Translated material
Political pressure: media digest (8-14 January 2015)
"Bolotnaya Case"
Alexander Margolin transferred to a colony
“ Alexander Margolin, convicted in the Bolotnaya case, was transferred from a pre-trial detention center in Moscow to Ryazan. The father of the political prisoner, Yevgeny Margolin, told Open Russia about this. He said that Alexander is now in the Ryazan pre-trial detention center, and on January 13 he will be sent to the same colony from which Artem Savelov was released on December 31 and where Alexey Polikhovich and Andrey Barabanov are imprisoned - IK-6 in the village of Stenkino.
Evgeny Margolin said that Alexander himself, his parents and representatives of the public monitoring commission submitted applications asking that the convicted person serve his sentence in the Tula region. Muscovites Alexei Gaskarov, Ilya Gushchin and Denis Lutskevich were transferred to this region and received real sentences in the “Bolotnaya case”. According to Russian legislation, the place of serving a sentence is determined by the principle of proximity to the place of permanent registration of the prisoner. There are no general regime men’s colonies in Moscow and the Moscow region.”
Henry Reznik on the decision to leave Alexandra Naumova under house arrest until the suspended sentence comes into force
“This was a completely illegal decision. What is house arrest? This is a softened analogue of taking into custody. House arrest as a preventive measure is applied according to the same rules as detention. When the court comes to the conclusion that the restriction of freedom may be in relaxed conditions. When a person is acquitted or the sentence does not involve imprisonment, what is written in the law? That he be released from custody immediately."
Artem Savelov talks about imprisonment
“I served the entire term, I didn’t apply for parole out of anger: I didn’t ask for anything for two years, I knew that I’d be down no matter what. Time moves in a strange way in captivity: it seems like a year has already flown by, but if you look here and now, every second drags on. In European prisons, the most important thing is taken away - freedom. And we have freedom, health, the health of loved ones, finances. <…> In the colony there is nothing special to do, you while away the days. In the summer you could freely go to the bathhouse and the library, then they made it strictly daily - once a week. I grew a tree there: I took a box from Doshirak, the soil that was spilled when potatoes were brought in in the summer, I collected moss and pebbles. I put it on the nightstand. At times there is a riot, everything is turned upside down, and my tree is left behind. Was the humanity in them awakening? I don't know if I've changed over the years. Maybe he just became angrier. When the conversation turns to wine, your teeth immediately click. Because there is no guilt. <…> If there was an opportunity to change something, I would give this riot policeman a whack, so that he would at least have something to sit for. Just kidding, of course. But there is a simple male desire - to meet them and talk like a man. At the trial, at first I didn’t feel anything, but as they began to slander me, some kind of anger appeared. This is wrong, this is unfair! <…> On the ships we were like zombies. In the morning I got up, swallowed some tea, if I had time, and went to trial until nightfall. The condition of such a cemetery. You continue to feel like a human being, but you have to strengthen yourself, push yourself, and at times make yourself angry... <...> I believed that it was possible to influence the course of the process. But little by little the truth was revealed - how and where everything was going. At first I couldn’t understand on what basis the people were imprisoned. Then I looked: one hard worker, one student, one professor... They took a little man from each layer, indicatively. It seems that some people are sitting around developing something clever. But life shows that everything is simple. They stupidly took us and imprisoned us without any hesitation. I saw about three amnesties while I was in prison. But there was no hope. I saw how, the day before the spring amnesty, parts of people’s articles were interrupted so that they would not fall under it. Our process was needed to intimidate the people. And it probably worked out. Would I have gone to the rally then if I had known how it would turn out? I think yes. This is already a piece of life, history. Although I’m thinking like this now, sitting at home in the warmth, but if I were in a cold punishment cell, I would most likely curse that day.”
