Case record
Country
Russia
Court
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation
Year
2015
Areas of Law
Constitutional law, International law, Conflict of norms
Citation
Decision on the Priority of the Russian Constitution over International Human Rights Rulings, Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (2015)
Judgment No. 21-P (2015) established the constitutional mechanism allowing Russia to block the execution of international court judgments—specifically European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rulings—if they conflict with the fundamental provisions of the Russian Constitution.
Following ECtHR rulings against Russia (such as Anchugov and Gladkov regarding prisoner voting rights and the Yukos $2 Billion compensation judgment), State Duma deputies petitioned the Constitutional Court. They requested a binding determination on whether (4) of the Russian Constitution required automatic execution of international judicial decisions even when contradicting domestic constitutional guarantees.
National constitutional supremacy vs. international judgments
ECtHR judgments in Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia and OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia, text of (4) and Article 79 of the Russian Constitution, and Federal Constitutional Law petitions.
Petitioners argued that international court judgments cannot override sovereign domestic constitutional norms. Human rights advocates argued that (4) establishes international treaties as an integral part of the Russian legal system, requiring mandatory execution of ECtHR judgments.
The Constitutional Court ruled that international judicial decisions are non-executable in Russia if they contradict the supreme provisions of the Russian Constitution.
The Court held that national constitutional sovereignty is paramount. While international treaties form part of the legal system, international judicial tribunals cannot compel Russia to alter its core constitutional structure. If an ECtHR ruling conflicts with explicit constitutional provisions, the Constitutional Court holds exclusive authority to declare the judgment impossible to execute.
Led to amendments to the Federal Constitutional Law on the Constitutional Court, establishing a formal judicial procedure to refuse enforcement of unconstitutional international decisions.
Led to amendments to the Federal Constitutional Law on the Constitutional Court, establishing a formal judicial procedure to refuse enforcement of unconstitutional international decisions.
Beyond borders
Russia · ** United States **
** Can international court rulings override the Constitution? ###
Russia and the United States both have constitutional courts that have faced questions of international law supremacy, but they approach it very differently. The 2015 Russian decision established constitutional supremacy over international rulings, while the U.S. has strong constitutional supremacy traditions. ###
** U.S. has strong constitutional supremacy traditions. **Why preferable to others:** UK, France, China, and India have different traditions. **
Both legal orders confronted one question: how to reconcile international law with national sovereignty. In Russia, the Constitutional Court had to decide whether ECtHR rulings could override the Constitution. In the U.S., courts have addressed similar issues. ###
| Topic | Russia | USA |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Issue | Can international rulings override the Constitution? | Can international law override the Constitution? |
| Constitutional Basis | Articles 15(4), 79; Constitutional supremacy | Supremacy Clause; Article VI |
| Leading Case | Constitutional Court Ruling No. 21-P (2015) | Reid v. Covert (1957) |
| Court's Reasoning | Constitution is supreme; international rulings cannot conflict | Constitution is supreme over treaties |
| Outcome | Blocked execution of conflicting international judgments | Established constitutional supremacy |
Both systems recognize that the national constitution is supreme, and both courts have issued landmark rulings to define this relationship. In both countries, the judiciary has played a key role in advancing constitutional law. ###
The paths diverge in approach. In Russia, the 2015 decision held that international judicial rulings (like ECtHR judgments) cannot be executed if they conflict with the Russian Constitution, creating a formal mechanism to block international judgments. The Russian approach is sovereignty-focused and defensive. In the U.S., by contrast, Reid v. Covert held that the Constitution is supreme over treaties, but international law is generally respected. The U.S. approach is more balanced and internationally engaged. The result is a more defensive approach in Russia and a more engaged one in the U.S. ###
The practical lesson is that sovereignty is not just about power—it is about engagement. In Russia, the defensive approach limits international cooperation. In the U.S., the engaged approach provides flexibility. For citizens, both systems provide constitutional supremacy. ###
The 2015 Russian decision and Reid v. Covert both gave judges the power to define supremacy, but they approached the problem differently. One is defensive; the other engaged. Together, they show that sovereignty is not just about independence—it is about relationship. ***
Ask the editorial team to read this judgment against another legal system.
The circle
One thread for this judgment. Replies stay with the case, so the discussion reads as a single conversation rather than a feed.
Community guidelines
Judgment poll