INTERESTED PRIVIES AS PARTICIPANTS OF CONSTITUTIONAL COURT PROCEEDINGS: PROSPECTS OF USING FOREIGN EXPERIENCE IN RUSSIAN LEGISLATION

Subject. The article is devoted to analysis of some issues concerning realization of adversary principal in Russian constitutional court proceedings. Purpose. The purpose of the article is to analyze foreign experience of legal regulation of the status of constitutional court process participants as parties and /or interested persons in constitutional court proceeding, to give arguments in favor of introducing the category of ‘interested persons’ in Russian legislation regulating constitutional court proceedings. Methodology. The author uses theoretical analysis as well as legal methods including formal legal analysis and the method of legal comparison. Results, scope of application. Law often does not specify the party opposing the claimant during the proceedings in Russian Constitutional Court. The need to introduce the adversary principal in such cases requires to introduce the category of ‘interested person’, whose rights and duties may be affected during the case solution in the Russian Constitutional Court. Constitutional the Council Federation Assembly Federation ratification the treaty of constitutional Russian Federation; constitutional public offices constitutional legal of official interpretation of constitutional in cases RF Central Election Committee check constitutional RF of fair trial in resolving constitutional court conflicts, if such category would be included into Russian legislation.


Introduction
The resolution of any legal dispute in court is characterized by the principle of competitiveness, which allows participants in a legal conflict on an equal basis, defend their opposing positions before the court, protecting violated rights and interests. Having the constitutional nature, the principle of competitiveness, on the one hand, has general rules of implementation in all types of legal proceedings, and, on the other hand, it has specificity that, in the opinion of scientists, depends on the branch nature of the dispute and, accordingly, the nature of the disputable legal relationship [1, p. 102; 2, p. 6 -7], the type of legal proceedings in which the dispute is subject to a resolution [3, p. 20, 24] and some other factors.
In the constitutional legal proceedings, the adversarial principle also has a number of features [4] , among which is the fact that its implementation is impossible in full for a number of categories of cases considered by the constitutional court. At the same time, consistent reflection in the procedural legislation of the status of participants in constitutional and legal conflicts requires considering the relationship between their legal status as subjects conflict material constitutional legal relationship and procedural status of these persons in the constitutional litigation for the fullest implementation of the principle of adversarialism. However, the legal regulation of constitutional legal proceedings in this part is characterized by a number of problems.

Peculiarities and problems of the implementation of the adversarial principle in constitutional litigation
Guarantees of fair justice require that the trial be carried out in the form of a contest of parties having equal procedural capabilities to defend and prove their position. And Menno "with Torons opposed to each other, depending on their interests," [5, p. 144] . In any kind of process , the party's position is taken by the participant in a legal dispute or other kind of legal conflict. In view of this, the starting point is the idea that "adversarial proceedings in constitutional litigation are a means that is called upon to ensure successful justice in constitutional and legal disputes" [6, p. 32-33]. Meanwhile, with the existing legislative regulation of constitutional proceedings, it does not directly link a number of powers of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation with constitutional and legal disputes, without defining in this connection the side of constitutional legal proceedings that is contrary to the applicant and, thus, not ensuring a full and consistent implementation of the principle of adversarialism.
The most obvious legal conflict in cases initiated by on disputes over competence . This is the only category of cases in which the existence of a dispute is not being questioned by anyone, primarily because the law directly indicates its existence. As a rule, there is no doubt about the existence of a dispute in cases involving constitutional normative control, both abstract and concrete, initiated by a citizen's complaint (association of citizens) [7, p. 91-92; 8, p. 3-4]. Conditionality by a dispute with other powers is most often checked, since Article 53 of the Federal Constitutional Law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" as follows calls parties to constitutional proceedings : the applicants -the authority or the person who sent in the K onstitutsionny Court of appeal, the opposite side -bodies or officials who have issued or signed an act, the constitutionality of which is subject to verification, State bodies whose jurisdiction is being challenged. With the maintenance of this rule, scientists can conclude that "in some procedures there is no dispute between the parties, and the subject who has the right to appeal to the Constitutional Court is not opposed by the procedural opponent. This refers to requests for interpretation of the Constitution and requests of the courts on the constitutionality of laws " [9, p. 223]. O.V. Brezhnev, who argues that one of the most important functions of constitutional litigation is the resolution of constitutional and legal disputes, nevertheless, also believes that for certain categories of court cases dealt with by constitutional courts, there is no compulsory dispute about the law. He assigns such powers, in particular, to the establishment of substantive and procedural grounds for the application of measures of constitutional and legal responsibility; verification of compliance with constitutional requirements related to the appointment of a referendum, the establishment of compliance with the Constitution of the Russian treaty, which has not entered into force, on the admission of a new subject to Russia [10, p. 50]. It is this fact that explains the features of the principle of adversarial proceedings in constitutional proceedings: in the procedures under consideration it is not fully applied [11, p. 157].