Navalny
Navalny's defense received a copy of the verdict and appealed it
“Oppositionist Alexei Navalny, who received a three and a half year suspended sentence in the so-called Yves Rocher case, will be able to receive a copy of the verdict on January 12, a source familiar with the situation told Interfax. “In accordance with the current legislation, the deadline for handing over a copy of the verdict to the Navalny brothers expires on the fifth day after its delivery. Due to the long New Year’s weekend, they can receive the verdict on the first working day of the new year - Monday, January 12,” the agency’s interlocutor said . Meanwhile, the Moscow City Court, at the request of Interfax, commented on Navalny’s statement regarding the failure to issue him a copy of the verdict within five days and his refusal to comply with the conditions of house arrest. “We would advise Mr. Navalny to read the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation more thoughtfully. In accordance with the law, if the deadline for handing over a copy of the verdict falls on a weekend, then it is postponed to the next working day,” said a representative of the Moscow City Court.”
About the presence of Oleg Navalny in a pre-trial detention center
“There is no TV in the cell, the radio does not work. Oleg Navalny and his neighbor knew nothing about the terrorist attack in Paris. I had to give some brief political information. On holidays, life in prisons generally comes to a standstill. Emails don’t arrive, lawyers aren’t allowed into the prison, the library doesn’t work, doctors don’t treat people, and applications from prisoners aren’t accepted. Oleg said that on Christmas the employees brought congratulations from the local priest - chocolate and socks. “It’s strange that the bells didn’t ring on Christmas,” Oleg is surprised, because here we have a church in the yard.” <...> When asked why, almost all cells have televisions, but Oleg Navalny does not, the answer is standard: not in stock. Televisions also run out quickly; prisoners break them all the time. However, those who have heard a little about prison life know that a TV in prison is almost like cigarettes: for bad behavior they can be deprived of the TV. Also, if the investigation really wants the name to sit in isolation, they will not put a TV in the cell. To install a TV, you have to really ask. This is when we are talking about ordinary prisoners, not political ones. But the story about political prisoners and television is old and special. I remember how literally for years Platon Lebedev’s lawyers and human rights activists begged the head of “Matrosskaya Tishina” Fikret Tagiyev to put a TV and refrigerator in Lebedev’s cell. The lawyers said that they could buy several refrigerators and televisions. Tagiyev raised his eyes to the ceiling and muttered something unintelligible. The TV was installed literally a few weeks or months before Lebedev left for the colony. Let's see how this soap opera “Oleg Navalny and TV in Butyrka” will develop.
Their good news: the appeal of the Navalny brothers against the verdict of the Zamoskvoretsky court to the European Court received priority. This means that it will be considered relatively quickly. Maybe even before Oleg Navalny’s term ends. In Strasbourg, the Navalny brothers complained of a violation of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights - the right to freedom and security of person, in this case meaning illegal detention. They complained about a violation of Article 6 – violation of the right to a fair trial, Article 18 – “Limits on the use of restrictions on rights.” Lawyers for the Navalny brothers believe that this article was violated in relation to their clients, that is, they were tried not for the crime they committed, but “for other purposes,” in this case, for political reasons. Violations of Article 18 are recognized quite rarely in Strasbourg. For example, it was recognized based on the complaint of Vladimir Gusinsky. Let me remind you that in May 2004 the ECHR ruled that Russia must pay Gusinsky 88 thousand euros. This complaint also spoke about the illegality of the arrest and the connection between the persecution of the former owner of Media Most and political pressure on him.”
