On July 4, 2020, 206 amendments were introduced to the Constitution of the Russian Federation. These amendments affected sections 3-8 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which include the federal structure, the President, the Federal Assembly, the Government, the judiciary and the public prosecutor’s office, and local self-government.

The changes were made by the Russian Law “On the Amendment to the Constitution of the Russian Federation” of March 14, 2020, No. 1-FKZ, and covered a wide range of issues (defining the concept of marriage, establishing a new state body – the State Council, clarifying the powers of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, and much more). Consequently, this law was composed in violation of the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Federal Law of March 4, 1998, N 33-FZ “On the Procedure for Adopting and Entering into Force Amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation,” according to which “a single law of the Russian Federation on the amendment to the Constitution of the Russian Federation covers interrelated changes to the constitutional text.”

Many experts believe that the primary goal of the amendments was to legitimize Vladimir Putin’s occupation of the post of President of the Russian Federation after the end of his second consecutive presidential term. The norm of Article 81 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which was in effect until 2020, prohibited occupying the post of President of the Russian Federation for more than two consecutive terms. Moreover, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation’s Ruling of November 5, 1998, No. 134-O stated that two consecutive terms constitute the constitutional limit, which the Constitution of the Russian Federation does not allow to be exceeded.

Paragraph 4 of Article 3 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation establishes that no one can usurp power in the Russian Federation.

The seizure of power or appropriation of governmental powers is prosecuted under federal law. In this regard, a complex mechanism of “resetting presidential terms” was developed:

1. The Law “On the Amendment to the Constitution of the Russian Federation” of March 14, 2020, No. 1-FKZ was adopted, which maintained the constitutional limit of two presidential terms in the Constitution of the Russian Federation and simultaneously contained transitional provisions not to take into account the previous terms.
2. To additionally legitimize this law, a conclusion from the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation was obtained about the compliance of the introduced changes with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and an all-Russian vote on the adoption of this law was conducted.

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation’s Conclusion of March 16, 2020, No. 1-3 recognized the law as compliant with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, stating that the amendments allegedly aim to “strengthen the guarantees of the periodic changeability of the President.”

Notably, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation did not specify that it concerned Vladimir Putin, who had been in power for 18 years at the time of issuing the Conclusion. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation also concluded that such a “reset” is a guarantee of implementing the constitutional-legal characteristics of the state as a democratic, lawful, having a republican form of government, accompanied by other institutional guarantees, including developed parliamentarism, real multi-party system, the presence of political competition, an effective model of separation of powers, equipped with a system of checks and balances, and the protection of rights and freedoms by an independent judiciary, including the activities of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.

Obviously, the listed institutional guarantees do not function in Russia. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation also indicated that the all-Russian vote gives additional constitutional legitimacy to these amendments. It should be noted that the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation did not assess the absence of a legislatively established form of “all-Russian voting”. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation did not forget to mention that it is incorrect to speak of a prohibition of usurpation of power in the Russian Federation (Article 3, Part 4, of the Constitution of the Russian Federation) when a person is elected, repeatedly and consecutively, on the basis of universal equal and direct suffrage by secret ballot.

After receiving the conclusion of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the so-called “all-Russian vote” was held.

According to Article 3, Part 3, of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the highest direct expression of the power of the people is a referendum and free elections. Other forms of all-Russian voting are not provided for by current legislation. Despite this, the “all-Russian vote” was conducted outside the framework of the Federal Constitutional Law No. 5-FKZ “On the Referendum of the Russian Federation,” in particular:

• There were no grounds for holding a referendum,
• Agitation and its financing were not regulated, transparency of financing of the campaign was not ensured;
• Observation was limited, all observers were appointed only by the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation;
• Early voting not used in Russia in federal elections (except for remote and hard-to-reach areas) and once-tested electronic voting were involved;
• There was no special regulation for appealing violations during the voting;
• The results of the vote raised doubts among experts, politicians, and the media.

Thus, the amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, introduced by the Law of the Russian Federation of March 14, 2020, No. 1-FKZ are illegal, since:

• The Law “On the Amendment to the Constitution of the Russian Federation” of March 14, 2020, No. 1-FKZ contains 206 changes to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which are not interrelated, which is a violation – a single law on the amendment to the Constitution of the Russian Federation can cover only interrelated changes to the constitutional text;
• Resetting the presidential term can be recognized as legitimate if the existing institutional guarantees in Russia support the regime of a democratic, lawful state having a republican form of government. Meanwhile, such institutional guarantees do not operate in Russia: absence of democracy, dictatorship, absence of real multi-party system, absence of fair elections, absence of political competition, absence of a system of separation of powers, absence of independence of judges, etc.;
• The amendments introduced to the Constitution of the Russian Federation are aimed at usurping power (prohibited by paragraph 4 of Article 3 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation), as their main goal is to enable Vladimir Putin to remain at the head of the state for another 12 years after a 20-year term in power;
• The conducted “all-Russian vote” in support of the amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation is an illegal form of popular will and cannot be taken into account due to numerous violations during the organization and conduct of such voting.

Additionally, it should be noted that the mechanism for amending Article 81 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation allows for future changes to the provisions of this article in such a way as to again alter the approach to calculating the constitutional limit.

Olga Chlesser, Russie-Libertés