An equally important problem that negatively affects the implementation of the adversarial principle in constitutional litigation is that it is not always possible to determine from the content of the Federal Constitutional Law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" the "defendant" -the body or the person who accepted or signed the contested act. In particular, this category includes cases on the verification of the constitutionality of an international treaty that has not entered into force. The scientific and educational literature even notes that in this category of cases, there is no respondent party, as well as in matters concerning the interpretation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation [12, p. 78]. And the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation puts the decision of this question in dependence on, whether check of the international agreement which has not come into force is carried out by way of the optional or obligatory control. In the introductory part of the Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of July 9, 2012 No. 17-P "On the case on the verification of the constitutionality of the international treaty of the Russian Federation -the Protocol on the Accession of the Russian Federation to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization" both sides -both the applicant and the higher authorities and officials of the state authorities -the President of the Russian Federation, the government of the Russian Federation, the state th at Doom, the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, usually acting as "defendants" in cases of verification of the constitutionality of federal laws. At the same time, in our opinion, the involvement of the State Duma and the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation on the side of the body that adopted or signed the impugned act is illogical in this case, since the authority to negotiate and sign international treaties concluded on behalf of the Russian Federation (a namely, such a treaty is the Protocol contested in this case), the President of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Russian Federation are vested (Article 13 of the Federal Law "On International Treaties of the Russian Federation").
As for the verification of the constitutionality of an international agreement that has not entered into force in the procedure of mandatory control, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, substantiating the specifics of this category of cases in the Resolution of March 19, 2014 No. 6-P, noted: "... it is presumed that the President of the Russian Federation, in the course of implementing its mandate, it signed an international treaty on admission to the Russian Federation and the formation of a new constituent entity of the Russian Federation in its composition , does not see it as inconsistency with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which is also confirmed by the text of the request . In addition, in such cases, the other party, confirming the opposite, as is the case in accordance with part one of Article 53 of the Federal Constitutional Law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation ", is absent". It seems that such a conclusion of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation follows from the content of the Federal Constitutional Law "On the Procedure for Admission to the Russian Federation and the Formation of a New Subject of the Russian Federation in its Structure," however neither the provisions of the law nor the conclusion of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation correspond to the principle of separation of powers, in accordance with which the powers to adopt, sign and ratify international treaties are delineated between the highest state authorities, and the fundamental ideas of the constitutional legal proceedings, organized as proceedings for the resolution and prevention of constitutional and legal conflicts on the basis of adversarial and equal rights of the parties.
So , the exercise of a number of powers by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, in accordance with the law, is not directly related to the constitutional and legal dispute. Such categories of cases include: resolution of the issue of the possibility of execution in the Russian Federation of the decision of the interstate body for the protection of human rights, verification of the constitutionality of the initiative to hold a referendum in the Russian Federation, establishing the fact of compliance with the procedure for accusing the Russian President of high treason or committing another serious crime, Establishment of the fact that the Constitution of the Russian Federation has not entered into force an international treaty on the admission of the Russian Federation into the Russian Federation the subject of the Russian Federation. The requirement stated in the court on these types of cases, according to scientists, is due to the need to establish or I confirm I have any facts relevant constitutional and legal significance of the I court "constituent and registration acts on the constitutional significance" [13, p . 263] with the purpose of judicial control over actions or decisions having constitutional and legal consequences. Unlike the types of industries aimed at resolving constitutional and legal disputes, there are no opposing parties to these categories of cases, the applicant , in accordance with the law, is not opposed by the "respondent".
