Common sense defeated "obscurantism"

The Supreme Court of the Komi Republic recognized the refusal to be considered illegal on the merits of the case on the application of Natalia Zakharova to falsify the elections to the PEC No. 64 and returned the case to the Syktyvkar city court. Despite the border, which was declared by the representative of the applicant, the case will be considered again by Julia Agranovich.

Recall that Natalia Zakharova appealed to the Syktyvkar City Court with a request to cancel the decision of the PEC No. 64 of Syktyvkar, who approved the falsified results of the voting in the elections to the Russian parliament in 2011. The defendants from the election commission of the Komi Republic and the territorial election commission of the city of Syktyvkar, however, said that since Ms. Zakharova was able to freely lower her ballot into the urn, her active suffrage was not violated, and she could not appeal the procedure for counting votes.

The representative of Ms. Zakharova, human rights activist Ernest Mesak, this position was characterized as frankly “obscurantist”. He indicated that the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation should soon express his opinion precisely in the position that the defendants voiced, and proposed to postpone the meeting before the decision of the Constitutional Court. Nevertheless, Judge Agranovich took the “obscurantist” position of representatives of the election commission and, not having to wait for the opinion of the Constitutional Court, terminated the proceedings .

Representatives of Natalia Zakharova appealed this definition in a higher court. By the time the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic considered their appeal, the position of the Constitutional Court of Russia was already known - in the Decree of April 22, 2013, he clearly indicated: “... the courts of general jurisdiction are not entitled to refuse to accept the statements of citizens who took part in the elections as voters in defense of their suffrage in the establishment of voting in the voting of the voting election. The site where these citizens took part in the elections. ”

The chairman of the territorial election commission of the city of Syktyvkar Vsevolod Khorunzhiy, who was present at the consideration of the appeal, tried to defend himself and expressed another absurdity that the allegedly this decision of the Constitutional Court concerns only those persons on whose statement it was issued, but the prosecutor did not support it. As a result, the court determined to recognize the termination of the proceedings on the application of Ms. Zakharova illegal and return the case to the Syktyvkar city court for consideration on the merits.

Yesterday, June 27, 2013, a second consideration of the case began in the Syktyvkar City Court. As usual, Mr. Horunzhia, a representative of the election commission of the republic and the prosecutor attended. On the part of the applicant, only her representative Ernest Mesak was present, because The very Ms. Zakharov was not notified, and she could not attend the meeting. The chaired by Julia Agranovich again. In this regard, Mr. Mesak filed a petition:

- Allow me to declare the allotment to this composition of the court. The grounds for this are as follows: this case was already considered by the court in the current composition, but at the same time the court established a lack of violation of the rights of Ms. Zakharova, while rejected all its relevance to the proceeding of the application. Including a completely reasonable petition to transfer the proceedings before the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which later formed the basis of the relevant determination of the Syktyvkar city court in the appeal instance. We believe that under such circumstances, the current composition of the court has neither moral nor legal law for re -consideration of this case. We ask you to satisfy our petition and transfer the case to another judge of Syktyvkar City Court.

Mr. Horunzhia objected to this:

- I believe that there is no reason for the allocation of the court. Since the definition, which was now mentioned, was based on the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the legal practice formed at that time. The decisions of the Constitutional Court then did not exist as such, so the court had every reason to make a ruling. Now we have changed law enforcement, the approach to these issues, so to speak, and therefore the Supreme Court rightly returned the case for a new consideration. I believe that the court has not violated any material, especially moral standards, making a definition, and has a moral and material right to consider this case in this composition.

Since the opinion of Mr. Korunzhey was supported by other defendants and the prosecutor, the representative of Ms. Zakharova clarified his position:

- I want to draw attention to the fact that, of course, the court ruling at the time of its adoption under the previous proceedings was based on judicial practice. But the court was completely known to the court that literally from the day after the corresponding court hearing the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation will express its position on the aspect of the case, on the basis of which we were refused later on our application. Having the opportunity to wait for the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the court did not wait for her, demonstrating the neglect of the rights of my principal.

Nevertheless, the chairman, after being removed to the deliberation room, refused to satisfy this petition. After that, Mr. Mesak filed three more petitions: about clarifying the fate and making disks with videos of voting counting at the 64th polling station, which were sent to the prosecutor’s office as a member of this PEC; The request of the materials of the audit of the Investigative Committee with these videos, which were sent there by the prosecutor's office and on the transfer of the meeting, because Ms. Zakharov was not notified of him and could not be present in person.

The Chairman of the TIK Mr. Horunzhi did not mind the transfer of the meeting, but opposed the demand for videos:

- The side of the applicant, justifying his position, was based on the materials of the Internet. What is the relationship of the video with the prosecutor's office and the Investigative Committee have to this process - I do not understand. Therefore, I believe that these petitions should be refused.

The representative of Ms. Zakharova objected to this:

-We know that two DVDs were applied to the statement of a citizen, on the basis of which the prosecutor’s office was initiated by the prosecutor. At the same time, they are absent in the supervisory production. I can assume that they were transferred to the Investigative Committee. As for the replica of the respected opponent from the territorial election commission of the city of Syktyvkar - he again says heresy. Because we submitted an application, guided by what we had. At the same time, for some reason, the court for some reason did not want to introduce the disks with the source of the records that we have, apparently, hoping that the Constitutional Court will express some other position. Apparently, initially, discs with the same video files were attached to the PEC member to the prosecutor's office. Therefore, I believe, it is necessary to offer the prosecutor’s office to explain where these discs are, and, accordingly, additionally investigate the materials of the Investigative Committee. Because the last document in supervisory production is a document on sending an appeal to the Investigative Committee.

In the end, the chairman satisfied all three petitions of the representative of Ms. Zakharova. Thus, common sense finally prevailed, and in the next meeting the court will begin to consider the case on the merits.