...
One particularity of competences of the Russian president is, as mentioned above, his original power to issue decrees ("ukas", Article 90). The ukas is a normative legal act and has binding force and is directly applicable (there are ukasy without any normative force, too, e.g. appointments). It shall not contradict the Constitution and federal laws. The legislative power of the president is not confined to any specific subject matter. The only constraint could be the general idea of separation of powers (the Constitutional Courthas Court has stated that for the cases, where the Constitution does not elaborate on the execution of acts by the president). An ukas can be modified or withdrawn only by the president. And only the Constitutional Courtcan Court can challenge its legal force.
...
In its decisions Nr. 11-P from 30.4.1996 and Nr. 7-P from 30.4.2007 the Constitutional Courtdecided Court decided that the president can even issue ukas to fill a regulatory gap on the area where the parliament is obliged to act, provided the ukas is temporarily limited and does not contradict the Constitution or federal laws. The president derives this power from his position as the guardian of the Constitution and his competence to "ensure coordinated functioning and interaction of all the bodies with state power" (Art. 80, para. 2).
...
Interestingly, the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court and the Higher Arbitrazh Courthave Court have the power to initiate legislation "on issues in their field of competence" (Art. 104, para. 1).
...
Uncommon is the general competence of the public prosecution (so called "general supervision power", prokurorskii nadsor, a heritage form soviet system) to prove the compliance e.g. of state executive organs or commercial or non-commercial organisations with human rights and freedoms "in order to assure the rule of law". Furthermore a prosecutor may institute or enter in civil proceedings on behalf of another. Having instituted or entered a proceeding, the prosecutor is not bound by the interests of the person whose rights or freedoms have been violated. That provision is seen as a constraint upon the liberal state.
The Constitutional Courthas Court has jurisdiction over the compatibility of federal laws, normative acts of the president, both houses of the parliament and the government, as well as constitutions, laws and other normative acts of the subjects of the Russian Federation with the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
In the case of individual complaints the competence of the Constitutional Courtis Court is restricted to the review of the constitutionality of the laws (lex). This limits considerably the scope of constitutional review of administrative actions.
One of the problems is the implementation of the decisions and the application of interpretation given by the Constitutional Court to legal norms by the other constitutional institutions. According to an interpellation of the State Duma in 2005, for the period 1997-2005 ten decisions and one ruling of the Constitutional Courtwere Court were not executed by the Executive branch. The latter is obliged to propose law amendments according to the judgments of the former within tree months.
As another problem can be stressed the lack of strong authority of the Constitutional Court. Its authority is seen as compromised after the 1993 events when it "interfered" in the conflict between the president and the Soviet and was finally dissolved by Yeltsin. The Constitutional Courtadopts Court adopts itself self-restriction. It interprets the Constitution largely in favour of the "state power" (e.g. its decisions on Chechnya where it accorded to the president competences not provided by the Constitution or the decision on the abolition of direct elections of regional leaders).
There is a kind of controversy between the Constitutional Court on one side and the Supreme Court and the Higher Arbitrazh Court on the other: the Constitutional Courtgives Court gives an interpretation to a certain legal norm - the other courts shall follow that interpretation. But they have an argument against that: the interpretation cannot be mandatory since it is not a law and the principle of supremacy of law does not apply.
The decision of 11.11.2008 (N 556 O-R) illustrates this issue: in an earlier ruling the Constitutional Court had given in the light of the Constitution the only possible interpretation to a provision of a law. But in the following retrial in that case the Supreme Court stated, that the interpretation of the Constitutional Courtdoes Court does address only the Legislator and refused to review the case in the light of the decision of the Constitutional Court. In the new decision the Constitutional Court reiterates the binding nature of its decisions.
...