Nevertheless, practice shows that any power of the constitutional court is predetermined by a conflict (explicit or implicit) that is conditioned by the appointment of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in the mechanism of separation of powers, its role in providing "checks and balances". The activity of the constitutional court is always aimed at establishing a balance between the branches of power in the state, protecting the rights and legitimate interests of citizens, as well as the constitutional bodies themselves [14, p. 405]". By its very existence, it performs an important deterrent, preventive function in the event of constitutional conflicts" , acting as a body of "compromise, reconciliation, as a guarantor of political peace and stability in society and the state, as a guardian of constitutional values, guarding the constitutional order" [15, p. 13]. This is why many scholars express an opinion about the connection of all or almost all powers of the Russian Constitutional Court with legal conflicts (disputes). For example, on the opinion of Yu.M. Berdyugina "interpretation of the Constitution affects the interests of various government bodies, often having opposing views on the issue of some understanding of constitutional provisions" [16, p. 80]. Accordingly, "in the interpretation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, a latent dispute is present between individuals and bodies that differently understand certain provisions of the Constitution" [17, p. 83]. The existence of a constitutional and legal conflict is substantiated in cases initiated by courts of general or arbitration jurisdiction. "When a court appeals to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation with a request for the constitutionality of the law, it itself becomes a party to constitutional legal proceedings, entering into a dispute with the other party -the legislator" [6, p. 50]. "The main feature of the court, acting as a subject within the framework of the request institute," writes V.I. Anishin, -is that he always stands on the positions of public legal interest in the constitutionalization of legislation, the protection of constitutional rights and freedoms of participants in certain legal relations from the action of unconstitutional norms " [18, p. 14]. In the opinion of S.A. Belov, "Mr. Alice dispute is necessary for any category of cases before the Court, although the nature of the dispute may be different" [19, p. 8].
It seems that solely due to the shortcomings in the legal regulation of the procedural features of the resolution of cases , the constitutional and legal conflict becomes, as it were, the "background" of the appeal to the court, without providing a party to the conflict with the opportunity to present and defend its position in court. It is obvious that when considering all categories of cases in the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, there are persons who are directly interested in the outcome of the case, conceived having a position opposite to the applicant on the issue before the court. In the case of a resolution of the issue of the possibility of execution of the international bodies for protection of human rights of such a party is physically st, entity, group of individuals, the benefit of which made "contested" decision intergovernmental body for the protection of human rights. In cases of verification of the constitutionality of the issue submitted for referendum, the initiator of the referendum, as well as the President of the Russian Federation, is an interested person if the request to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is sent by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. In cases concerning the interpretation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, it is a constitutional body or an official, differently than the applicant interpreting the provision of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Numerous examples from the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation confirm that an appeal to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation with a request for interpretation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation may be caused by a constitutional and legal conflict. For example, the case of the interpretation of Part 4 of Art. 111 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation was initiated because of the disagreements between the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation and the President of the Russian Federation regarding the understanding of the norms on the right of the President of the Russian Federation to again submit the candidacy of the Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation. The practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation shows that the uncertainty of understanding the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation as the basis for considering a case on the interpretation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation is most often caused by the existence of disagreements between public authorities and (or) officials "who understand the provisions of the Constitution differently and precisely so those who applied for explanations to the Constitutional Court " [20, p. 19].
Starting from the idea that competitiveness in constitutional litigation is a means of ensuring and protecting the interests of not only the citizens, organizations and public authorities, but also the Visitor 's interest in s [13, p. 377; 21, p. 102], it is necessary that s face with z ainteresovannost in resolving these types of cases, have the opportunity to present, justify and defend their position in court, along with the applicant.

Experience of foreign legal regulation of the status of parties and interested parties in constitutional legal proceedings.
Laws of foreign countries about the constitutional courts to better reflect the principle of competition by fixing the procedural status of the parties and other interested in the resolution of the constitutional-legal dispute , parties. As the most successful, we can distinguish two models used in foreign legislation.
