The Code is not for "Russians"

How did the meeting take place, on what basis did the court make such a decision?

- On September 15, the new Code of Administrative proceedings came into force. Previously, such cases were considered in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure - the Civil Procedure Code. In the event of a ban on the activities of various organizations, the new code provides that only a person who has a higher legal education can represent the interests of the organization. On this basis, the court was removed from the case of Alexander Potkin, who is now in custody -he participated in a video conference-Dmitry Demushkin and, accordingly, as a representative of Alexander Potkin. After that, the prosecutor's office presented some documents that the court had previously requested. And the meeting was postponed to October 28 due to the fact that in fact there are no representatives of the organization in court. An announcement of the organization’s notice will be posted on the Ministry of Justice. If a representative appears, they will check the authority, the presence of a diploma.

Demushkin and Potkin were present in court as interested parties, and initially the prosecutor's office filed a statement that they were attracted to participation in the process in this status. The ban on the organization’s activities directly concerns the interests of its leaders.

But the court decision is consistent with the new code?

-Formally corresponds, but there is no practice, and some moments are interpreted in different ways. We understood this provision of the code more widely - that in the case of a person’s discharge, at least his representative could participate in the process. And the court understands so that even the representative has no right, that is, he must represent the interests of the organization.

But here another question arises: since the organization is not registered, how to certify the powers of the person who will represent its interests? From a legal point of view, this organization does not exist. There were attempts to hold a congress, because according to the law on public associations, only the congress can legitimize the organization, appoint leaders, accept the charter. The congress through the efforts of the Federal Security Service broke off before the start - either the light was turned off, then they ran into the owners. In fact, those documents that hang on the site - the manifesto and the draft charter are not registered anywhere, because there was no congress that could accept them. The question arises of what in general the prosecutor's office wants to ban, because the organization as such is not.

It turns out that if the organization is not registered, then even if you conclude some agreement with it, you will not be able to represent its interests in court?

- Based on the meaning of the law, this is so. We need some basis. Demushkin can write out a handwritten power of attorney. And whether she will give the authority to represent the interests of the organization in court, I do not know. The organization has no seal.

Previous meetings also took place after the entry into force of the Code?

- The very first meeting was September 15, that is, on the day when he entered into force. (Shortly before that, Demushkin was arrested for 15 days.-OVD-info) he was transferred to October 2, since there was no proper notice of Demushkin and Potkin. On October 2, we came with Demushkin, he filed several petitions for the demand for the materials of the prosecutor's audit.

The fact is that the prosecutor's office checked the activities of the organization back in 2013. The organization was then at the stage of formation, there was an active preparation for the congress. It was not clear to us then on what basis the audit would be carried out if the organization is not officially registered. However, we, after conferring, decided that we had to provide the prosecutor's office with access to all materials, especially since most of them were already open. We ourselves were interested in registering the movement, we had nothing to hide, and did not want to quarrel with the prosecutor. The check was long, there were three months. Based on the results of the audit, some conclusion was supposed to be issued, but it was not issued.

And on October 9, the prosecutor’s office stated in court that in 2013 she did not conduct an audit as such: they say, the audit was started, but was not fully brought, because in the process the prosecutors realized that it was inappropriate to continue the audit, and they did not take the conclusion. They cannot admit that then they checked the same documents that now appear in court as extremist. But since by the time the prosecutor’s office was presented about the verification, we were already removed from the process, we could neither get acquainted with them or object.