Skip to content
Yalanzhi & PartnersCriminal defence in Russia

Constitutional Court

When the problem is not the judge but the statute

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation does not review whether a conviction was correct. It reviews whether the legal provision applied in the case is compatible with the Constitution. That distinction is the whole of this remedy, and misunderstanding it is why most such complaints are refused as inadmissible.

  • Assessment of whether the case raises a constitutional question at all
  • Verification that domestic remedies are exhausted and the one-year window is open
  • A complaint drafted against the provision, not against the verdict
  • Argument grounded in the Court's own legal positions
  • Application to review the case where the Court rules in your favour

What the Court can and cannot do

The Constitutional Court examines the constitutionality of a legal provision as applied in a specific case. It can declare the provision unconstitutional, or — far more commonly — declare it constitutional only when understood in a particular way, which is a form of binding reinterpretation. It cannot re-examine the evidence, reduce a sentence, or acquit anybody.

Where the Court rules in favour of the applicant, the practical consequence is that the applicant's case is subject to review by the ordinary courts. That is the mechanism by which a constitutional ruling turns into a changed sentence — indirectly, and through a further application.

Not an appeal. A challenge to the law itself — available only after every other remedy has been used, and only within one year.

Admissibility: the two conditions that matter

Since the constitutional amendments of 2020 and the corresponding changes to the Federal Constitutional Law on the Constitutional Court, an individual complaint is admissible only if:

  • All other domestic remedies have been exhausted. In a criminal case that means the appeal and cassation routes have been used, not merely available. This is stricter than the rule that applied before 2020, and it catches a great many complaints.
  • The complaint is filed within one year of the decision of the court of last instance in which the contested provision was applied.

Both are checked before anything else. A complaint that fails either is refused without reaching the merits, and the fee and the effort are lost.

What a constitutional question looks like in a criminal case

Realistic examples from the criminal field: a provision that defines an offence in terms so vague that a person cannot foresee what conduct is punishable, which engages the principle of legal certainty; a rule that treats materially different situations identically, or identical situations differently, without justification; a procedural provision that removes an effective opportunity to defend oneself; a sanction so disproportionate to the conduct that it cannot be reconciled with Articles 19 and 55 of the Constitution.

What is not a constitutional question: that the court believed the wrong witness, that the sentence was harsh, that the investigation was biased. Those are complaints about application, and the Court will say so.

A realistic word about prospects

The Constitutional Court receives a very large number of individual complaints and admits a small fraction for full examination. Most are disposed of by a reasoned refusal. We take on constitutional complaints where we can identify an actual defect in the provision, and we decline where the case is really an appeal in different clothing.

There is a secondary value worth knowing about: a reasoned refusal from the Constitutional Court frequently contains a statement of how the provision must be understood. That statement is itself usable in the ordinary courts. It is not the outcome anyone wants, but it is not always nothing.

Frequently asked

Can a foreign national file a complaint?

Yes. The right to apply to the Constitutional Court is not limited to Russian citizens; it belongs to anyone whose constitutional rights have been affected by the application of a law in their case.

Do we have to have gone all the way to the Supreme Court first?

You have to have exhausted the remedies that were available to you. In practice for a criminal conviction that means appeal and cassation. Whether a particular unused step counts as an available remedy is a question we assess on the file — it is the most common reason these complaints are rejected.

How long does it take?

Preliminary consideration takes months. A complaint admitted to full examination can take a year or more. This is not a route for anyone who needs a result quickly.

If the Court rules in our favour, is the conviction quashed?

Not automatically. The ruling gives grounds for the case to be reviewed by the ordinary courts, and that review is a separate application which we would then make.

See also

Related services

Challenging a verdict

A conviction is not the end of the case. There are four further stages, and each has its own rules and its own deadline.

Appeal: 15 days from the verdict. Continuous cassation: 6 months from the verdict entering into force. Both deadlines are strict.

Appeal

15 days from the verdict. The only stage after trial where the facts themselves can still be re-examined.

15 days from the verdict — or from service of the verdict, if the defendant is in custody. Filed through the trial court.

Cassation

After the verdict enters into force. Not a rehearing — a search for breaches of law serious enough to have changed the outcome.

Six months from the verdict entering into force for continuous cassation. After that, only the discretionary route remains.

Supreme Court

The final judicial instance. Reached after the regional cassation court, and reached by very few cases.

No absolute deadline, but only after the regional cassation court has ruled — and the sooner the better.