Ruzlyaev Michael Yur'evich, Postgraduate student, Penza State University (40 Krasnaya street, Penza, Russia), firstname.lastname@example.org
Background. The article briefly deals with two concomitant functions of constitutional control as exercised by constitutional and statutory courts of political entities within the Russian Federation. The first function consists in special constitutional control. It characterises the Russian constitutional and statutory courts as guardians of respective constitutions and regional statutes. The second function embraces constitutional control of the legal order in its entity and integrity. By means of a case study the author argues that special constitutional control is not an end in itself. It is but a precursor for global constitutional control of national law and order.
Materials and methods. The article is constructed on the basis of the analysis of decisions of constitutional and statutory courts of territorial subjects of the Russian Federation. The main methods of research were legallistic and comparative-legal ones.
Results. The research of functions of constitutional justice in territorial subjects of the Russian Federation has revealed contradictions in interpretation of constituent acts of territorial subjects of the Russian Federation.
Conclusions. The constitutional control in territorial subjects of the Russian Federation isn’t an end in itself, it only opens a way for technically secondary, but by a subject – primary, global control of all national law and order. When special constitutional control completely covers a global prospect of activity of constitutional and statutory courts, there often occurs a paradoxical situation: the supreme body of justice, allocated with competence to render final verdicts, only “constitutionally consecrates” a denial of justice.
1. Schmitt C. Der Hüter der Verfassung [A keeper of constitution]. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot, 1996.
2. Daydzhest operativnoy informatsii. Akty konstitutsionnogo pravosudiya sub"ektov Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Operative information digest. Constitutional justice acts of subject of the Russian Federation]. 2010, no. 1, pp. 46–47.
3. Morozova A. S. Rossiyskaya yustitsiya [Russian justice]. 2013, no. 3, pp. 49–52.
4. Tsaliev A. M. Rossiyskaya Federatsiya segodnya [The Russian Federation today]. 2012, no. 18.
5. Aristotel'. Sochineniya: v 4 t. [Works: in 4 volumes]. Moscow: Mysl', 1978, vol. 2, pp. 533–594.
6. Druz' K. A., Goshulyak V. V. Zakon i pravo [Law and order]. 2014, no. 8, pp. 37–42.
7. Jellinek G. System der subjektiven öffentlichen Rechte [System of subjective public law]. Freiburg: Mohr/Siebeck, 1892.
8. Goshulyak V. V. Rossiyskaya yustitsiya [Russian justice]. 2013, no. 6, pp. 38–40.
9. Khudoley K. M. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Seriya: Yuridicheskie nauki [Bulletin of Perm University. Series: Juridical sciences]. 2014, iss. 2 (24), pp. 50–61.
10. Daydzhest operativnoy informatsii. Akty konstitutsionnogo pravosudiya sub"ektov Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Operative information digest. Constitutional justice acts of subject of the Russian Federation]. 2010, no. 2, pp. 17–20.
11. Oeter St. Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts [Archive of public law]. 1994, vol. 119, no. 4, pp. 529–563.
12. Renard-Payen O., Robineau Y. La responsabilité de l’Etat pour faute du fait du fonctionnement défectueux du service public de la justice judiciaire et administrative [State’ responsibility for negligence caused by faulty state service of administrative and court justice]. Available at: https://www.courdecassation.fr/publications_