Translated material
An insignificant monument
In Vologda, they want to dismantle the monument to Stalin a second time. So decided the court and the prosecutor's office
Georgy Filimonov at the monument to Stalin. Photo: social networks
18+. This material (information) was produced, distributed and (or) sent by foreign agent Vishnevsky Boris Lazarevich or concerns the activities of the foreign agent Vishnevsky Boris Lazarevich.
The Arbitration Court of the Vologda Oblast recognized the contract between the Vologda State Historical, Architectural and Art Museum-Reserve and an entrepreneur from the Moscow Region Ekaterina Lozhenitsyna for the manufacture and installation of the monument to Joseph Stalin on the territory of the Museum.
It is interesting, of course, only whether the detected economic violations plunged the prosecutor’s office to challenge the contract, but if we find out, then later.
In the meantime, the court decided to recognize the contract insignificant (which means the dismantling of the monument), and the money - 10.5 million rubles - return to the budget.
It is noteworthy that
A similar monument at this place was already standing and in the second half of the 20th century was dismantled - in the framework of the fight against the consequences of the personality cult.
The subject of disputes (and part of the “unified and indivisible chain of our history”, according to the governor of the region Georgy Filimonov) is the bronze growth figure of Stalin, installed on a low pedestal. Three months - from December 1911 to February 1912 - Stalin occupied a room on the second floor of a wooden house on Ulyanova Street when he was exiled to Vologda.
Filimonov announced the appearance of the monument in October 2024, and opened it in December. Supposing that it is important to “get out of outside the inferiority complex about the history of our country”, that “we are obliged to appreciate the past in all diversity, understanding and accepting its ambiguous pages,” and that “with all the understanding of the ambiguous interpretation of the role of personality, we must recognize great achievements.”
The claim of the prosecutor’s office was filed on April 4, the first court session was held on June 24, the second (and last) on July 9.
The representative of the prosecutor’s office of the region Olga Ivolga said in court: “We consider the contract an insignificant due to the violations during the purchase and violations in the formation of the price of the contract” (the value, according to the prosecutor's office, has been high).
The prosecutor's office also believes that the provision of the legislation on the protection of competition was violated: the purchase was carried out unreasonably with a single supplier without competitive procedures.
In addition, the contract was concluded with Lozhenitsyna, but the prosecutor’s office assures that the monument was created by another master - Konstantin Kubyshkin, although the copyright issues were not considered in court.
In addition, the contract was concluded with Lozhenitsyna, but the prosecutor’s office assures that the monument was created by another master - Konstantin Kubyshkin, although the copyright issues were not considered in court.
The Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Finance of the region involved as third parties opposed the recognition of the contract invalid, the lawyer of the defendant Stanislav Melnik, responding to reproaches in the overestimation of the price, said that the production of the monument is a long and expensive process (from my point of view, the monument is completely banal and by no means a masterpiece in the overcoat).
The court, however, was shallowed and decided: the contract to recognize the money to be returned to the budget.
The reaction of Governor Filimonov followed almost immediately: he stated that “they tried to inflate a strange excitement out of the blue, I.V. Stalin ”that“ only legal nuances are discussed procedures for paperwork, and not the fate of the monument ”that“ the Ministry of Culture of the region and the legal block of the regional government has its full -fledged legal arguments ”and that“ the object itself is outside the discussion; He will stand, I hasten to calm the dreamers. ”
In fact, judging by the trial, it was the fate of the monument that was discussed, because recognition of the contract is insignificant and the refund means its dismantling. The “full -fledged legal arguments” did not act on the arbitration court. And “will he ( a monument. - B.V. ) Stand,” it turns out after the consideration of the case in the next court.
Last year, residents of the Vologda region collected more than three thousand signatures under the petition against the installation of the monument to Stalin.
It, in particular, says:
“Discussions on social networks are already fixing a wave of indignation and indignation about this decision. Such a reaction of people can be understood. Over the past decades, many have accumulated an archive of information about the fate of their families. The number of people undergoing repression, according to some estimates, reaches more than 10 million people. Firing landfills - in the memory of a huge number of families, both throughout Russia and in the Vologda region. To erect a monument to I.V. Stalin means offending the memory, honor and dignity of these families. The installation of such a monument depreciates the results of political rehabilitation. ”
I completely agree with this.