INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
CASE CONCERNING
APPLICATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION
OF THE FINANCING OF TERRORISM AND OF THE INTERNATIONAL
CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation)
COUNTER-MEMORIAL ON THE CASE CONCERNING APPLICATION OF
THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS
OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Submitted by the Russian Federation
Volume V
(Annexes 244 - 341)
9 August 2021
The Annexes contained in this Volume are either true copies of the original documents referred to in
the Counter-Memorial, or translations (marked accordingly) from their original language into
English, an official language of the Court, pursuant to Article 51 of the Rules of Court.
Pursuant to Article 51(3) of the Rules of Court, some translations are confined to parts of the annexes,
as indicated at the beginning of the respective annexes. In further compliance with this Rule, the
Russian Federation has provided two certified copies of the full documents in their original language
with its submission. The Russian Federation stands ready to provide more extensive partial
translations or a complete translation of submitted documents should the Court so require.
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME V
Annex 244
Annex 245
Annex 246
Annex 247
Annex 248
Annex 249
Annex 250
Annex 251
Annex 252
Annex 253
Annex 254
Annex 255
Annex 256
Annex 257
Annex 258
North Caucasus District Military Court, Case No. 1-39/2015, Decision,
25 August 2015 (excerpts)
Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 22-2258/2015, Appellate
Decision, 26 August 2015 (excerpts)
Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 4a-285/2015, Decision,
3 September 2015
Moscow Arbitrazh Court, Case No. А40-131463/2015, Decision, 8 September
2015
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Case No. 9-APU15-17, Appellate
Decision, 7 October 2015 (excerpts)
Moscow Arbitrazh Court, Case No. A40-124221/2015, Decision, 13 October
2015
Moscow Arbitrazh Court, Case No. A40-119488/2015, Decision, 16 October
2015
Investigative Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of
Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, Resolution on the initiation of
a criminal case No. 2015427050, 22 October 2015
Explanation of Sinaver Kadyrov before the Armyansk City Court, Case No. 5-
369/2015, 18 October 2015
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea, Ruling
authorizing a search in the dwelling of Lenur Islyamov, 28 October 2015
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea, Case No.
3/6-821/2015, Ruling authorizing a search in the dwelling of Lenur Islyamov,
28 October 2015
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea, Ruling
authorizing a search in the dwelling of Lenur Islyamov, 28 October 2015
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea, Ruling
authorizing a search in the dwelling of Lenur Islyamov, 28 October 2015
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea, Case No.
3/6-833/2015, Ruling authorizing a search in the dwelling of Elzara Islyamova,
29 October 2015
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea, Case No.
3/6-832/2015, Ruling authorizing a search in the dwelling of Lilya Budzhurova,
29 October 2015
2
Annex 259
Annex 260
Annex 261
Annex 262
Annex 263
Annex 264
Annex 265
Annex 266
Annex 267
Annex 268
Annex 269
Annex 270
Annex 271
Annex 272
Annex 273
Annex 274
Annex 275
Ninth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal, Case No. А40-131463/15, Decision,
23 November 2015 (excerpts)
Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Case No.
205-APU15-12s, Appellate Decision, 24 November 2015
Armyansk City Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 5-369/2015, Decision,
7 December 2015
Appeal of Sinaver Kadyrov against the Decision of the Armyansk City Court of
the Republic of Crimea of 7 December 2015 in Case No. 5-369/2015,
24 December 2015
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Case No. 201-APU15-17, Appellate
Decision, 24 December 2015 (excerpts)
Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, Decision No. 12-123/2016, 13 January
2016
Ninth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal, Case No. A40-124221/15, Decision, 20 January
2016
Ninth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal, Case No. A40-119488/15, Decision, 25 January
2016
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, Case No. 2-1201/2016, Decision,
9 February 2016
Centre for Countering Extremism of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the
Republic of Crimea, Certificate of inspection of the Internet resource, 11 February
2016
Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 44U-27/2016 (4U-284/2015),
Decision, 24 February 2016 (excerpts)
Moscow Circuit Arbitrazh Court, Case No. А40-131463/2015, Decision,
10 March 2016 (excerpts)
Investigative Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of
Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, Criminal Case No.
