The Moscow City Court sent for a new consideration to the district court the cases of two minors detained during protests due to the non-admission of independent candidates for deputies of the Moscow City Duma. This is reported by lawyers from OVD-Info Tatyana Solomina and Anastasia Samorukova.
The first young man was detained on August 10, 2019, when he was returning from work, where he helped his father. He was walking past Ilyinka Street, where mass actions for fair elections were taking place . He was detained, a protocol was drawn up under the article on participation in an uncoordinated action (part 5 of article 20.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses). The Commission on Juvenile Affairs found the young man guilty and imposed a fine of 10,000 rubles. The Khamovnichesky District Court, represented by Judge Syrova, upheld this decision.
As Tatyana Solomina said, the Moscow City Court decided to return the case to the Khamovnichesky Court for a new trial. Due to the expiration of the 1-year limitation period for an administrative case, the court will be forced to close the case. The representative of the prosecutor's office at the meeting, instead of the on-duty statement "the decision is legal and justified," fully supported the arguments of the defense.
The second minor was detained on July 30, 2019, when he was handing out leaflets in support of politician Dmitry Gudkov, who was not allowed to vote in the Moscow City Duma. He was detained along with a girl who was standing nearby in a solitary picket against violence. The police considered both participants of an uncoordinated mass picket and drew up protocols on them also under part 5 of article 20.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses.
Later, the Commission on Juvenile Affairs fined the teenager 10 thousand rubles, and the Khamovnichesky District Court approved this decision. Lawyer Anastasia Samorukova told OVD-Info that the reason for the cancellation of the fine by the Moscow City Court was that both the commission on juvenile affairs and the court of first instance refused to request a document from the authorities confirming that the action was not approved.