Six judges opened four different plaintiffs with the same words and with the same mistakes

Not later than in July last year, in the context of the pandemic, for which the president especially praised the judges at a meeting with them on February 9 (see No. 15 of the New "), the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation adopted a decision on the uniformity of judicial practice. The case is necessary-it is necessary to somehow fight with the notorious selectivity of law enforcement! But some judges seem to have taken uniformity literally ...

Ap the law is not written

The Internet platform Sota.Vision has just published a decision of the Judge of the Tver District Court of Moscow Ekaterina Korotova of January 22, 2021, which refused Sota in the reception of the administrative statement of the presidential administration in the order of Chapter 22 of the Code of Administrative proceedings (“Production on Administrative Affairs of Population of Decisions, Actions (Inaction) of State Power ..., of the state authorities ..., officials, state and municipal employees ”).

The essence of the claims of the “honeycomb”, registered as the media, is that she submitted an application for participation in the annual December press conference of President Putin, but not only did not find herself in the list of accredited media, but did not receive any explanations from the presidential press service. In the lawsuit, the editor -in -chief of Sota Alexei Obukhov referred to Art. 48 of the Media Law, which, in the case of compliance with the established procedure for submitting an application for accreditation, does not provide for the possibility of refusal for the media.

The text of the definition of January 22 will be useful to us more than once, so we quote it in detail, preserving all the features of the original - in the sense in which any court decision is always the original, not a copy.

So, Judge Korotova "installed":

QUOTE

“State power in the Russian Federation is carried out by the president ...”, which, according to Art. 91 of the Constitution "inviolable." “By virtue of the order of the President of the Russian Federation dated February 22, 2005 No. 198, the presidential administration is a state body ...”, and “appeal in court of the actions of the state bodies of their officials who are directly subordinate to the president, as well as the presentation of claims to these state bodies, in practice means direct or indirect intervention in the presidential and other activities of the president ..., which is unacceptable and violates the foundations of the basis The constitutional system of the Russian Federation and the principle of separation of powers ... ".

In fact, the president does not publish “orders”, but decrees.

Decree No. 198 dated 02.22.2005 was actually signed by him, but in the development of his first decree of 03.25.2004, and he acts in the last version of 10/02/2018, so the link is inaccurate. But not one of these numerous editions turns the presidential administration into a “state body”, since the Constitution has only one mention of it, namely, that the president “forms” it (paragraph “and” Article 83). The President can delegate the delicate function of accreditation at a press conference to someone from the “apparatus”, but these officials must make decisions on his behalf.

The press service of the AP should at least somehow politely explain the principle of separation of participants in the presidential press conferences into “correct and wrong”. Or there is no one and no time to engage in "routine"? Judges are so definitely, and about this the second part of our notes.

And the law is not written to judges either

In terms of the Supreme Court of the Supreme Court, the uniformity of the judicial practice is played by the Internet and in general IT technologies. The column, corresponding to the first part of these notes, appeared on the website of the new day on February 12, and in the evening one Moscow lawyer, who asked not to mention his last name, posted on Facebook the definition of judge Maria Moskalenko from the same Tver district court of September 14, 2016. A completely different plaintiff appealed the actions of another unit of the Presidential Administration - the Department of Legal and Analytical Support for Working with citizens' appeals. Perhaps, in this department they work with appeals in the same way, but we will not recognize this: Judge Moskalenko refused the plaintiff to receive the application - and with exactly the same words as Judge Korotova on January 22, 2021.

The judges coincided not only in views on the law, but also in characteristic mistakes.

Passage: “state bodies of their officials” missed the Union “I”; The presidential decree is called the “order”, and the link is mistaken not for the first and not to the last edition.

If Judge Korotova at least read this text, before signing and putting it on top, breathing on it, the print of the blue press, she should have noticed at least the falling out of “and”. But, apparently, a lack of time!

Meanwhile, the attentive date of the “new” department in a couple of hours and offhand discovered two more characteristic solutions with the falling “and” in the Moscow City Court base.

• So the judge of the same Tver court Lyubov Vinogradov on March 16, 2017, “having familiarized themselves with the administrative claim” of a certain D. The consultant of the AP Office for working with the appeals of citizens and organizations of Maslova, refused to consider this lawsuit in exactly the same words and with the same mistakes.

• Carefully reacted to their duties in the Moscow City Court, where on December 10, 2018, the Judicial Collegium as part of the chairman Maximova E.V., judges Kurochkina O.A. and Knyazeva A.A. I considered in the second instance the case of F.'s complaint about the determination of the same Tver district court. In the appeal definition, the passage familiar to us took the form: “The state bodies of their officials” - there appeared a capital letter “D”, which may indicate an attempt, albeit unsuccessful success, correct the mistake from the honored college.

Perhaps the same definitions, but with the corrected error that the Date-Department took as a criterion for the search, he simply did not find. But traces of the same solution were discovered on the Prav.ru portal - even in 2010, and in this case, the true author of the original text is Judge Marina Salnikova.

We can conclude that the cherished definition is stored somewhere in the computers of the Tver district court, but at the request of colleagues from the Moscow City Court, they are also allowed to write off the formula.

If you do not cling to such trifles, but to speak on the merits, then the right to a judicial appeal of the actions of any official, including, is scary to say, and the president, not only does not “violate the principle of separation of powers”, but it is this principle itself. The inviolability of the president only implies that he cannot be brought to criminal or administrative responsibility in addition to a very difficult procedure for removing from office.

Last year, such immunity was also extended to ex-presidents. But so far, not for all the decisions of all officials appointed by the President, as they would like to interpret, probably referring to themselves, too, all of the listed Moscow judges!

This illiterate replicated definition should become the subject of consideration of the qualification collegium of judges of the city of Moscow.

But it will hardly happen: now it is important for judges not to know the law, but to correctly understand the “political line”. And for this "leadership" can only praise them.

It's a shame that this example did not arrive at February 9, when the president spoke before the All -Russian meeting of the judges. Perhaps, for such an understanding of the indignity of his administration, he would still praise. Still, an administrative lawsuit aimed at the “AP” citadel is a slurry case. Or for judges, it is the same as any other, and citizens for them are some kind of annoyance like mosquitoes. And is it all the same how and what “order” to dismiss them?

PS

The "new" will continue to search for similar court decisions by the Date Department.