Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov can rightfully be considered the most touchy citizen of Russia. During his almost 16 years as mayor, he has already filed defamation lawsuits 49 times. And he didn’t lose a single one.

All trials to protect the honor and dignity of Yuri Luzhkov took place in the capital's courts. By rehabilitating his good name, he earned about 20 million non-denominated and 1.5 million denominated rubles. According to official statements from the mayor's office, the mayor spent all the money awarded on charity. “Power” is reminiscent of the most interesting litigations.

First lawsuit

In February 1992 (when Yuri Luzhkov had not yet become mayor), the host of the “Itogi” program, Yevgeny Kiselev, citing unnamed sources in the capital’s mayor’s office, reported that a state of emergency could be introduced in Moscow. Yuri Luzhkov considered that the leak of such information discredited his honor and dignity, and through the court he demanded an apology from the Ostankino television company, which at that time was producing Itogi. After 2.5 years, the court upheld the claim, and the television company apologized: “Our agency received the decision of the Dzerzhinsky District Court of the capital regarding the message that was broadcast on the “Itogi” program on February 9, 1992. That ill-fated report contained a comment that said, that the Moscow administration has a plan to introduce a state of emergency in the city. The mayor of Moscow filed a lawsuit, his claim was finally satisfied. Therefore, the information from Itogi was assessed as discrediting the honor and dignity of the city administration. The litigation lasted 2.5 years, Itogi already belongs another television company, but the law is the law, and on behalf of Ostankino we sincerely apologize to the mayor’s office and personally to Yuri Mikhailovich Luzhkov.”

First victory

Yuri Luzhkov won it in July 1992 - just a month after his appointment as mayor. The Moscow Sokolniki Court upheld his claim for the protection of honor and dignity against the Deputy Chairman of the Moscow City Council Yuri Sedykh-Bondarenko and Nezavisimaya Gazeta. On March 17, 1992, Sedykh-Bondarenko, in his article in NG, accused Luzhkov of “political games and provocations” and “brazen and gross violation of the law.” The latter, in his opinion, was that Luzhkov, after the government decree of December 25, 1990, prohibiting officials from working in commercial structures, continued to remain president of the Organizing Committee JSC. The court found that Luzhkov resigned from the Organizing Committee on February 4, 1991, that is, at the time the article was published, he was no longer working in a commercial structure, and ordered NG to publish a refutation. The mayor was denied monetary compensation for moral damages.

Victories with a bang

In August 1998, Nezavisimaya Gazeta stated that after the default, some Moscow stores did not work for several days, while others raised prices, and noted that the mayor’s office did nothing to prevent this. The overwhelming majority of the media reported that after August 17, trade in Moscow was practically paralyzed and the authorities were powerless to do anything, but only NG received a lawsuit. Luzhkov considered the newspaper's statements a lie and went to court, although he could regard the NG article as a compliment addressed to him: as an admission that even in the conditions of a severe crisis, he did not succumb to temptation and did not force entrepreneurs to work on unfavorable conditions for them . At first, the Meshchansky Court rejected the mayor's claims, but the Moscow City Court returned the case for review, after which the claim was satisfied.

The case with Nezavisimaya Gazeta was not the only one when the honor and dignity of the mayor were restored only after the intervention of the Moscow City Court. In May 1998, the Kuntsevsky District Court of Moscow refused to satisfy Luzhkov’s claim against Yegor Gaidar, who stated that “economic life in Moscow is bureaucratic and regulated,” which is why corruption is widespread in the city. Luzhkov appealed the refusal to the Moscow City Court, which sent the case back to the Kuntsevsky Court for review. As a result, in October 1998, a decision was made in favor of the mayor.

Record-breaking offenders

The most attacks on the honor and dignity of the mayor were made by journalist Sergei Dorenko and former State Duma deputy Alexander Lebedev. They lost three defamation claims to Luzhkov. The claims against Dorenko are related to his work on the ORT television channel during the 1999 State Duma elections, when he carried out information and entertainment attacks on Yuri Luzhkov for several months.

It is curious how the newspaper “Tverskaya, 13” covered the trials against Dorenko: “Even people with a name and position in society are not protected from sick individuals such as the odious ORT announcer. I am afraid that Yu. Luzhkov or his team will file a lawsuit against S. Dorenko will not lead to any results. Even tomorrow, according to rumors, he can provide a certificate stating that he is registered in the PND (psychoneurological dispensary. - "Power" ). In the meantime, he is rampaging. Freedom, damn it..."

Luzhkov began suing Lebedev after the 2003 Moscow mayoral elections, in which the then deputy acted as the main critic of the capital’s authorities and the mayor personally.

The longest and shortest litigations

The trials against Alexander Lebedev and Sergei Dorenko became a record not only in number, but also in duration.

Luzhkov sued Lebedev for the longest time. In 2003, during the mayoral elections, Lebedev and journalist Anna Polivanova in the Voikovsky district newspaper “Our District” brought forward a number of accusations against the mayor, which three years later, in July 2006, the Basmanny Court of Moscow recognized as unfounded and discrediting the honor and dignity of Luzhkov. The court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff 30 thousand rubles.

