Seagull, let's go to court

St. Petersburg Memorial demands that Prosecutor General Yuri Chaika, who announced at a meeting of the Federation Council that the organization was using sponsors’ money for other purposes, publicly refute his words. Otherwise, human rights activists threaten to go to court. The seagull is silent.

On July 10, at a meeting of the Federation Council, Yuri Chaika said that from November 2012 to April 2013, 2,226 Russian NPOs received 30.8 billion rubles from abroad. 22 NPOs, according to him, are subject to the law on foreign agents.

The Foundation is reaching out to state secrets

“Being engaged in political activities, participating in electoral processes, public events, preparing bills, receiving foreign funds and reporting in detail to sponsors about their spending, not one of the 22 organizations considers itself a foreign agent and does not intend to voluntarily register in this capacity,” he was indignant. Prosecutor General

He was especially angry at the St. Petersburg Foundation for the Development of Freedom of Information, which does not want to admit that it is an agent. The fund, according to the Prosecutor General, exists mainly with money from the National Endowment for Democracy (USA). Chaika blames the foundation for publishing on the Internet the results of monitoring open information about the activities of government bodies and local self-government, preparing proposals for amendments to Russian legislation and complaints to the Constitutional Court and the ECHR. The organization’s employees, in his opinion, want to ensure “maximum free access to information, including those constituting state secrets.”

Despite the fact that Chaika almost accused the social activists of spying for the United States, the Freedom of Information Foundation assured Novaya that they do not plan to sue the head of the supervisory agency.

Moreover, the other day district prosecutors repeated Chaika’s claims almost word for word - the foundation carries out political activities, shaping public opinion “on the need to expand access to information about the activities of government bodies.” They are trying to make government bodies transparent in order to “influence decision-making” no less.

Why citizens cannot influence decision-making by government bodies is not specified.

Memorial is ready to show Kuzka’s mother

Memorial could not tolerate the slander and demanded refutations. Chaika, in particular, argued that “in 2012, out of the 400 thousand rubles received from foreign sources for the implementation of the “Caring for the Elderly” program, only 15% were used for its intended purpose. The remaining funds were spent on salaries, rent of occupied premises and other purposes.”

Memorial says that the information voiced by Chaika is “completely refuted by the inspection of the organization by the prosecutor’s office of the Central District of St. Petersburg.” Social activists are enclosing a certificate of expenditure of funds under the “Care for the Elderly” program for 2012.
They draw attention to the fact that even the amount cited by Chaika is 400 thousand rubles. is not true, since 636,453 rubles were allocated and spent on the program.

“All funds received for the implementation of the “Care for the Elderly” program were used exclusively for social assistance to the elderly. And it couldn’t be otherwise, since these are targeted donations. There was no question of any rent, salary, etc., and this is strictly controlled by several departments,” a statement with this content was released by the board of Memorial.
Social activists remind us of the existence of Article 152 of the Civil Code: “Otherwise, we will seek a refutation and compensation for moral damage in court,” they say.

Write letters

Yuri Chaika himself remains silent for now. Novaya turned to the press service of the Prosecutor General's Office of Russia, wanting to find out whether the country's chief prosecutor is ready for legal proceedings and whether he knows anything about the results of the inspection by the Central District Prosecutor's Office, which Memorial representatives refer to. And how did it happen that employees of one department have diametrically opposed positions. The press service sent me to write a request and wait for a response within the time prescribed by law. That's what we did.

The founder of the legal company Pen & Paper, Senator Konstantin Dobrynin, does not yet know who is wrong in this story. “But I know for sure that everyone can make mistakes, even if it’s the prosecutor general,” he notes. “In the same way, everyone has the opportunity to point out this mistake and force it to be corrected. The mechanism for correction is the court.”

“If the truly respected organization Memorial believes that a serious mistake and incorrectness has been made, then it will take the only right step and go to court,” says Novaya’s interlocutor. — The most important thing is that the court discusses not angry philippics and bright slogans, but boring legal papers, bills and contracts. Then the moment of truth comes. And this very moment lies in the fact that banal reporting is replacing political statements. She is boring and bad for everyone, except for one thing: she is truthful.”

“Therefore, if it suddenly turns out that Memorial is wrong, apparently it should think about ceasing its activities, since the basis of existence for this type of organization is reputation,” Dobrynin concluded.

Yuri Chaika was sued several times

In 2006, it was reported that the prosecutor of the Volgograd region, Leonid Belyak, filed a lawsuit against the prosecutor general, trying to appeal the severe reprimand given to him for the increase in the number of serious crimes in the region and the decrease in the level of their detection. However, later the local supervisory agency denied reports of a lawsuit against Chaika, accusing the media of provocation.

In November 2007, the former prosecutor of Novy Urengoy, Mikhail Apanasenko, demanded that he be reinstated and that the prosecutor general be charged wages for the period of forced absence. He accused Chaika of illegally tapping his official telephone (the man was fired due to the fact that “on April 26, 2006, May 7, 2006 and May 10, 2006, in telephone conversations with third parties, prosecutor Apanasenko personally discussed the order and procedure carried out by the prosecutor’s office in relation to pre-investigation checks, as well as issues of commercial activities and receipt of material rewards"). Apanasenko's claim was accepted for consideration by the Moscow City Court. However, how the story ended is unknown, since at the request of the Prosecutor General’s Office the case was classified as “secret”.

In 2013, the former head of the Moscow department of the Investigative Committee, Anatoly Bagmet, decided to compete with the Prosecutor General's Office, who claims that in 2007 he was illegally fired from the prosecutor's office. He demands compensation for his salary for the period of “forced absences.” Previously, the decision to dismiss Bagmet was recognized by the court as legal, but now, according to the lawyer, he is ready to present “newly discovered circumstances” to the court. The outcome of the claim is still unknown.

For ideological reasons, no one sued Chaika.