The first is represented by those countries whose laws determine the features of legal proceedings in different categories of cases, not only the applicant entities are named, but also public authorities and officials (or other subjects of constitutional law) that are the defendants for each of the courts considered categories of cases. This model is reflected in the laws of the Republics of Armenia, Georgia, Mongolia, Poland, the Czech Republic and a number of other countries. For example, in the Law of the Republic of Armenia "On the Constitutional Court" defendants were even named in cases of challenging laws adopted at a referendum. In such cases as a party -the National Assembly is involved, and as a co-respondent the decision of the Constitutional Court may be called upon by the Government if it is presented with a proposal to submit this law to a referendum (Part 4, Article 68). As a respondent in disputes arising in connection with the results of a referendum or elections, a state body summing up the results of a referendum or elections (Part 1, Article 73, part 1, Article 74) is involved as the respondent party. The President of the Republic, who enjoys the established rights of the party to the proceedings and bears its duties (Part 3, Article 76), must be involved in the cases of giving a conclusion on the existence of grounds for the removal from office of the President of the Republic as a party to the proceedings. In cases of suspension or prohibition of the activities of a political party as a party to constitutional proceedings, the parties are involved in the rights and duties of the party (Part 2, Article 80).
For the second model, participation in the constitutional legal proceedings of such a subject as an interested (or third) person is characteristic. In this case, the person concerned may be a major, independent subject of the constitutional legal proceedings in cases , in which there is no defendant Procedure , and may be secondary, attracted along with the parties -the applicant or the defendant. Thus, for example, the Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan "On the Constitutional Court" identifies two types of proceedings in the Constitutional Court -constitutional litigation and special proceedings (Article 40.1) -and, accordingly, defines their participants. In the constitutional proceedings conducted in cases on the verification of the constitutionality of legal acts and disputes over competence (Article 40.2), the parties are persons, who addressed the request, and the defendants (Article 41.1). For special proceedings, for example, in such cases as checking and approving election results, removing the President from office, interpreting the Constitution, giving an opinion on amending the Constitution (Article 40.3), that is, cases not based on the Constitution legal disputes, the category of subjects interested in special constitutional proceedings is typical. Such are the bodies that submitted a request or appeal to the Constitutional Court, as well as bodies and persons whose interests are affected on the basis of such requests or appeals (Article 42.1).
The law of the Slovak Republic "On the organization of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, on the conduct of meetings of the Court and the status of its judges", in addition to the main, singles out minor aspects. They have the same rights and duties in the proceedings as the main parties to the proceedings ( § 21). The parties to the lawsuit on the constitutional claim are the plaintiff and the state or local government body against which the plaintiff is speaking (a constitutional claim may be submitted by a natural or legal person who claims that his fundamental rights and freedoms are violated by the final decision body or official of public authority). In this case, the Constitutional Court can assign the status of secondary parties to persons who show a legitimate interest in the outcome of the trial ( § 51). E If the application is lodged by the court in relation to its competent activities, minor parties of the trial are those parties who are involved in the case before the court, who has filed a petition; in the case of criminal proceedings, the person against whom the case is brought and the public prosecutor ( § 38). In disputes over jurisdiction, minor parties to litigation may be individuals and legal entities that have a legal interest in the outcome of the proceedings ( § 43).
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia knows such a subject as a third party. For example, when resolving disputes in connection with decisions taken on the basis of the results of the election of the President and deputies, those candidates or parties (party blocs) whose rights are affected or may be affected during the consideration of the case or the resolution adopted by it, decision of the Constitutional Court on the basis of their applications can be brought to justice as third parties. They enjoy all the rights of the parties and bear all of its responsibilities, except for those rights and obligations that do not in fact extend to third parties (Article 74 of the Law of the Republic of Armenia on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia).
The constitutional legislation of the Federal Republic of Germany and Spain, the practice of constitutional court proceedings in Italy, also knows such an entity as interested (third) persons in disputes between constitutional bodies (cited in [22, p. 53].