The court refused to consider the issue of Oleg Navalny's release
“The Tverskoy Court of Moscow refused to accept for consideration the application of the defense of Oleg Navalny, who received 3.5 years in prison for stealing money from Yves Rocher, for release from the pre-trial detention center, the court’s press secretary told RIA Novosti. <…> “The lawyer filed a complaint in which he asked to recognize the actions of the head of pre-trial detention center No. 2 (Butyrka) in taking Oleg Navalny into custody as illegal and to release Navalny from custody. Judge Denis Ivanov refused to accept this complaint, since this issue is not subject to resolution through civil proceedings,” a court spokeswoman said. Oleg Navalny's defense also appealed the preventive measure chosen for him in the Zamoskvoretsky Court of Moscow. Lawyers for Alexei Navalny filed a similar complaint, for whom the court maintained house arrest until the sentence came into force. In addition, in the period from December 31 to January 10, the Federal Penitentiary Service went to court four times with notifications about Navalny’s violation of the conditions of house arrest, and therefore also asked to change it. However, the court rejected all appeals, explaining that this issue is not subject to separate consideration and will be decided by a higher authority - the Moscow City Court - when determining the legality of the entire sentence against the Navalny brothers.
Thus, the decision to send Oleg Navalny to a pre-trial detention center, who was taken into custody in the courtroom after the guilty verdict was announced, should be decided by the appellate authority in criminal cases.”
The ECHR accepted Navalny’s complaints for consideration
“The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has given priority to Oleg Navalny’s complaint in connection with the criminal case of embezzling money from Yves Rocher,” said his lawyer Kirill Polozov. “The European Court of Human Rights communicated my client’s complaint yesterday and gave it priority,” Polozov told Interfax on Thursday. On December 30, 2014, the Zamoskvoretsky Court of the capital sentenced Oleg Navalny to 3.5 years of real imprisonment, and his brother to 3.5 years of probation on charges of major fraud and theft of funds from the Yves Rocher cosmetics company. As Alexei Navalny's lawyer Olga Mikhailova told Interfax on Thursday, the ECHR recommunicated his complaint about house arrest. “The European Court of Human Rights accepted our complaint about the extension of the preventive measure and, together with the previous one, recommunicated it, asking four questions to the Russian government, which it must answer by February 13,” she said. According to Mikhailova, the complaint concerns the illegal, according to the defense, keeping Alexei Navalny under house arrest. The questions asked by the ECHR relate to three articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, which, according to Navalny’s defense, were violated in the Yves Rocher case.”
Alexei Navalny talks about paying for damage to his electronic bracelet and how he is accompanied by FSIN officers
“Echo of Moscow”, January 14 :
“I left my army on the street. For the last two days, people have stopped following me so obviously. Before this, employees of the Anti-Corruption Foundation sat right in our office, we allocated them a separate table, gave them pencils, coloring books, they sat and while I was fighting corruption, they sat and guarded me. There is a FSIN car parked near my entrance, you can clearly see that they have laid out the seats there. Well, they can’t sleep in cars, so they take turns and sleep. Everyone feels very strange. Moreover, these are senior officers - colonels, lieutenant colonels. They feel terribly stupid and somehow everyone is embarrassed, both me and them, and no one understands what to do about it, but, nevertheless, it continues. <…> I come out of the entrance, they come up and say: where are you going? I say: I'll go to work. They say: well, don’t go too fast then so that we don’t lose you. Well, I'm on my way... At some stage, as I said, they just followed me to the office and sat there guarding me.
I. Vorobyova - How about giving 671 rubles for a bracelet?
A. Navalny - I already gave it. Why do I need it? After all, this is really the property of the Federal Penitentiary Service. At one time, when this bracelet was hung on me, I signed one hundred and twenty-three receipts. And so they showed me last night, they caught me near the entrance, they gave me an official complaint that I had cut off the bracelet, it costs 670 rubles. I have already transferred this amount to the FSIN account today.”
After broadcasting on Ekho Moskvy, Alexey Navalny was detained
“Echo of Moscow”, January 14 :
“Immediately after the live broadcast on Echo of Moscow, Alexey Navalny was detained by police officers. Correspondent of Echo of Moscow, they explained that the purpose of the detention was to establish his identity. Alexey Navalny did not have any documents with him. Navalny was taken to the Arbat police station. Law enforcement officers do not give any comments."
