Monitoring of the Federal Legislation dated 20.06.2006

Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 7-P of June 16, 2006 on the Case of Constitutionality of a Number of Provisions of Articles 48, 51, 52, 54, 58 and 59 of the Federal Law on the Main Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in the Referendum of the Citizens of the Russian Federation Pursuant to the Request of the State Duma of the Astrakhan Province

Challenges the constitutionality of provisions of the Federal Law on the main guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in the referendum of the citizens of the Russian Federation where they do not permit pre-election agitation in favour or against the candidate by citizens not being candidates, their representatives, representatives of the election association using the methods requiring financial expenses other than those of the election funds. According to the applicant, such legal regulation restricts excessively the freedom of thinking and speech and the right of citizens to disseminate information in any legal way.

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation explained that the federal legislator, while resolving the legal conflict of the right for free elections on the one hand and the freedom of speech and opinions on the other, must observe the balance of the mentioned values. The citizens of the Russian Federation, while possessing both the active and the passive electoral right, may not be regarded only as an object of disseminated information. Excluding opportunities of pre-election agitation for citizens or an absence of appropriate legislative guarantees of its implementation would imply actually a deprival of the right to really influence the election process that, in this case, would be restricted to voting only. Thus, the demand to citizens for pre-election agitation at the expense of election funds only is a restriction of the forms and methods of the pre-election agitation for these subjects of the election process aimed at ensuring equality of candidates and protection of rights and freedoms of othe r persons including the electorate. Moreover, a prohibition for the citizens of an independent, i.e. in addition to the election funds, financing of the pre-election agitation is stipulated also by the need to ensure transparency of financing of the election as a prerequisite of equality of candidates and free forming of the opinion of the electorate.

The court recognised as constitutional the challenged norms of the Law prohibiting pre-election agitation in favour or against the candidate for the citizens at the expense of own resources. Agitation against all candidates that was earlier permitted by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation does not form the subject matter of this case.

Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 6-P of June 15, 2006 on the Case of Constitutionality of Provisions of Subitem 1 of Item 2 of Article 2 of the Federal Law on the Entry into Force of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation and Part 1 of Article 4 of the Law of the Russian Federation on the Privatisation of the Dwelling Fund of the Russian Federation (in the Wording of Article 12 of the Federal Law on the Entry into Force of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation) Pursuant to the Request of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Appeal of Citizens M.S.Orlov, K.F.Orlov and Z.K.Orlova

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation recognised as unconstitutional the norm of the Federal Law on the entry into force of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation prohibiting a free privatisation of flats for those from the waiting list having received social dwelling space after March 1, 2005. The Decision was stipulated by the appeal of citizens who could not privatise the flat proceeding from the challenged provision of the law.

The federal legislator having introduced the prohibition for the privatisation of the dwelling space received under the social lease contract after March 1, 2005 actually put the appropriate category of citizens in an unequal position as compared to those having received the dwelling space before the mentioned date. Meanwhile, the difference in the terms of the social lease contract before and after this date is of formal nature, which may not serve as a basis for differentiation of the legal regulation of the mentioned relations. Thus, such a prohibition pertaining to the limits of the general period of the norms on free privatisation is in contradiction of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and violates equality of rights of citizens.

At the same time, legislative regulation implying termination of the process of free privatisation at a certain stage is in compliance with the goals of the social state, since it is aimed at preservation of the part of the dwelling fund in the state and municipal property, permitting to use it to fulfil social functions in the sphere of housing relations.

Federal Law No. 88-FZ of June 15, 2006 on the Amendments to Article 26 of the Federal Law on the Agency Guard Services

Introduced amendments extend the jurisdiction of the Federal Law on the agency guard services to paramilitary and guard divisions subordinate to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, in particular, the federal state unitary enterprise Okhrana subordinate to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia.

The given Law attaches the legal status of employees of paramilitary and guard divisions to employees of the federal state unitary enterprise Okhrana, empowering them with the right to carry firearms permitting these divisions to fulfil their duties to guard the objects, as well as the property of natural persons and legal entities.

Decision of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 378 of June 16, 2006 on the Endorsement of the List of Heavy Chronic Diseases Preventing Flat Sharing for Citizens

Presence of a patient suffering a heavy form of chronic disease in a family, making it impossible to live with him in a single flat, is one of the reasons to recognise the citizens as needing dwelling space provided under social lease contracts. The list includes 11 forms of chronic diseases with the codes of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (tenth revision).

Letter of the Federal Tax Service No. MM-6-21/607 of June 19, 2006 on the Calculation of the Tax Rate for the Tax on Extraction of Mineral Resources for May 2006

Provides information used in compliance with the Federal Law No. 126-FZ of August 8, 2001 for the calculation of the tax on extraction of mineral resources for oil for May 2006.

With the average level of prices for the Urals oil of USD 64.33 per barrel and the average US dollar rate to the rouble of 27.0579, the coefficient characterising the dynamics of world prices for oil (Kc) is determined as 5.7361. Taking into account the given coefficient, the tax rate is reduced as compared to the previous tax period by more than Rbl 82 to make Rbl 2403.4259 per ton (information used for the calculation of the tax on extraction of mineral resources for April 2006 is provided in the Letter of the Federal Tax Service of Russia No. MM-6-21/498 of May 16, 2006).

Letter of the Federal Service for Financial Markets No. 06-OV-02-3/8946 of June 15, 2006 on the Procedure for Writing off from Custody Accounts of Securities of Liquidated Issuers

Explains the procedure of writing off by professional participants of the securities market engaged in depositary activities of securities of liquidated issuers from custody accounts.

The depository may write off from custody accounts securities of the liquidated issuer according to the procedure defined in the terms of depositary activities after confirmation of information of the liquidation of the issuer legal entity by the body of executive power in charge of the keeping of the Joint State Register of Legal Entities.