Go Back

The Judicial System Continues Practicing Selective Justice

Having refused the appeal of Andrei Borodin’s defence team against the decision of Moscow’s Meshchanskiy District Court on 1 February 2012, the Moscow City Court made conclusions that are clearly at odds with law.

“The decision of the Moscow City Court clearly shows that Russian courts refuse to provide judicial protection to my client even in cases when it is by all means provided to all who bring similar claims. There are no doubts that the decision made by the Moscow City Court is politically motivated and is at odds with uniform practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in totally identical cases and the legal stance of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. In its Decree No. 3-P of 25 March 2005, the Constitutional Court pointed out that severance of a labour contract under Paragraph 2 of Article 278 of the Labour Code of the Russian Federation, as it happened in the case of Mr Borodin and the Bank of Moscow, is inadmissible without the payment of compensation. Nonetheless, the Moscow City Court, in its aspiration to do away with Mr Borodin’s legal guarantees, made a conclusion that is directly opposed to the legal stance of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation,” Mikhail Dolomanov, a lawyer of Andrei Borodin, noted.

The appeal was against the unlawful decision of the Meshchanskiy District Court in Moscow, which refused Andrei F. Borodin’s suit against the Bank of Moscow seeking compensation for an early severance of his labour contract. Andrei Borodin was intending to give the entire amount of the compensation to charity.