“Oppositionist Alexei Navalny was detained by the police after broadcasting on the Ekho Moskvy radio station. The politician announced this on his Twitter. <...> Navalny's press secretary Kira Yarmysh wrote in her microblog that Navalny was detained under the pretext of not having documents with him. <…> Kira Yarmysh, who is waiting for Navalny at the entrance, was not allowed into the police department. Navalny himself wrote that he would most likely be released. <…>
The police brought Alexei Navalny home. The politician announced this on Twitter. The police department did not draw up a detention report, and Navalnoo’s presence at the department was defined as a “preventive conversation.” Navalny expressed surprise at the actions of the police, since he was planning to return home after the broadcast.”
The prosecution appealed Navalny's sentence
“The state prosecution has appealed the verdict of the brothers Alexei and Oleg Navalny in the so-called Yves Rocher case,” a source familiar with the situation told Interfax. “The verdict passed by the Zamoskvoretsky Interdistrict Court against the Navalny brothers has been appealed. An appeal has been submitted to the Moscow City Court to cancel this verdict due to its lenience,” the agency’s interlocutor said. The Zamoskvoretsky court confirmed the fact of the prosecutor's appeal against the verdict. “Today the court received an appeal from the prosecutor’s office against the verdict of Oleg and Alexei Navalny,” court press secretary Yulia Petrova told Interfax.”
Analysis of the Yves Rocher Case
“The criminal prosecution of the Navalny brothers in the Yves Rocher case on December 30, 2014, the day the verdict was unexpectedly announced, reached a new level of legal absurdity. The President of the Moscow Bar Association, Honored Lawyer of Russia Henry Reznik considers the arrest of Oleg Navalny illegal before the verdict comes into force. At the same time, Reznik believes that Alexei Navalny’s refusal to be under house arrest is justified and legal; as is known, he independently removed the electronic bracelet “issued” to him by the Federal Penitentiary Service.
The “postal case” against the Navalny brothers began in December 2012. Let me remind you that on Monday, December 10, 2012, at 15:25, the Main Investigation Department of the ICR registered a statement from Bruno Leproux (at that time he was the general director of the Russian branch of the French cosmetics company Yves Rocher) addressed to the head of the ICR, Alexander Bastrykin. On the same day, the head of the Main Investigative Directorate of the ICR, Major General A.V. Shchukin, instructed the investigator for especially important cases of the Main Investigative Directorate, Major A.O. Pishchulin, to conduct an inspection in accordance with Articles 144-145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. Pishchulin checked and submitted a “Report on the detection of signs of a crime” to Shchukin. The report is dated the same December 10th. On the same day, having coordinated his actions with General Shchukin, Major Pishchulin issued a resolution to separate the materials of the criminal case into separate proceedings. This is how this criminal case began against the brothers, accused of committing fraud and stealing money from Yves Rocher with the help of the company they founded, Glavnoe Subscription Agency (Glavpodpiska).
In August 2014, when the court began to consider the criminal case, it turned out that the French cosmetics company Yves Rocher, at the end of December 2012, conducted an internal audit of all contracts with contractors and found out that Glavpodpiska did not cause any damage to them. And on February 11, 2013, Yves Rocher sent a document to the Investigative Committee, which, for example, contained the following information. In 2009, Glavpodpiskaya carried out 890 flights with Yves Rocher cargo on the Yaroslavl - Moscow route. In 2010, 550 flights were made along the same route, in 2011 - 150, in 2012 - 126. At the same time, the cost of one flight - 20 thousand rubles - was fixed back in 2009 and did not change throughout the years of the agreement . According to the calculations of Yves Rocher Vostok specialists, the company did not suffer any damage, but, on the contrary, saved money. Because the average market prices of other carrier companies were higher. If in 2009 - by 6%, then in 2012 - by 15%.