2014818017, Resolution on suspension of preliminary investigation, 8 April 2016
(excerpts)
Prosecutor of the Republic of Crimea, Decision on the suspension of activities of
“The Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People”, 12 April 2016
Armyansk City Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 5-22/2016, Decision,
22 April 2016
Krasnoperekopsk District Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 2a-932/16,
Decision, 17 May 2016
Moscow City Court, Сase No. 3a-0836/2016, Decision, 20 May 2016
3
Annex 276 Explanation of U.O. Ibragimov on the circumstances of the disappearance of his
son E.U. Ibragimov, 25 May 2016
Annex 277 Investigative Department for the Bakhchisaray District of the Main Investigative
Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for the
Republic of Crimea, Criminal Case No. 2016627042, Resolution on the initiation
of a criminal case, 26 May 2016
Annex 278 Investigative Department for the Bakhchisaray District of the Main Investigative
Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for the
Republic of Crimea, Notification No. 16-2016627042/489, 26 May 2016
Annex 279 Investigative Department for the Bakhchisaray District of the Main Investigative
Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for the
Republic of Crimea, Resolutions on satisfying motions, 30 May 2016
Annex 280 Moscow Circuit Arbitrazh Court, Case No. A40-124221/2015, Decision,
9 June 2016
Annex 281 Investigative Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of
Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, Case No. 2016427026, Ruling,
16 June 2016
Annex 282 Moscow Circuit Arbitrazh Court, Case No. A40-119488/2015, Decision,
28 June 2016
Annex 283 Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, No. 1428-O, Ruling, 7 July 2016
(excerpts)
Annex 284 Explanation of D.Ya. Selyametov, 13 July 2016
Annex 285 Explanation of I.S. Mukhterem, 14 July 2016
Annex 286 Explanation of O.N. Seitmemetov, 14 July 2016
Annex 287 Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Case No. 1707-О, Ruling,
19 July 2016
Annex 288 Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Crimea, Reply No. 27-259-2016/Оn3727-
2016, 22 July 2016
Annex 289 Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Crimea, Reply No. 27-257-2016/Оn3725-
2016, 22 July 2016
Annex 290 Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Crimea, Reply to No. 27-258-
2016/Оn3726-2016, 22 July 2016
Annex 291 Investigative Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of
Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, Case No. 2016427026, Record
of interrogation of G.M. Kushnir as a specialist, 5 August 2016
4
Annex 292 Investigative Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of
Russia in the Republic of Crimea and City of Sevastopol, Case No. 2016427026,
Resolution, 8 August 2016
Annex 293 Investigative Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of
Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, Case No. 2016427026, Record
of interrogation of S.A. Krasnovskiy as a specialist, 10 August 2016
Annex 294 Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, Case No. 3/5-4/2016, Ruling, 11 August
2016
Annex 295 Sovetskiy District Court of Ulan-Ude, Case No. 2-3635/16, Decision, 22 August
2016
Annex 296 Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 33a-5959/2016, Appellate
Decision, 5 September 2016
Annex 297 Centre for Countering Extremism of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the
Republic of Crimea, Explanation of I.R. Umerov, 27 September 2016
Annex 298 Krasnoperekopsk District Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 2a-1578/16,
Decision, 4 October 2016
Annex 299 Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Case of the constitutional review
of Part 1 of Article 4 of the Federal Constitutional Law “On the admission of the
Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation and the formation of new
constituent entities within the Russian Federation - the Republic of Crimea and
the federal city of Sevastopol” in connection with the appeal of A.G. Olenev,
Decision No. 18-P, 4 October 2016 (excerpts)
Annex 300 Investigative Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of
Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, Resolution on the initiation of
criminal case No. 2016427051, 11 October 2016
Annex 301 Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, Case No. 3/6-593/2016, Ruling authorizing
the search, 11 November 2016
Annex 302 Court of Appeal of Sevastopol, Case No. 12-401/2016, Appellate Decision,
17 November 2016
Annex 303 Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Case No. 5-APG16-81S, Appellate
Decision, 14 December 2016
Annex 304 Police Station No. 1 “Zheleznodorozhny” of the Directorate of the Ministry of
Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol, Report on the results of operative search
activities, 2017
Annex 305 Centre for Countering Extremism of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the
Republic of Crimea, Report, 9 January 2017
5
Annex 306 Centre for Countering Extremism of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the
Republic of Crimea, Certificate of inspection of the Internet resource, 9 January
2017
Annex 307 Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, case No. 33a-267/2017, Appellate
Decision, 11 January 2017
Annex 308 Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa of the Republic of Bashkortostan, Case No. 2-
900/2017, Decision, 1 February 2017
Annex 309 Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 33-1258/2017, Appellate
Decision, 15 February 2017
Annex 310 Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, Case No. 5-483/2017, Decision,
21 February 2017
Annex 311 Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, Case No. 5-484/2017, Decision,
21 February 2017
Annex 312 Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, Case No. 5-489/2017, Decision,
21 February 2017
Annex 313 Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, Case No. 5-488/2017, Decision,
21 February 2017
Annex 314 Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, Case No. 5-488/2017, Ruling,
21 February 2017
