Deputies are trying through the Authorized court to challenge the powers of the government of St. Petersburg

the Deputies of Petersburg have addressed to the Authorized court to examine specific provisions of the municipal regulations, introduced during a pandemic. MPs believe that the amendments to the law “On protection of population and territories from emergency situations of natural and technogenic character in Saint-Petersburg”, granting the city government the right to establish obligatory for execution by citizens of rules of conduct, contain some uncertainty.

the authors of the appeal stressed that the term “rules of conduct” in no way enshrined in law, and therefore not clear the extent to which the city government may impose restrictions and prohibitions during the period of high alert.

“Inaccuracy in the wording of the law allows the government of St. Petersburg to intervene in the competence of other bodies and other branches of government. For example, under the provisions of the act government have imposed a ban on business activities for a number of organizations”, — said the Deputy Maxim Reznik, who posted on his page at the Internet address.

Parliamentarians are interested in is whether this government intervention in matters which are within the competence of other bodies of the regional and Federal level.

“May “rules of conduct”, the establishment of which in the period of high alert is delegated to the government of St. Petersburg, expressed in the form of these prohibitions on the conduct of economic activities and the laying on citizens ‘ obligations, e.g. on the use of PPE in public areas? The Constitution provides that restrictions on rights and freedoms of the individual are allowed only on the basis of the Federal law. It is obvious that even a temporary ban on the exercise of economic activities constitutes a serious restriction of the constitutional rights of citizens” — authors of the letter.

Also the questions of deputiestov calls masono-glove mode. According to them, the normative act does not specifics — there’s the term “personal protection”.

“it is not clear whether citizens are obliged to wear medical masks, Maxi and gloves, and whether a violation of the no mask in the presence of the glove, and Vice versa, a violation of” — asked the people’s representatives.

According to the parliamentarians, the uncertainty of the wording could lead to arbitrary interpretations and violation of the rights of citizens.

the appeal to the Authorized court, signed by five deputies of St. Petersburg legislative Assembly.

Earlier for an explanation about imposed in the city mask mode applied by the police.

in addition, the resident tried in court to challenge the requirement to wear personal protective equipment. However, the court refused applicant.

Stories about how you tried to get help from the Russian state in terms of coronaries and what came of it, email it to