The principle of proportionality of constitutional responsibility of elected officials: theory, foreign experience and problems of Russian law enforcement

The subject of the research is the principle of proportionality as an intersectoral principle of legal responsibility. It has a constitutional nature and guarantees fairness in resolving the cases of constitutional responsibility. This principle provides individualization of constitutional-legal sanction and its proportionality to the constitutional tort, circumstances, reasons, conditions and consequences of its commission. The purpose of the article is to confirm or dispute the hypothesis that the principle of proportionality should be taken into account both in the description of the constitutional torts of elected officials in the legislation, and in the application of the rules on constitutional responsibility Methodology. The method of legal comparison is the main method of the research. The authors carry out the comparative analysis of practice of the foreign constitutional courts, the European Court of Human Rights concerning the subject of research. Traditional methods of legal academic knowledge – the analysis, synthesis, deduction, induction and a formal legal interpretation – were used also. The main results of the research and the scope of their application. The authors research the theoretical foundations, foreign experience, problems of applying the principle of proportionality in the process of implementing the constitutional-legal responsibility of elected officials in order to formulate the proposals for improving the Russian legislation and the law enforcement practice. The principle of proportionality of constitutional responsibility should be reflected in the legislation and implemented in the law enforcement practice. The measures of constitutional liability to elected officials can be based not on any, but only on a serious, gross violation of the Constitution and laws, indicating the guilty conduct. Such constitutionally punishable conduct should cause damage to the protected constitutional values or pose a threat of such damage and therefore be incompatible with the further exercise of the public legal duties and powers. Conclusions. The composition of constitutional torts should be formulated with a certain degree of abstraction in such way that conditions are created for the enforcer to take into account the repetition, systematic, duration, severity or insignificance of the committed tort and the other factors that can individualize the constitutional responsibility. Judicial and the other enforcement bodies should enforce early termination of the powers of an official as an exceptional, extreme measure of constitutional responsibility based on the principle of proportionality. The nature and severity of the constitutional offence committed, the causes, conditions and consequences thereof, the degree of guilt of the offender, consequences of the sanction for the further exercise by the person of his constitutional rights and freedoms in the political and legal sphere and the other important circumstances must be considered in case of early termination of the powers of an official. The law enforcement body should assess each time whether such measure is proportionate to the constitutional offence committed, and whether it was strictly necessary to protect the constitutional values.

1. Sweet A.S., Mathews J. Proportionality Balancing and Global Constitutionalism. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, vol. 47, 2008, pp. 72-164.

2. Weinrib L. The Postwar Paradigm and American Exceptionalism, in: Choudhry S. (ed.). Legal Studies Research Paper No. 899131. The Migration of Constitutional Ideals. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006, pp. 83-113. URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=899131

3. Beatty D.M. The Ultimate Rule of Law. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2004, 193 pp. + xvii.

4. Tsakyrakis S. Proportionality: An Assault on Human Rights? International Journal of Constitutional Law, 2009, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 468–493. DOI: 10.1093/icon/mop011.

5. Panomariovas A., Losis E. Proportionality: From the Concept to the Procedure. Jurisprudence, 2010, vol. 2 (120), pp. 257-272.

6. Dolzhikov A.V. The Constitutional Principle of Proportionality: an Interdisciplinary Approach. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Yuridicheskie nauki = Perm University Herald. Juridical sciences, 2020, vol. 47, pp. 6–27. DOI: 10.17072/1995-4190-2020-47-6-27. (In Russ.).

7. Dolzhikov A.V. The Effect of the Proportionality Principle in the Field of Constitutional Institutional Law. Vestnik Povolzhskogo instituta upravleniya, 2018, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 29-36. DOI 10.22394/1682-2358-2018-5-29-36. (In Russ.).

8. Gadzhiev G. A. The Constitutional Principles of Market Economy (Development of Civil Law Principles in Decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation). Moscow, Yurist Publ., 2004. 286 p. (In Russ.).

9. Dzhagaryan A.A. The Principle of Proportionality as the Basis for Dividing Regulatory Powers Between Levels of Government in the Field of Local Self-government (Based on the Practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation). Munitsipal'naya sluzhba: pravovye voprosy, 2013, no. 1, pp. 7-9 (In Russ.).

10. Kravets I.A. Balancing, the Principle of Proportionality and Protection of the Dignity of the Individual in Russian Constitutionalism. Nauchnye trudy. Rossijskaya akademiya yuridicheskih nauk, 2019, no. 19, pp. 221-227 (In Russ.).