Annex 315 Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, Case No. 5-487/2017, Decision,
21 February 2017
Annex 316 Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, Case No. 5-485/2017, Decision,
21 February 2017
Annex 317 Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, Case No. 5-480/2017, Decision,
21 February 2017
Annex 318 Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, Case No. 5-482/2017, Decision,
21 February 2017
Annex 319 Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, Case No. 5-481/2017, Decision,
21 February 2017
Annex 320 Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, Case No. 5-486/2017, Decision,
21 February 2017
Annex 321 Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, Case No. 5-479/2017, Decision,
21 February 2017
Annex 322 Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 12-505/2017, Decision,
1 March 2017 (excerpts)
Annex 323 Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 12-504/2017, Decision,
2 March 2017
6
Annex 324 Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 12-508/2017, Decision,
2 March 2017
Annex 325 Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 12-513/2017, Decision,
2 March 2017
Annex 326 Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 12-506/2017, Decision,
2 March 2017
Annex 327 Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 12-511/2017, Decision,
2 March 2017
Annex 328 Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 12-509/2017, Decision,
2 March 2017
Annex 329 Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 12-503/2017, Decision,
2 March 2017
Annex 330 Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 12-512/2017, Decision,
2 March 2017
Annex 331 Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 12-570/2017, Decision,
6 April 2017
Annex 332 Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Case No. 12-569/2017, Decision,
25 April 2017 (excerpts)
Annex 333 Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Crimea, Letter No. 15/3-2140-16,
27 April 2017
Annex 334 Chekmagush Interdistrict Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan, Case No. 1-
3/2017, Decision, 30 June 2017 (excerpts)
Annex 335 First Investigative Department of the High-priority Cases Directorate of the Main
Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian
Federation for the Republic of Crimea, Letter No. Otsk201-08-2017/13581,
19 July 2017
Annex 336 Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Barnaul, Case No. 1-242/16, Decision,
26 July 2017 (excerpts)
Annex 337 Investigative Department of the Zheleznodorozhny District of Simferopol of the
Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of Russia for the
Republic of Crimea, Order No. 1002-17 on carrying out certain investigative
activities, 17 August 2017
Annex 338 Investigative Department of the Zheleznodorozhny District of Simferopol of the
Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of Russia for the
Republic of Crimea, Letter No. 1001-17, 17 August 2017
Annex 339 Directorate for Supervision of Criminal Procedural and Operative Search
Activities of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Crimea, Letter No. 15/1-
382-2016/On4261-2017, 29 August 2017
7
Annex 340 Simferopol Clinical Hospital of Emergency Medical Care No. 6 of the Republic
of Crimea, Letters No. 1499/01-11, 29 August 2017
Annex 341 Crimean Republican Headquarters of the People’s Militia – the People’s Guard of
the Republic of Crimea, Letter No. 02-04/823, 29 August 2017
Annex 244
North Caucasus District Military Court, Case No. 1-39/2015, Decision,
25 August 2015 (excerpts)
1
Translation
Excerpts
/STAMP: COPY/
DECISION
IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
25 August 2015 Rostov-on-Don
North Caucasus District Military Court composed of:
the presiding judge S.A. Mikhaylyuk,
the judges E.V. Korobenko, V.A. Korsakov,
courtroom secretaries N.N. Shchelokova, K.Yu. Parakhin,
with attendance of the public prosecutors: the Head of the Criminal-Judicial Department of the Rostov
Region Prosecutor’s Directorate, Senior Counselor of Justice O.V. Tkachenko and the prosecutor of the same
Department Adviser of Justice V.V. Kuznetsov, representatives of the victims: A.D. Kozenko, A.V.
Bochkarev,
defendants: O.G. Sentsov and A.A. Kolchenko, defence counsel S.I. Sidorkina, V.N. Simokhin and D.V.
Dinze, considered a criminal case against citizens
Sentsov Oleg Gennadyevych, born 13 July 1976 in the settlement of Skalistoye of the
Bakhchisaray district of the Republic of Crimea, with a higher education, married,
having two dependent underage children, working as a film director in the “Kray
Kinema” company, non-convicted, residing until his arrest at […]
accused of committing crimes under Part 1 of Article 2054 of the Criminal Code of the Russian
Federation (as amended by Federal Law of 2 November 2013 No. 302-FZ), para. “a” of Part 2 of Article
205 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Laws of 27 July 2006 No. 153-
FZ, of 30 December 2008 No. 321-FZ, of 27 December 2009 No. 377-FZ) - two crimes, Part 1 Article 30
and para. “a” of Part 2 of Article 205 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal
Laws of 27 July 2006 No. 153-FZ, of 30 December 2008 No. 321-FZ, of 27 December 2009 No. 377-FZ, of
5 May 2014, No. 130-FZ), Part 3 of Article 30 and Part 3 of Article 222 of the Criminal Code of the Russian
Federation (as amended by Federal Laws of 25 June 1998 No. 92- FZ and 28 December 2010 No. 398- FZ),
Part 3 of Article 222 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Laws of 25
June 1998 No. 92- FZ, of 28 December 2010, No. 98- FZ),
Kolchenko Aleksander Aleksandrovich, born 26 November 1989 in Simferopol of the
Republic of Crimea, with secondary general education, single, unemployed, nonconvicted,
residing until his arrest at […]
accused of committing crimes, stipulated in Part 2 of Article 2054 of the Criminal Code of the Russian
Federation as amended by Federal Law of 2 November 2013 No. 302- FZ), para. “a” of Part 2 of Article 205
of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Laws of 27 July 2006, No. 153- FZ,
of 30 December 2008 No. 321- FZ and 27 December 2009 No. 377- FZ).