The investigation accused the brothers of imposing Glavsubscription services on Yves Rocher, and of the fact that the cosmetics company allegedly did not have the opportunity to choose other contractors to transport their goods. But the materials of the criminal case contained documents from which it follows: during the period of validity of the contract with Glavpodpiska, Yves Rocher had exactly the same contracts for the transportation of goods from Yaroslavl with Logotrans LLC and with the individual entrepreneur Kuznetsova. At the same time, for one flight from Yaroslavl to Moscow, for example, Logotrans issued an invoice for 22 thousand rubles. This is two thousand more than the prices of Glavpodpiska. Despite the obvious absurdity of the charges, on December 30, the Zamoskvoretsky District Court of Moscow announced the verdict
Henry REZNIK: If the court passed a suspended sentence, but left the preventive measure in the form of house arrest, then it committed lawlessness
The President of the Moscow Bar Association considers the arrest of Oleg Navalny before the verdict entered into legal force illegal:
— Despite the fact that he was sentenced to imprisonment, no one lifted the ban on the use of a preventive measure in the form of detention for economic crimes. There is an unambiguous ban, without any reservations.
Henry Reznik commented on the self-release of Alexei Navalny from house arrest:
— If the court passed a suspended sentence, convicting him to a suspended sentence, but left the preventive measure in the form of house arrest, then he committed lawlessness. After a sentence has been pronounced, a preventive measure may be chosen to ensure the execution of the sentence. When a person is sentenced to a suspended sentence, there cannot be an unconditional restriction of his freedom.
<...> - Nevertheless, some lawyers say that only those defendants who are being held in a pre-trial detention center are subject to immediate release.
— The Constitutional Court prescribes that it is necessary to interpret laws in a systematic connection with other norms. What is the purpose of a preventive measure after sentencing? Ensure execution of the sentence. If a person is acquitted, he is immediately released from custody. Although it seems that one can also say that the verdict has not entered into force, it can be appealed. But there is a priority to the constitutional value of human freedom. Only half-baked jurists with a low level of legal culture and lack of systematic thinking can say that the law does not say that people under house arrest are also immediately released, that only those who are in custody are released. But let's remember why the preventive measure is chosen. Suppression! Suppression of what? Some kind of behavior that could be prevented by enforcement of the sentence. If a person is sentenced to a suspended sentence, what should the preventive measure ensure? What is the purpose of house arrest during a suspended sentence?
- Mystery…
— The court decided that Alexei Navalny should not be imprisoned. And then his freedom was significantly limited, leaving him under house arrest. This is absolute lawlessness. According to judicial practice, in cases without a political background, house arrest is never maintained; it is always cancelled.”
prosecution
Chairman of the Tatar Community Center Rafis Kashapov was arrested on charges of inciting hatred
“On December 29, 2014, the Sovetsky District Court of Kazan issued a resolution to take into custody until the end of February the chairman of the Tatar Public Center Rafis Kashapov, who was charged the next day under Part 1 of Art. 282 of the Criminal Code (inciting hatred or enmity). Kashapov is accused of publishing four materials in the public domain from July 1 to December 11, 2014 on his page on the social network VKontakte: “Crimea and Ukraine will be free from the occupiers!”, “Yesterday Hitler and Danzig, today Putin and Donetsk!”, “Let’s protect Ukraine and the entire Turkic world”, “Where there is Russia, there are tears and death.” The accusation is based on an expert opinion, according to which Kashapov’s materials (by the way, one of them was written by his brother Nafis) “contain statements and calls of varying degrees of formality, modeling hate speech and aimed at inciting hatred between groups identified on the basis of mixed characteristics - nationality, residence in a certain territory, attitude towards the authorities (among representatives of the Turkic group in relation to Russia, Russian authorities) <…>, psychological signs of information aimed at inciting discord (hostility) against representatives of the category “They/Aggressor” (“new unrecognized authorities of the peninsula ", "Russian punitive forces", "Vladimir Putin", "Russia", "Russians", "Russians"), identified on a mixed basis, as well as psychological signs of information that substantiate or justify the need to disseminate these statements and statements." Let us note that experts not only violate the law by claiming that materials incite hatred—only a court has the right to answer this question—but also use very unusual terminology that is poorly compatible with the legal meaning of Art. 282 of the Criminal Code, such as “categories identified on the basis of mixed characteristics” or “psychological characteristics of information.”