11. Shlik B. Proportionality: to the Problem of Balance of Fundamental Rights and Social Goals. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie=Comparative constitutional review, 2012, no. 2, pp. 56-76 (In Russ.).

12. Bazhanov A.A. Proportionality as a Principle of Law. Cand. Diss. Moscow, 2019. 193 p. (In Russ.).

13. Bazhanov A.A. Proportionality as a Condition of Sanction’s Justice. Vestnik RUDN. Seriya Yuridicheskie nauki = RUDN Journal of Law, 2017, vol. 21, no 4, pp. 486-507. DOI: 10.22363/2313-2337-2017-21-4-486-507 (In Russ.).

14. Degtyarev S.L. The Operation of Justice and Liability Adequacy Principles in Damage Recovery. Arbitrazhnyi i grazhdanskii protsess = Arbitrazh and civil procedure, 2018, no. 12, pp. 56-57. (In Russ.).

15. Mikulin A.I. Purpose of Administrative Punishment: Principle of Harmony. Kazanskaya nauka, 2014, no. 11, pp. 193-195. (In Russ.).

16. Nudnenko P.V. The Principles of Justice and Equality in the Area of Administrative Responsibility. Izvestiya Saratovskogo universiteta. Novaya seriya. Seriya: Ekonomika. Upravlenie. Pravo = Izvestiya of Saratov University. New Series. Series: Economics. Mamnagement. Law, 2014, vol. 4, no. 1, part 1, pp. 105-110 (In Russ.).

17. Vitruk N.V. General Theory of Legal Responsibility. Moscow, Norma Publ., INFRA-M Publ., 2020. 432 p. (In Russ.).

18. Lipinsky D.A., Musatkina A.A. Legal Responsibility, Sanctions and Protective Measures. Moscow, RIOR Publ., INFRA-M Publ., 2019. 139 p. (In Russ.).

19. Lipinsky D.A. On the Question of the Principle of Individualization of Legal Responsibility. Rossiiskaya yustitsiya = Russian Justitia, 2019, no. 9, pp. 51-54. (In Russ.).

20. Ivanov A.A. Grounds and Criteria for Individualization of Legal Responsibility. Sovremennoe pravo, 2008, no. 4, pp. 60-63. (In Russ.).

21. Lipinsky D.A., Musatkina A.A. Сriteria of Legal Responsibility Individualization. Yuridicheskaya nauka i praktika: Vestnik Nizhegorodskoi akademii MVD Rossii, 2017, no. 3, pp. 17-22. (In Russ.).

22. Churakov A.N. Principles of Legal Responsibility. Cand. Diss. Thesis. Volgograd, 2000, 19 p. (In Russ.).

23. Kutafin O.E. Selected Works. Volume 1. The Subject of Constitutional Law. Moscow, Prospekt Publ., 2011, 448 p. (In Russ.).

24. Kondrashev A.A. The Constitutional-Legal Responsibility in the Russian Federation: theory and practice. Moscow, Yurist Publ., 2006. 345 p. (In Russ.).

25. Trofimova G.A. Notion of Constitution Legal Responsibility as a Branch Type of Legal Responsibility. Konstitutsionnoe i munitsipal'noe pravo=Constitutional and municipal law, 2016, no. 7, pp. 3-8 (In Russ.).

26. Nikitina A.V. Constitutional-Legal Disputes. Moscow, Norma Publ., INFRA-M Publ., 2018. 320 p. (In Russ.).

27. Nikitina A.V. The Impeachment of the President: Constitutional Legislation and the Jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Korea. Konstitutsionnoe i munitsipal'noe pravo=Constitutional and municipal law, 2017, no. 11, pp. 77-80 (In Russ.).

28. Cho Yongho. Constitutional Justice as a Guarantee of Ensuring the Supremacy of Constitutional Norms – Focusing on the Korean Experience. Konstitutsionnoe pravosudie: Vestnik Konferentsii organov konstitutsionnogo kontrolya stran novoy demokratii, 2015, no. 3, pp. 98-102.

29. Birmontienė T. The Constitutional Concept of Impeachment: the Role of the Constitutional Court. Konstitucionnoe pravosudie: Vestnik Konferencii organov konstitucionnogo kontrolya stran novoj demokratii, 2013, no. 4, pp. 71-96.

30. Shugrina E. S. Why Does the Mechanism for Removing Heads of Municipalities from Office Lead to Significant Violations of Local Government Rights. Gosudarstvennaya vlast' i mestnoe samoupravlenie = State power and local self-government, 2011, no. 5, pp. 7-14. (In Russ.).