Ratified treaty;¹ Instruments not subject to ratification²

Administrative procedure for collecting taxes from corporate bodies/ Institution of proceedings before the Constitutional Court for unconstitutionality of the law/ Reference to international law to strengthen the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution/ Reference to international law to strengthen a decision based on domestic law

According to the law,³ the organs of the tax police could collect tax arrears directly from corporate bodies, whereas in the case of individuals this procedure could only be followed by judicial means. Founders of a group of corporate bodies instituted proceedings before the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation claiming that the fact that the procedure was administrative rather than judicial infringed their constitutional right of ownership, which was recognized by Article 35 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.⁴

The Constitutional Court had to decide on the scope of this right and on the possibility of restricting it. In order to answer this question it referred to not only the relevant articles of the Constitution but also those of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights:

 “At the same time, the right to private ownership is not absolute and is not among those rights which, in accordance with Article 56(3) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, may not be restricted under any circumstances. Therefore, in accordance with the meaning of Article 55(3) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation it [Article 35] may be restricted by federal law, but only to the extent this is necessary to protect the fundamentals of the constitutional system, morality, health, and the rights and lawful interests of other persons, and in order to defend the country and ensure the security of the state. This is in compliance with generally accepted principles and rules of international law, particularly with the Universal Declaration of Human rights, dated December 10, 1948, in accordance with which everyone has duties to the community through which the free and full development of his personality is possible (Article 29(1)); in the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society (Article 29(2)). A similar provision on the permissibility of restricting the rights of man and citizen is also stipulated by the International Pact on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, dated December 19, 1966 (Article 4).”⁵

Having added force to its case with this reference to the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation held that, although the procedure for recovering arrears was administrative, corporate bodies could challenge it by bringing legal proceedings as provided in Article 46 of the Constitution and that, consequently, their constitutional right to the protection of private ownership had not been violated.