowing down for a moment, increased speed and drove away. Initially, the women decided that the taxi driver had gone to a U-turn in order to then pick them up and immediately drive onto the main street, but after a few minutes it became clear that he had simply left!

Prosvirina called the dispatcher, who said: “This is the AIDS Center. There’s AIDS all around... that’s why the driver refused to take me.” When asked by Prosvirina to give her last name and the last name of the driver, the dispatcher refused, and then hung up completely. An hour and a half later, after lengthy negotiations, a taxi, ordered by L. Solovyova, delivered the women to the desired address.

The obvious thing is a refusal to provide a service, a violation of consumer rights.

Having analyzed the circumstances, I and my assistant D.E. Khrustalev (who, in fact, was Svetlana’s representative in court, having shown interest in the case) immediately decided that it was impossible to be satisfied with the recognition of a simple violation of consumer rights, because there was a basis for refusal - presence of HIV status. Consequently, the case smacks of discrimination against a citizen whose status is protected as Constitution of the Russian Federation, so Federal law"On preventing the spread of the disease caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV infection) in the Russian Federation."

I believe that there is no point in describing specific articles of the Constitution prohibiting discrimination here; we all know them very well, but for some reason we rarely build protection on the norms of the main law of the country. But it has direct effect, and moreover, complete legal priority over any other Federal Law.
This case is a vivid example of this, do not neglect the fundamental law of the country, colleagues!

So, the goal of the case was to recognize a violation of the rights of S. Prosvirina as a consumer (refusal to provide a service), as well as a violation of her constitutional rights as a citizen who was discriminated against on the basis of HIV infection by a company operating under a public contract. To put it another way, we wanted to receive in the decision of the court of first instance a direct indication of a violation of the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Federal Law “On preventing the spread of the disease caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV infection) in the Russian Federation.”

The subgoal is to reflect in the court decision a direct indication of the social significance of the case.

And we were able to achieve this, in my opinion, by obtaining an excellent solution that easily stood up to cassation.
I will not dwell on the course of the case and procedural features; in general, it was not particularly complex from a legal point of view, however, I will briefly dwell on the means of proof that were used:
- testimony of witnesses.

- printouts of telephone conversations certified by the mobile operator.

With a competent construction of the “attack” line, this turned out to be sufficient; the judge of both the first and cassation instances was more than convinced by all this.

For more details, see the attached decisions of the first and cassation instances. By the way, a trained eye will immediately identify the defendant’s mistakes in this case :) which we skillfully took advantage of. Thank you for your attention!

Oh, and I almost forgot, I think, 10,000 rubles. - not a bad compensation for moral damages for such a violation, do you think? They secretly made it clear that if they had asked for 30,000, they could have counted on it.

Makeup. Skin and hair care. Manicure

Violation of constitutional rights

New in blogs

Violation of constitutional human rights in Russia.

Chapter 2. Rights and freedoms of man and citizen

CRIMINAL CODE - Chapter 19

Chapter 2. Rights and freedoms of man and citizen

The essence of the matter:

The obvious thing is a refusal to provide a service, a violation of consumer rights.

By the way, some time after our win, a disabled person went to court with a similar claim, whom the taxi driver refused to drive only because he had a musculoskeletal disease... I’m glad that our case helped someone else.

Chapter 2.
Rights and freedoms of man and citizen