Passenger plane crashes in CubaWorld April 29, 22:49
US anti-missile systems in Eastern Europe violate INF Treaty - Russian foreign ministryRussian Politics & Diplomacy April 29, 20:35
Moscow police say 250 people take part in protest rallyWorld April 29, 16:29
Abe plans to continue dialogue with Putin to solve global issuesWorld April 29, 14:50
Moscow is ready to cooperate with Washington on Syria — LavrovRussian Politics & Diplomacy April 29, 12:24
Diplomat calls US’ allegations about isolation of Russia in UN 'strange'Russian Politics & Diplomacy April 28, 20:58
Experts slam 'Russian hacking' hype as 'fake news' to feed US media's ratingsRussian Politics & Diplomacy April 28, 20:35
Ferrari drivers clock best time in Practice Two of Russia F1 GP in SochiSport April 28, 19:54
Red Bull’s advisor Marko says Kvyat to possibly remain with Toro Rosso next yearSport April 28, 19:16
MOSCOW, August 22. /ITAR-TASS/. Communist members of the State Duma plan to submit a draft law to the lower house in autumn to denounce the protocol on Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), the head of the Communist Party's legal service and deputy head of the Duma Committee for Constitutional Legislation, Vadim Solovyov told ITAR-TASs on Friday.
Communists always opposed Russia's accession to the WTO, saying "nothing but a headache would come from the organization". "In fact, it is a noose around Russia's neck and an attempt to control our country from outside," Solovyov said. In response to the sanctions imposed against Russia, the agreement should be urgently denounced, the lawmaker said.
Communist members of the parliament will submit the draft law during the next autumn session and will insist on consideration of the bill as soon as possible, he added.
Russia joined the WTO in August 2012. Before the consideration of the ratification of the protocol on Russia's accession to the Marrakesh agreement, members of the Communist Party and A Just Russia party requested the Constitutional Court to check whether the document corresponded to the Constitution, but the court rejected their arguments.