[…]
Page 41
When deciding on sentencing of Sentsov and Kolchenko, the court also takes into account that in the
case materials there is evidence of Sentsov and Kolchenko being recognised as citizens of the Russian
Federation in accordance with Article 4 of Federal Constitutional Law of 21 March 2014 No. 6-FKZ “On the
Annex 244
2
admission of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation and the formation of the new constituent
entities – the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol”. At the same time, the court was not
provided with any information about the withdrawal of Sentsov and Kolchenko from the citizenship of
another state whose citizens they were. In connection with the aforementioned, the court does not appoint
Kolchenko and Sentsov an additional punishment in the form of restriction of freedom, provided for by the
sanction of Part 2 of Article 205 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as mandatory, and in
relation to Sentsov, also provided for by the sanction of Part 1 of Article 2054 of the Criminal Code of the
Russian Federation as mandatory.
[…]
Page 42
decided:
Sentsov Oleg Gennadyevich to adjudge him guilty of creating a terrorist community, that is, a stable
group of persons pre-united in order to carry out terrorist activities, as well as of leading this terrorist
community, that is, of a crime under Part 1 of Article 2054 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
(as amended by Federal Law of 2 November 2013 No. 302-FZ), on the basis of which a penalty of
imprisonment for a term of 15 (fifteen) years is imposed, without a fine or restriction of freedom.
Also he is to be found guilty of two terrorist acts - committing arson intimidating the population and
creating the risk of death, causing significant property damage, in order to influence the decision-making by
the authorities by the organised group, that is, of two crimes, each of which provided for by para “a” of Part
2 of Article 205 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Laws of 27 July
2006 No. 153-FZ, of 30 December 2008 No. 321-FZ, of 27 December 2009 No. 377-FZ), and sentenced him
to imprisonment:
- regarding the episode of 14 April 2014 - for a period of 10 (ten) years, without restriction
of freedom;
- regarding the episode of 18 April 2014 - for a period of 11 (eleven) years, without
restriction of freedom.
He is also to be found guilty of preparing for a terrorist act — an explosion intimidating the population
and creating the risk of death, causing significant property damage, in order to destabilise the authorities and
influence their decision-making by the organised group, that is, of a crime under Part 1 of Article 30, para.
“a” of Part 2 of Article 205 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Laws of
27 July 2006 No. 153-FZ, of 30 December 2008 No. 321-FZ, of 27 December 2009 No. 377-FZ, of 5 May
2014, No. 130-FZ), and he is to be sentenced applying Part 2 of Article 66 of the Criminal Code of the
Russian Federation, to imprisonment for a term of 7 (seven) years without restriction of freedom.
He is also to be found guilty of attempted unlawful acquisition of explosive devices by the organised
group, that is, of a crime, provided for by Part 3 of Article 30, Part 3 of Article 222 of the Criminal Code of
the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Laws of 25 June 1998 No. 92- FZ and of 28 December 2010
No. 398-FZ), and to be sentenced applying Part 3 of Article 66 of the Criminal Code, to imprisonment for a
term 5 (five) years.
He is also to be found guilty of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition by the organised group,
that is, of a crime under Part 3 of Article 222 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by
Federal Laws of 25 June 1998 No. 92-FZ, of 28 December 2010 No. 398-FZ), and to be sentenced to
imprisonment for a term of 5 (five) years.
Annex 244
3
Based on Part 3 of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the final punishment for
the aggregate of crimes is to be appointed to Sentsov by partial addition of the imposed penalties of
imprisonment for a term of 20 (twenty) years in a penal colony of strict regime.
Kolchenko Aleksander Aleksandrovich is to be found guilty of participating in a terrorist community,
that is, a stable group of persons pre-united in order to carry out terrorist activities, that is, of a crime under
Part 2 of Article 205 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law of 2
November 2013 No. 302-FZ), on the basis of which he is to be sentenced to imprisonment for 6 (six) years,
without fine.
