The lawn is like evidence

In Moscow, courts are on claims about the "damage from inconsistent rallies"

Representatives of the GBU "Automobile Roads" during 10 hours of meetings in the Koptevsky District Court of Moscow were unable to submit evidence in the claim against the organizers of the inconsistent rally on July 27. The consideration of the case was postponed to October 1. The plaintiff believes that the protesters during the action damaged the lawn, flowers and benches, as well as the “technical means of traffic organization”, which is why it requires almost 11.5 million rubles from opposition politicians.

The defendants are the politician Aleksey Navalny, the coordinator of his Moscow headquarters Oleg Stepanov, lawyer of the Corruption Fund Georgy Alburov, unregistered candidates Lyubov Sobol, Ivan Zhdanov, Vladimir Milov, Ilya Galyamina and Alexander Solovyov. Such claims were also filed with them by the Moscow Metro, Mosgortrans and the company-owner of the Armenia restaurant on Tverskaya Street. At the request of Mosgortrans, the court on September 10 ordered the opposition to pay 1.2 million as compensation for losses.

Avtodor claims that they estimated the damage from the protest of 11.5 million rubles based on the costs of allocating transport for the streets of the streets, for additional work on the streets, and more than 10.5 million supposedly went or will still go to eliminate damage that occurred due to the rally. At the preliminary session of the court on August 22, Avtodor could not provide evidence of the damage caused by the rally participants.

The representative of Mosgortrans also failed to clarify the role of each of the politicians to whom the claims were filed. In addition, the judge then demanded evidence that the “flowers” ​​and “benches” were not damaged before the protest on July 27. She also had questions for the examples of damage that the Avtodor presented:

“You indicate 850 square meters of the lawn on Sadovaya-Kudrinskaya. Where is it? I often visit Sadovaya-Kudrinskaya, there is a pavers. ”

At a meeting on September 11, Avtodor as evidence provided a photograph of a lawn, trampled, according to representatives of the State Budgetary Institution, protesters. Although, as Sobol and Stepanov, Sergei Badamshin, noted the interests, there is no ban on walking along the lawn.

The court introduced photographs to the case, which shows how security officials are trampling on July 27 on a rally on July 27. At the same time, the judge rejected the defense of the protection of the Russian Guard and the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Moscow as co -consumers. Representatives of the plaintiff do not deny that security officials took part in the spoilage of urban property, but they explain the choice of defendants by the fact that it was politicians in their social networks who campaigned to reach the action and “did nothing to uncleaning damage”. At the same time, they could not answer the question of protection about what, according to Avtodor, "they had to undertake.

Ilya Yashin came out of the trial with his representative, accusing the judge of biases, as well as the representative of Yulia Galyamina. According to Yashin, this business is nothing more than a political order.

“At first we were kept behind bars for more than a month, then they saw that it didn’t work very much, so now we decided to punish with a ruble,” the politician says.

He explains this amount of the claim by an attempt by the authorities to undermine the organizational base of the opposition so that it is forced to spend the donations collected for political activities exclusively on paying fines. Yashin does not exclude that the defendants in the future may try to include in the list of suspects in the case of “riots” (Article 212 of the Criminal Code), since the riots imply damage, and the essence of this claim is in it.

The lawyer Valentina Frolova noted that representatives of the defendants in this process have an absolutely unequal position, since the court rejected all their petitions and did not give enough time to familiarize themselves with the materials. According to her, the whole case is built on some internal documents of the plaintiff, which lawyers did not even have the opportunity to check. “Although Avtodor is a really large enterprise with huge resources and considerable number of employees, during 10 hours of meeting they could not present evidence. Just because there really was no damage, ”says Frolova.

Sergei Badamshin is sure that the court had enough reasons to deviate the Avtodor claim. He associates the transfer of the meeting with the fact that the court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff to make a positive decision for them. “This case is a means of accounting for accounts with political opponents of the city government. At first they were not allowed to participate in the elections to the Moscow City Duma, and when they expressed their dissatisfaction with the law, they were launched into orbit of administrative arrests. Now, politicians are trying to punish with a ruble, ”the defender insists.