Nationalist Belov will be sent for examination to the Serbsky Center
“One of the leaders of the Russian movement, Alexander Belov (Potkin), accused of legalizing illegally obtained property, will soon be sent for an inpatient psychiatric examination to the Serbsky Center. The politician’s lawyer Ivan Mironov told Slon about this. According to the lawyer, in mid-December his client was taken for a one-day outpatient psychological and psychiatric examination. The entire procedure took place with numerous violations, Mironov claims. “My client was transported for six hours in a cold iron glass without food, drink or the opportunity to go to the toilet. This is one of the legalized forms of torture. He asked to be provided with hot meals, which did not find understanding among the clinic staff and law enforcement agencies. When he demanded access to his defenders, he was rudely refused. Finally, the procedure itself is a rather intimate thing, but Alexander was fastened to a police officer all the time, and his request that medical confidentiality be maintained was also refused,” he explained to Slon. According to Mironov, Potkin’s legal demands were “considered a kind of insolence” and, as punishment, the investigation decided to assign him an outpatient examination. This procedure could last several weeks, the lawyer added. “We are concerned that lawyers’ access to Potkin may be limited during this time, and in addition, we are not sure that psychotropic drugs will not be used on him,” he said. The decision of the investigation to place the politician at the Serbsky Institute cannot be appealed, since the defense did not receive official documents. “Alexander was not presented with documents indicating the investigation’s intention to take such a step - these threats are based on the words of investigator Nikolai Budilo. But usually all the investigators’ intentions are realized. Most likely, they will be presented at the last moment,” Mironov suggested. According to him, after receiving such documents, Potkin’s defense will appeal against Potkin’s transfer to a hospital, and will also demand an independent medical examination to determine the absence of psychotropic substances in his blood. “Unfortunately, the whole situation smacks very badly of the punitive psychiatry of Andropov’s times,” Mironov commented. Previously, the nationalist was transferred to pre-trial detention center 99/1, known as “Kremlin Central”. He is suspected of money laundering (Article 174 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), as well as inciting hatred (Article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Alexander Potkin has been in pre-trial detention since November 24; before that, he spent just over a month under house arrest. According to investigators, the ex-leader of the DPNI is involved in the legalization of $5 billion stolen from BTA Bank depositors by the former owner of the credit institution, Mukhtar Ablyazov. The prosecution also believes that the politician established connections with Kazakh nationalists for Ablyazov.”
extrajudicial prosecution
Opposition journalist Sergei Vilkov beaten in Saratov
"Version-Saratov", January 13 :
“Two unknown people beat up Sergei Vilkov, a journalist from the Public Opinion magazine. According to the journalist, two men whom he saw yesterday in the courtyard of his house near the intersection of Komsomolskaya and Chernyshevsky streets attacked him today. “I was returning home when two men, having let me go ahead, attacked at the same time: one tried to knock me down from behind, and the other from the front began to hit me in the face. I don’t know how long this lasted. Then they ran away in different directions,” Vilkov said. The journalist intends to record his injuries and file a report with the police. “This is clearly an act of intimidation related to professional activity. And the connection with the attack on Alexander Krutov is obvious,” Vilkov noted. Let us remind you that earlier an attack was committed on “Public Opinion” journalist Alexander Krutov. Despite the statements of the publication and the victim himself, investigators classified the attack as hooliganism not related to professional activities.”