"Interested persons" v . "Invited persons": problems of Russian legislation
The Russian constitutional legislation does not know similar subjects, although, for example, the Regulations of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation provide for the possibility of notifying state bodies and other persons who are not participants in the process of accepting an appeal for consideration and hearing the case. They can be sent copies of appeals and other documents. Representatives of these bodies, persons whose complaints have been ordered by an intergovernmental body for the protection of human rights and freedoms or their representatives or representing them in an intergovernmental body for the protection of human rights and freedoms, persons or their representatives may be heard at a session of the Constitutional Court ( § 29 and 42). Article 77 of the Federal Constitutional Law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" provides for the possibility of sending a decision The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation "to other state bodies and organizations, public associations, officials and citizens", besides the parties. In our opinion, the drawbacks of such regulation are that: a) these persons are not listed in the law among participants in constitutional proceedings (Article 52) and, accordingly, their rights and obligations are not defined by law and are not analogous to rights and obligations parties; b) as a result, the possibility of their participation in the consideration of a case in the resolution of which they are interested does not depend on their will, but on the discretion of the court; c) the legislator does not distinguish between "invited" and "interested in resolving the case" persons.
It is worth noting also the fact that the category of "stakeholders" is known to all types of Russian legal proceedings, except for the constitutional one. Interested persons named s as persons involved in the cases resolved in the order of the administrative proceedings, which in its aims and objectives closest to the constitutional proceedings. In accordance with Art. 47 of the Code of Administrative Proceedings of the Russian Federation , an interested person is a person whose rights and duties may be affected in the resolution of an administrative matter. The interested parties have the right to enter into an administrative case on the side of an administrative plaintiff or an administrative defendant before the adoption of a judicial act, which ends consideration of an administrative case in a court of first instance, if this judicial act can affect their rights or obligations towards one of the parties . Interested persons may be brought to participate in the administrative matter also at the request of the persons participating in the case or on the initiative of the court. The interested parties enjoy procedural rights and bear the procedural obligations of one of the parties, with the exception of the right to change the basis or subject matter of an administrative claim, the waiver of an administrative claim, the recognition of an administrative claim or the conclusion of a reconciliation agreement, filing a counter administrative action.
A more consistent implementation of the adversarial principle in the constitutional litigation, reflecting the contentious nature of cases considered by the federal and regional constitutional courts, requires the introduction of the "interested person" category in the constitutional court procedure as a party to the constitutional litigation, whose interests are affected by the appeal filed with the court, and (or) directly interested in the outcome of the trial of the case. We believe in this connection that the category of stakeholders should be indicated in art. 52 of the Federal Law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" among participants in constitutional proceedings . It is advisable to introduce into the law also a separate article devoted to interested persons.
The following persons can act as interested persons: in cases of the possibility of executing a decision of an intergovernmental body for the protection of human rights and freedoms -persons whose complaints have been resolved by an intergovernmental body for the protection of human rights and freedoms; in cases on the verification of the constitutionality of the international treaty of the Russian Federation that did not enter into force on the admission of a new constituent entity of the Russian Federation to the Russian Federation -the State Duma and the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly as bodies participating in the ratification of the international treaty; in cases of verifying, at the request of the courts, the constitutionality of the laws to be applied in a particular case -a party to a criminal, civil or administrative case decided by the relevant court; in matters concerning the interpretation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, constitutional bodies and officials whose constitutional and legal status can be changed as a result of an official explanation of constitutional norms,on the complaints of which the decision of the interstate body for the protection of human rights was made, if the basis for considering the case on the interpretation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation was uncertainty about the possibility of enforcing the decision of the intergovernmental body for the protection of human rights and freedoms, based on the provisions of the relevant international treaty of the Russian Federation in the interpretation, leading to their disagreement with the Constitution of the Russian Federation; in cases on the verification of the constitutionality of the issue brought to the referendum of the Russian Federation -the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation, the President of the Russian Federation (if the request is filed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation); in cases of giving an opinion on the observance of the established procedure for nominating the President of the Russian Federation for treason or committing another serious crime -the State Duma of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the President of the Russian Federation.
The rights and duties of interested persons should be similar to the rights and obligations of the parties to constitutional proceedings. As a fundamental right, their ability to file an application for participation in a case in which the person concerned is interested is to be fixed. Similar rules can be fixed in the regional legislation regulating the status of constitutional (statutory) courts of RF subjects.

Conclusion.
Constitutional principle of competitiveness must be fully implemented in the constitutional proceedings on all types of cases, providing the participants of constitutional legal conflict the right to defend its opposite nye Institute Teresa. The solution to this problem is possible by the introduction of a judicial constitutional process stakeholders as participants, which will allow the best Protective tit constitutional rights and freedoms, public interests, and, ultimately, will contribute to the implementation of fair justice.