On October 12, 2011, the media reported that the Tverskoi court of the city of Moscow, via a ruling dated October 11 of this year, refused to accept a statement of claim, which I had filed on October 4, in defense of the honor, dignity, and business reputation of Andrey Borodin. It was reported, citing the court’s press secretary, that “in his application, Mr. Borodin has lodged a complaint against actions taken by the investigators, something for which a different procedure is provided for by the law. The Court has explained that the applicant may lodge a complaint against the investigators’ actions following the procedure set forth in Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure”.
The reason and basis for filing a claim with the court was a public information notice posted at the official website of the Interior Ministry of Russia on September 29 of this year and alleging that new charges were brought against A. Borodin on that day. The statement of claim provided proof that no such fact had taken place on September 29 and, therefore, such information was not true. Thus, rather than appealing any actions taken by an investigator or the contents of a service document, the claim argued as to the unreliability of information about the very fact that such an investigative action had taken place, not the same thing, by any stretch. The claim filed is fully compliant with the requirements of the law. The Defense has proof that there were no plans to bring new charges on September 29. It transpired after the claim was filed that this particular investigative action was scheduled for a later date. Incidentally, I had not been informed of that in due time.
It is my hope that I am well familiar with how to appeal against any actions. It is not the first time that I am appealing, including in the Tverskoi court, unreliable information stated by law-enforcement agencies with regard to my clients. It has happened before that my appeals were denied but not before hearing a case in a court session and evaluating the parties’ arguments.
Of course, upon receiving it, I will appeal the court’s ruling in the Moscow City Court. However, this time, the legality of the decision so made will be reviewed, not the claim on the merits. It means that yet again access to justice for the purposes of defending A. Borodin’s rights is being postponed.
It is difficult not to feel that there is more to this than a simple misunderstanding.