Luzhkov managed to restore his honor most quickly at his trial with Dorenko. On October 3, the TV presenter accused the mayor's family of receiving money from the Swiss company Mabetex. Exactly two months later, on December 3, the Ostankino court in Moscow satisfied Luzhkov’s claim. The mayor demanded 50 million rubles as compensation for moral damage, but received only 150 thousand.

The most senior offenders

Shortly after the mass riots in the capital on May 1, 1993, during which 300 people were injured and one riot policeman was killed, the speaker of the Supreme Council Ruslan Khasbulatov accused the Moscow authorities of organizing them. Luzhkov filed a lawsuit. The litigation ended after the October events of 1993 and the deposition of Khasbulatov. The decision was not announced.

Luzhkov also sued another retired leader of the state - former USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev. The latter had to answer for words that the mayor’s office was building cottages for its officials on Rublyovka. The court ordered Gorbachev to refute this statement.

Of the current senior officials, the highest-ranking offender of the mayor is the head of RAO UES, Anatoly Chubais. In 1995, as first deputy prime minister, Chubais pointed out the possibility of a conspiracy between the capital's mayor's office and food importers. Luzhkov moved the continuation of the discussion about the cartel agreement to the court. It was not reported how it ended.

Harmless grievance

Luzhkov responded with lawsuits not only to outright insults (for example, the statement of the first secretary of the Russian Communist Youth Union Igor Malyarov: “The mayor of Moscow is an outright mafioso, it’s written on his face”), but sometimes also to seemingly completely harmless statements. After the fire in the Manege in March 2004, the director of the State Institute of Art History, Alexey Komech, said in the Vesti Plus program on the Rossiya TV channel: “The Manege is a federal monument, and only the Ministry of Culture can decide its fate.” Yuri Luzhkov filed a lawsuit to protect his honor and dignity, in which he emphasized that the Manege is the property of Moscow, which means that its fate is decided by the mayor's office, and demanded a refutation. The Simonovsky Court of the capital satisfied this demand, but Komech was excluded from the defendants in the lawsuit, and only the TV channel was punished.

Ancient drama

In April last year, the leader of the National Bolshevik Party, Eduard Limonov, said on Radio Liberty that “anti-Luzhkov decisions have never been made in Moscow courts” and that “Moscow courts are controlled by Luzhkov.” In response, the mayor filed a defamation lawsuit. Obviously, the best refutation of Limonov’s words could be a refusal to satisfy the claim, that is, the court making that same anti-Luzhkov decision. Luzhkov's loss of the trial would be indisputable proof that the Moscow courts are beyond his control. However, the Babushkinsky Court of Moscow, and then the Moscow City Court, where the defendants filed an appeal, satisfied the claim, recovered 500 thousand rubles from Limonov and Svoboda in favor of Luzhkov and ordered the oppositionist to refute his words.

This wonderful plot refers us not only to the famous logical paradox of Bertrand Russell about the barber who shaves only those who do not shave themselves, but also further back into the depths of centuries - to the legal conflict that arose between the sophist Protagoras and his student Eubatlus. As the historian Diogenes Laertius says, they agreed that Euathlus would pay Protagoras for law lessons only after he won the first trial. However, Protagoras soon demanded payment in advance, to which Euathlus objected: “But I haven’t won the case in court yet!” Protagoras replied that he would sue Euathlus for refusing to pay. “If I win, then you will pay, because this is the court’s decision,” he explained to the student his logical trap. “If you win, then you will pay too. This will be your first court win, and according to our initial agreement, you are obliged to pay for it.” .

The defendant himself

Yuri Luzhkov had to not only file claims for the protection of honor and dignity, but also receive them. However, he never lost such cases either.

In 2001, the FSB Directorate for the Vladimir Region sued the mayor. The security officers found some of his statements in the Metro newspaper offensive about their seizure of documents from the Inteko company in 1999. In particular, Luzhkov called what was happening the arbitrariness of the authorities and the use of law enforcement agencies for political purposes. The Presnensky Court of Moscow rejected the FSB's claim.

In 2006, the mayor was sued by residents evicted from South Butovo, whose actions the mayor called “rednecks” in one of his television programs. And last year, Russian gays sued Luzhkov because he called the gay pride parade a “satanic act” and promised to “not allow it in the future.” The Tverskoy Court of Moscow rejected both claims.

Those who abused Yuri Luzhkov

Evgeny Kiselev, 1992

Sergey Dorenko, 1999

Yegor Gaidar, 1998

Eduard Limonov, 2007

Ruslan Khasbulatov, 1993

Alexander Lebedev, 2003

When not to talk about Yuri Luzhkov

As statistics from the 25 most fully described in the press trials of Yuri Luzhkov for the protection of honor and dignity show, the likelihood of receiving a subpoena for criticizing the mayor depends on the month in which it was expressed. Most often, Luzhkov reacts to the words spoken to him in June - 5 lawsuits. The second most dangerous month is October (4 lawsuits). Let us note that the article by Vlast, which displeased the mayor, was also published in October. This is followed by March, May and September (3 claims each). Yuri Luzhkov did not like the words spoken twice in February and July, and once each in April, August and November. Only December and January remain not covered by claims. Therefore, in order to minimize the chance of ending up in court, Vlast recommends speaking critically about the mayor during the New Year holiday season.