He is also to be found guilty of a terrorist act - committing arson, explosion intimidating the
population and creating the risk of death, causing significant property damage, in order to influence the
decision-making by the authorities by the organised group, that is, of a crime, provided for by para. “a” of
Part 2 Article 2054 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law of 27 July
2006, No. 153-FZ, of 30 December 2008 No. 321-FZ, of 27 December 2009, No. 377-FZ), and to be
sentenced applying Article 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law
of 13 June 1996 No. 64-FZ), to imprisonment for a term of 8 (eight) years, without fine and restriction of
freedom.
[…]
Annex 244
Annex 245
Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 22-2258/2015,
Appellate Decision, 26 August 2015 (excerpts)
1
Translation
Excerpts
/handwritten: illegible/
Case No. 22-2258/2015
/STAMP: COPY/
APPELLATE DECISION
26 August 2015 Simferopol
Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, composed of:
presiding judge S.N. Pogrebnyak,
in the presence of secretary E.V. Delibozhko,
with the participation of Prosecutor O.Yu. Maksimova,
convicted person A.F. Kostenko,
defence counsel attorney D.V. Sotnikov,
defence counsel of the convicted person E.P. Kostenko,
Having held an open appeal hearing of the criminal case on the basis of the appeal filed by the
convicted person A.F. Kostenko, attorney D.V. Sotnikov acting in the interests of A.F. Kostenko, victim
V.V. Polienko against the decision of 16 May 2015 issued by the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, the
Republic of Crimea, according to which
Alexander Fedorovich Kostenko, born 10 March 1986 in […], a citizen of the Russian
Federation, a university graduate, unemployed, unmarried, having a dependent underage
child, not previously convicted, residing at: […],
Under Paragraph “b” of Part 2 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,
sentenced to one year of correctional labor;
Under Part 1 of Article 222 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, sentenced to 4 years of
imprisonment without a fine.
On the basis of Part 2 of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, by aggregating
the crimes, by partial summation of the sentences imposed, the ultimate sentence was 4 years 2 months of
imprisonment in a general regime penal colony without a fine.
The term of the sentence started on 6 February 2015.
The issue of material evidence was resolved.
[…]
Page 14
DECIDED:
The appeal filed by the convicted person A.F. Kostenko to be dismissed.
The appeal filed by defence counsel attorney of the convicted person D.V. Sotnikov and the appeal
filed by victim V.V. Polienko to be granted partially.
The decision of 15 May 2015 issued by the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, the Republic of
Crimea, against Alexander Fedorovich Kostenko to be amended to the extent of the punishment imposed.
Alexander Fedorovich Kostenko to be sentenced to 1 year of correctional labor with deduction to the
state of 15 percent from the salary of the convicted person under Paragraph “b” of Part 2 of Article 115 of
the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Alexander Fedorovich Kostenko’s punishment under Part 1 of Article 222 of the Criminal Code of
the Russian Federation to be reduced to three years nine months of imprisonment without a fine.
Annex 245
2
Pursuant to Part 2 of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, by aggregating the
crimes, a more severe punishment absorbing a less severe one, the ultimate sentence to be 3 (three) years 11
(eleven) months of imprisonment without a fine, with serving the sentence in a general regime penal colony.
The rest of the decision of 15 May 2015 issued by the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, the
Republic of Crimea, to be left unchanged.
Presiding Judge: signed
/STAMP: TRUE COPY
Judge: (Signature)
Secretary: (Signature)/
/SEAL: KIEVSKIY DISTRICT COURT OF
SIMFEROPOL, THE REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA
THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION/
/STAMP: Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, the
Republic of Crimea
The original document of the decision is kept
in criminal case No. 1-213/2018
Copy issued on 2 August 2018
Judge (Signature)
Secretary (Signature)/
/SEAL: KIEVSKIY DISTRICT COURT OF
SIMFEROPOL, THE REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA, THE
RUSSIAN FEDERATION/
Annex 245
Annex 246
Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 4a-285/2015,
Decision, 3 September 2015
1
Translation
SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA
No. 4a-285/2015
DECISION
3 September 2015 Simferopol
Vice Chair of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea T.A. Shklyar, having considered an appeal
submitted by defence counsel Alexander Vladimirovich Lesovoy in the interests of Sinaver Arifovich Kadyrov
against the decision of the judge of the Armyansk City Court of the Republic of Crimea of 23 January 2015
and the decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea of 6 February 2015 in the proceedings in
relation to the administrative offence envisaged by Article 18.8(1.1) of the Code on the Administrative
Offences of the Russian Federation against
Sinaver Arifovich Kadyrov, born 1 January 1955, a citizen of Ukraine registered at the address: […], residing
at: […],
ESTABLISHED:
By virtue of the decision of the judge of the Armyansk City Court of the Republic of Crimea of 23
January 2015, Ukrainian national Sinaver Arifovich Kadyrov was found guilty of the administrative offence
envisaged by Article 18.8(1.1) of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation and
administrative penalty consisting in an administrative fine amounting to 2,000 (Two thousand roubles) and
administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation by means of supervised independent departure from the
Russian Federation was imposed on him.
The decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea of 6 February 2015 upheld the decision
of the judge of the Armyansk City Court of the Republic of Crimea of 23 January 2015 issued against Sinaver
Arifovich Kadyrov in administrative proceedings in relation to the administrative offence envisaged by Article
18.8(1.1) of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation and dismissed the appeal filed by
Sinaver Arifovich Kadyrov.
In the appeal, defence counsel Alexander Vladimirovich Lesovoy, in the interests of Sinaver Arifovich
Kadyrov, is seeking to repeal the said judicial acts and terminate proceedings in the case due to the absence of
the fact of the administrative offence.
Examination of the administrative case file and arguments set out in the appeal allow making the
following conclusions.
It can be inferred from the record No. 52 of the administrative offence of 23 January 2015 that on 23
January 2015 at 08:00 a.m. in the course of passport control of individuals at Armyansk - Motorway Cargo
and Passenger Multiway Border Crossing Point of the Russian Federation, the Ukrainian citizen Sinaver
Arifovich Kadyrov who breached the rules of stay (residence) in the Russian Federation, which consisted in
avoidance of leaving
Category: Article 18.8(1.1) of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation
Judge of the court of 1st instance: L.A. Likhacheva
Judge of the court of 2nd instance: V.V. Agin
the Russian Federation upon expiry of the 90-day period of stay (case sheet 1).
This fact served as the grounds for holding Sinaver Arifovich Kadyrov liable in administrative
proceedings under Article 18.8(1.1) of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
Article 18.8(1.1) of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation provides that the
breach by a foreign national or stateless person of rules of stay (residence) in the Russian Federation consisting
in the absence of documents confirming the right of stay (residence) in the Russian Federation or in case of
loss of such documents or failure to file an application with regard to loss thereof with the relevant authority,
or in avoidance of leaving the Russian Federation upon expiry of a certain term of stay, provided these acts
Annex 246
2
contain no elements of a criminal offence, shall be punishable by an administrative fine in the amount from
two thousand to five thousand roubles with administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation.
The subject of the administrative offence envisaged by Article 18.8(1.1) of the Code on Administrative
Offences of the Russian Federation includes foreign individual or a stateless person.
Under Article 24.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation the tasks of
administrative proceedings include, in particular, comprehensive, full, objective and timely fact-finding of
each case.
Under Article 26.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation the facts subject
to examination in administrative proceedings in relation to an administrative offence include: existence of the
fact of the administrative offence, the person who committed the unlawful action (omission) for which this
Code or a law of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation establish administrative liability, that person’s
guilt of committing the administrative offence and other circumstances material to the correct resolution of the
case as well as the reasons and conditions of commission of the administrative offence.
In these proceedings S.A. Kadyrov claimed that he is a citizen of the Russian Federation, therefore,
his actions cannot be qualified under Article 18.8(1.1) of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation.
The judges failed to verify the said arguments and request the supporting documents.
Thus, under Article 1 of the “Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea
for the admission of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation and the formation of new constituent
entities within the Russian Federation” (signed in Moscow on 18 March 2014) the Republic of Crimea is
deemed to be admitted to the Russian Federation as of the date of signing of this Agreement.
Under Article 4(1) of the Federal Constitutional Law of 21 March 2014 No. 6-FKZ “On the admission
of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation and the formation of new constituent entities within the
Russian Federation – the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol” as of the date of admission
of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation and forming of new constituent entities within the Russian
Federation, Ukrainian nationals and stateless persons permanently residing in the Republic of Crimea and the
federal city of Sevastopol shall be deemed to be the citizens of the Russian Federation, save for the persons
who within one month from the said date manifest their wish to preserve their other citizenship and (or) that
of their minor children or to remain stateless.
In can be seen from the copy of the passport of the Ukrainian national S.A. Kadyrov (case sheets 4-5)
that the said passport series […] has a stamp confirming S.A. Kadyrov’s registration in the Republic of Crimea
at the address: […] as of 18 March 2014.
The courts failed to verify the arguments of the person held liable in administrative proceedings
regarding his permanent residence in the Republic of Crimea as of 18 March 2014 and absence of his
application to preserve his other citizenship.
It can be inferred from the case files in relation to the administrative offence that in the course of
consideration of the case in question by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea on 6 February 2015 the
representative of the office of the Directorate of the Federal Migration Service for the Republic of Crimea was
not notified and that explanations and evidence relating to whether the person held liable in administrative
proceedings – S.A. Kadyrov – held citizenship of the Russian Federation were not requested by the Directorate
of the Federal Migration Service.