Memorial office in Chechnya was pelted with eggs
“Unknown people threw eggs at the office of the Memorial human rights center in Gudermes, human rights activists of the center told Interfax. “This is, of course, a reason for a criminal case. Moreover, the qualification should be “hooliganism.” But, unfortunately, we do not hope for a serious investigation,” Svetlana Gannushkina, a member of the board of the Memorial center, told Interfax. According to her, five people in black clothes and masks burst into the Gudermes office of Memorial, after which they began throwing eggs and shouting “You are defending Kalyapin!” (Igor Kalyapin is the head of the Nizhny Novgorod organization “Committee against Torture” and a member of the Presidential Council for Human Rights). Gannushkina said that at the time of the attack there were two employees in the office, they were not injured. “Our employees have already contacted the police. But an interesting detail: criminal investigation officers visited our office even before the police were called,” said the human rights activist. The authorities of the Chechen Republic have not yet commented on the human rights activists’ message.”
Bailiffs were breaking in on a Saratov social activist
“Unknown people are trying to enter the apartment of the chairman of the Saratov NGO Partnership for Development, member of the Public Chamber of the region Olga Pitsunova . The social activist herself told the news agency Vzglyad-info about this. “People came who first stated that they wanted to give some kind of notice, while closing the door peephole so that they could not be seen. They said that they were from the post office, but we knew the postman. When Andrei (Pitsunova’s husband Andrei Pinchuk , - author .) tried to get a notification, they tried to break into the apartment, he barely managed to push them out the door. They are still standing outside the door and periodically knocking on it. There is an assumption that these are representatives of the bailiff service, but we don’t know for sure: They didn’t introduce themselves,” said the social activist. According to Olga Pitsunova, at least three people are trying to break into the apartment: two women and a man. The environmentalist is afraid to contact law enforcement agencies. “They didn’t call the police. I don’t yet see the possibility that in our conditions there will be justice, that the police will protect our interests, and not break in along with the bailiffs, if that’s them,” Pitsunova said. Previously, the court recognized Pitsunova’s NGO as a “foreign agent.” She herself was fined 100 thousand rubles, the organization 300 thousand.
Later, the regional FSSP seized Pitsunova’s pension account. With the help of citizens, the environmentalist managed to collect more than 130 thousand to pay fines.
At the end of last year, Pitsunova wrote a letter to the department, in which, in particular, she said that she still did not know the details for paying fines. And she asked to send the corresponding resolution. “The holidays have passed and instead of sending us a resolution, we have an attempt to break into the apartment,” Pitsunova summed up. As it became known to the Vzglyad-info news agency, these citizens are employees of the Federal Bailiff Service.”
“Employees of the Saratov branch of the bailiff service are trying to enter the apartment of Saratov social activist Olga Pitsunova, head of the NGO Partnership for Development Association, recognized by the court as a foreign agent. A fine of 100 thousand rubles was imposed on Pitsunova for failure to include the NPO in the appropriate register. The Association must pay another 400 thousand rubles as a fine. According to the co-founder of the NGO, Andrei Pinchuk, the bailiffs came this morning to hand over a resolution to initiate proceedings. However, the press secretary of the Saratov branch of the department, Vladimir Moiseenko, said that the bailiffs intend to describe the property. “The bailiffs came to hand over a resolution to initiate proceedings against Olga Pitsunova and assess her property situation. After this, the bailiff will have to decide on the spot whether to seize the property to pay the fine or not,” Moiseenko explained. The bailiff service has already blocked Pitsunova's bank account, which receives her pension, but did so without issuing a resolution to initiate proceedings. According to Andrei Pinchuk, today's insistence of bailiffs may mean an attempt to issue a document retroactively. “A month ago, Olga Pitsunova’s pension account was seized without explanation. At the same time, we were not given any order. And now, when we have already collected the amount necessary to pay the fine, when we demanded to unblock the account in order to find out how much money was withdrawn from it, they bring us “Such actions, like before, when Pitsunova was literally caught in the market to hand over some papers, are alarming. We will not accept anything without a lawyer,” Pinchuk said. At the moment, the bailiffs are continuously knocking on the door of the activist’s apartment and demanding to be let inside. Police officers are present at the scene. The witnesses invited by the bailiffs signed the protocol and did not wait for the results...”