What cannot be said about Yuri Luzhkov

“Vlast” provides a price list for anti-Luzhkov statements. All published statements were at various times recognized by Moscow courts as discrediting the honor and dignity of the Moscow mayor and not corresponding to reality.

“Anti-Luzhkov decisions have never been made in Moscow courts... Moscow courts are controlled by Luzhkov” (April 17, 2007, leader of the National Bolshevik Party banned by the court Eduard Limonov* in an interview with Radio Liberty). The amount claimed is 1 million rubles.

“Here is the magazine “Cult of Personality”. This is far from the first and not the only media outlet that writes, among other things, about Luzhkov’s condition. The magazine estimates his personal fortune at $300-400 million.” “The Luzhkov family receives money from the well-known company Mabetex” (September 5 and October 3, 1999, TV presenter Sergei Dorenko). The amount awarded is 150 thousand rubles.

“Luzhkov billed the Stavropol Territory for all the assistance provided to Budennovsk” (October 11, 1999, TV presenter Sergei Dorenko). The amount awarded is 75 thousand rubles.

“Yuri Luzhkov will help his wife with cement”; “It is obvious that now with the support of Luzhkov and, possibly, FAS Inteko, it will be easier to achieve the goal”; “It Coincidentally” (October 8, 2007, Vlast magazine). The amount awarded is 5 thousand rubles.

“Luzhkov is the mouthpiece of extremists and provocateurs” (May 12, 1996, head of the Union of Officers of Russia Stanislav Terekhov). The amount claimed is 3 million non-denominated rubles.

“The food industry, hotel and construction businesses in Moscow were divided between a handful of joint-stock companies led by people from Luzhkov’s entourage as new monopolists” (July 15, 1994, Der Spiegel magazine). The amount awarded is 1 million non-denominated. rub.

“The mayor of Moscow is an outright mafioso, it’s written on his face” (June 12, 1993, First Secretary of the Russian Communist Youth Union (RCYU) Igor Malyarov in the “Talk Show” program of the ViD television company). The amount awarded is 515 thousand in non-denomines. rub.

"The Moscow government banned the use of references to Moscow in the name of the exchange (Russian Commodity and Raw Materials Exchange - "Vlast" ), adopted special resolutions obliging enterprises to trade only through another exchange" (1992, co-chairman of the Economic Freedom Party Konstantin Borovoy in an interview with the magazine " Voice"). There is no information about the amount awarded.

“It became known from informed circles of the Moscow administration that there is already a plan to introduce a state of emergency for a period of eight months” (February 9, 1992, presenter Evgeny Kiselev in the TV program “Itogi”). There is no information about the amount awarded.

“The instigator and organizer of the provocation (riots in Moscow on May 1, 1993 - “Vlast” ) was the Moscow executive power... Russian guys beat their own fathers on the orders of corrupt municipal bosses” (May 4, 1993, Chairman of the Supreme Council Ruslan Khasbulatov in broadcast on the Rossiya TV channel). There is no information about the amount awarded.

“If, after increasing customs duties on imported food from July 1, food prices in Moscow rise, this will be the result of a conspiracy between the capital’s government and monopolistic suppliers” (June 1995, First Deputy Prime Minister Anatoly Chubais). There is no information about the amount awarded.

“The mayor’s office is using unknown money to build two- and three-story cottages in the Rublevsko-Uspenskoe highway area” (May 11, 1993, former USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev on the Moscow TV channel). There was no claim for monetary compensation for moral damages.

“Economic life in Moscow is terribly bureaucratic, regulated, and the result of this is the massive spread of corruption. Everyone who has dealt with Moscow municipal structures knows this very well” (February 22, 1998, leader of the Democratic Choice of Russia party Yegor Gaidar in the article “Why It’s good to live in Moscow" in the newspaper "Moscow News"). There was no claim for monetary compensation for moral damages.

“The Manege is a federal monument, and its fate can only be decided by the Ministry of Culture” (March 15, 2004, Director of the State Institute of Art History Alexey Komech). No claim for monetary compensation for moral damage was made.

“In Moscow, a bureaucratic monster lives and lives, pinning small and medium-sized businesses under its thumb... Mansions, historical monuments and land plots are given away to various friends and admirers of the mayor’s talents... The city government pays judges’ salaries and never loses lawsuits in the courts.. The Moscow government is curtailing social programs, closing socially oriented retail facilities... The Moscow government is carrying out aggressive development as a direct violation of the rights of Muscovites... In order to double the city budget, it is necessary to bring the economic activities of the mayor's office out of the shadows" (June 2005, State Duma deputy Alexander Lebedev in an interview with the newspaper "Zhitelli"). There is no information about the amount awarded.

*Positions are indicated at the time of the quote.

ALEXANDER KUKOLEVSKY

Magazine "Kommersant Power" No. 13 dated 04/07/2008, p. 20

Author:

Alexander Kukolevsky

Themes:

Activities of Yuri Luzhkov

King of the suit