We Are For an Honest Investigation

Author: Vladimir Krasnov, lawyer

“Honest” has been the word of the day lately. The call “For honest elections” has resulted in major shifts in the political coordinate system. This slogan is uniting all those whose sense of dignity dominates, all those who have not lost their civic consciousness.

Among the principal civil and human rights, the right to justice in general and judicial justice in particular is among other rights whose recognition, honouring and protection are proclaimed to be an obligation of the state (Article 2 of the Constitution). It is precisely these inalienable and direct-action rights that determine the sense, content and application of laws and are supported by judicial justice (Article 18); it is from there that general equality before law and court, proclaimed in the Constitution, stems (Article 19).

It would seem that everything is fine: the citizen has his rights and all the state, represented by its plenipotentiaries, does is thinking about honouring them. I am sure that participants in any of the latest rallies, both the Bolotnaya one and the Poklonnaya one, have good grounds to believe that this, regrettably, is far from being that way.

Journalists justifiably believe that their best “article” is Article 29 of the Constitution: “The freedom of mass communication shall be guaranteed. Censorship shall be banned.” Continue reading

The Investigations Department Again Demonstrates Political Nature of Borodin’s Persecution

The Investigations Department of the Interior Ministry has made yet another strong statement with accusations against Andrei Borodin, founder and former head of the Bank of Moscow. Following time-tested tactics, instead of legal procedural actions of official indictment, the Ministry of Internal Affairs continues to spread publicly unsubstantiated information smearing Borodin’s reputation. Continue reading

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.