At the same time, by virtue of Article 26.10 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation the judge, authority or official that has the administrative case pending may issue an order
requesting the information needed for resolution of the case, including the data (information) required for
calculation of the amount of the administrative fine. The information requested shall be provided within three
days from the date of receipt of the order and in case of the administrative offence punishable by an
administrative arrest or administrative expulsion such information shall be provided immediately. If it is
impossible to provide such information the organisation shall notify the judge, authority or official that issued
the order within three days.
The above shows that in the course of consideration of the administrative case the requirements of
Articles 24.1 and 26.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation concerning the
examination of all facts material to correct resolution of the case were not met.
Under Article 30.17 (2(3) of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation following
the consideration of the appeal or protest against the effective decision issued in administrative proceedings or
the decision following the consideration of the appeals or protests, a decision shall be issued for the repeal of
the decision issued in the administrative proceedings or the decision following the consideration of the appeal,
Annex 246
3
protest and for referral of the case for a new trial in case of substantial breach of the procedural requirements
envisaged by this Code if it made a comprehensive, full and objective consideration of the case impossible.
As at the date of consideration by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea of the appeal filed by
defence counsel Alexander Vladimirovich Lesovoy in the interests of Sinaver Arifovich Kadyrov against the
effective ruing issued in this administrative case and the decision following the consideration of the appeal,
the one-year limitation period has not expired.
Given the above, the decision of the judge of the Armyansk City Court of the Republic of Crimea of
23 January 2015 and the decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea of 6 February 2015 issued
in the proceedings related to the administrative offence envisaged by Article 18.8 (1.1) of the Code on
Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation against Sinaver Arifovich Kadyrov shall be repealed and
this case shall be referred back to the Armyansk City Court of the Republic of Crimea for reconsideration.
Pursuant to Article 30.13, Article 30.17 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation,
DECIDED:
The appeal filed by the defence counsel Alexander Vladimirovich Lesovoy in the interests of Sinaver
Arifovich Kadyrov shall be partially satisfied.
The decision of the judge of the Armyansk City Court of the Republic of Crimea of 23 January 2015 and
the decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea of 6 February 2015 issued in the proceedings in
relation to the administrative offence envisaged by Article 18.8 (1.1) of the Code on Administrative Offences
of the Russian Federation against Sinaver Arifovich Kadyrov shall be repealed.
The administrative case shall be referred back to the Armyansk City Court of the Republic of Crimea for
reconsideration.
Vice Chair of the
Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea T.A. Shklyar
Annex 246
Annex 247
Moscow Arbitrazh Court, Case No. А40-131463/2015, Decision,
8 September 2015
1
Translation
(QR code) 900001546_10965796
MOSCOW ARBITRAZH COURT
17 Bolshaya Tulskaya St., 115191, Moscow
http://www.msk.arbitr.ru
DECISION
In the name of the Russian Federation
Moscow
8 September 2015 Case No. А40-131463/2015
Arbitrazh court composed of
presiding judge: judge I.V. Korogodov (139-1095),
with the courtroom secretary B.M. Asadov keeping the record,
having held an open court hearing of the case on the basis of the application filed by
“Children’s TV Channel ‘Lale’” LLC (Lale Children’s TV Channel LLC)
against the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media
on declaring actions illegal with the participation:
from the applicant: A.S. Titov, the power of attorney u/n of 24 August 2015
from the defendant: Yu.V. Vasina, power of attorney No. 469-D of 22 September 2014; A.A. Kulikov, the
power of attorney No. 129-D of 30 July 2015
ESTABLISHED:
Lale Children’s TV Channel LLC appealed to the Moscow Arbitrazh court to declare illegal the
actions committed by the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and
Mass Media (Roskomnadzor), namely on dismissal without consideration of the application of 20 March
2015 filed by the founder of Lale Children’s TV Channel LLC (incoming reference No. 30318-smi of 24
March 2015) on registration of mass media outlet – LALE TV channel, inaction, and also to oblige it to
rectify the violation of the rights and freedoms of the applicant and to consider the application filed by Lale
Children’s TV Channel LLC on registration of mass media outlet – LALE TV channel.
The applicant supported the claims by noting that it was unreasonable to return without consideration
the company’s application to register an information agency, thereby in essence refusing to register a mass
media outlet since a complete package of documents stated in the Law “On mass media” was attached to the
application.
The representative of the defendant objected to granting the claims on the grounds set out in the
statement of defense, submitted a motion to terminate the proceedings.
Having examined the case materials, heard the explanations provided by the representatives of the
persons participating in the case, evaluated the evidence included into the case materials, reviewed all the
arguments set out in the application and the statement of defense, the court grants the application partially on
the following grounds.
Subject to Part 1 of Article 198 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, citizens,
organisations and other persons are entitled to apply to the arbitrazh court to have non-regulatory legal acts
invalidated, resolutions and actions (inaction) of bodies exercising state powers and officials declared illegal,
if they believe that the disputed non-regulatory legal act, resolution and action (omissions) fail to comply
Annex 247
2
with the law or another statutory legal act, and violate their rights and legitimate interests in the field of
entrepreneurial and other economic activity, illegally impose any duty on them, create other obstacles to
entrepreneurial and other economic activities.
The applicant has not missed the court application deadline stated in Part 4 of Article 198 of the
Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation.
As it follows from the case materials, on 18 December 2014 Lale Children’s TV Channel LLC, as
the founder and applicant, by registered mail sent to the address of Roskomnadzor, Moscow, the application
of 17 December 2014 on registration of mass media outlet – LALE TV channel and certified copies of the
documents stated by the legislation, which were assigned incoming reference number No. 130684-smi by
Roskomnadzor upon receipt thereof on 29 December 2014.
On 27 January 2015, Roskomnadzor sent letter No. 04-6898 and returned to the applicant without
consideration its application of 17 December 2014 and the mass media outlet registration package of
documents due to the applicant paying the state duty using incorrect details.
The applicant rectified the violations highlighted in relation to the first application, used its
representative to send the second application of 6 February 2015 to Roskomnadzor to register the TV
channel as a mass media outlet and the package of documents required for registration and attached to cover
letter No. 7 of 6 February 2015, which was received by Roskomnadzor in Moscow on 9 February 2015,
incoming reference No. 11922-smi.
On 20 March 2015, the applicant received response No. 04-21905 of 6 March 2015 from
Roskomnadzor on the return without consideration of the documents since the list of members of the
applicant contained incomplete details of the members of the LLC, sizes of their shares in the authorized
capital, payment thereof, the sizes of the shares owned by the Company and the dates they had been acquired
by the Company.
The applicant sent to Roskomnadzor the application for registration of the mass media outlet and the
package of documents attached to cover letter No. 13 of 20 March 2015, which was received by
Roskomnadzor on 24 March 2015, incoming reference No. 30318-smi.
On 12 May 2015 the applicant received response No. 04-37089 of 24 April 2015 from
Roskomnadzor about the application to register LALE TV channel and the third application of 20 March
2015 and the package of documents attached thereto, but lacking any indication that the documents were
returned without consideration, where Roskomnadzor offered the applicant to confirm the founder’s
compliance with the requirements of Part 2 of Article 7 of the Law “On mass media”.
Disagreeing with that resolution, the applicant applied to the court by filing this application and
noted that there were no legal grounds to refuse registration of an information agency.
Subject to Clauses 5.4, 5.4.1 of the Regulation on Roskomnadzor approved by Resolution No. 228 of
16 March 2009 of the Government of the Russian Federation, Roskomnadzor is responsible for registration
of mass media outlets.
Pursuant to Article 7 of Law No. 2124-1 of 27 December 1991 of the Russian Federation “On mass
media” (in the edition of 2 July 2013 and amended on 14 October 2014) a citizen, an association of citizens,
an organisation, a state body can act as a founder (co-founder) of a mass media outlet. Subject to Federal
Law No. 131-FZ of 6 October 2003 “On the general principles of organisation of local self-government in
the Russian Federation”, a local self-government body can act as a founder (co-founder) of a print media.
The following parties may not act as a founder: a citizen under the age of eighteen or serving a
sentence in penitentiary facilities on the basis of a court decision, or a mentally ill, an individual recognised
legally incapable by the court, an association of citizens, an enterprise, institution, organisation participating
in activities prohibited by law; a citizen of another state or a stateless individual not permanently residing in
the Russian Federation.
Subject to Article 10 of the Law “On mass media” of the Russian Federation, an application to
register a mass media outlet must specify the following: 1) details of the founder (co-founders) stated in the
requirements of this Law; 2) mass media name (title); 3) language (languages); 4) editorial office address; 5)
Annex 247
3
form of periodic dissemination of mass information; 6) intended area of product distribution; 7) approximate
topic and/or specialisation; 8) estimated frequency of releases, maximum media volume; 9) sources of
funding; 10) details of other mass media where the applicant acts as a founder, owner, editor-in-chief
(editorial office), publisher or distributor; 11) website domain name in the Internet information and
telecommunication network for an on-line media.
The application shall be accompanied by a document to confirm the payment of a state duty, and also
the documents to confirm the applicant’s compliance with the requirements established by this Law when
founding a mass media outlet. The Government of the Russian Federation shall approve the list of such
documents.
It is prohibited to demand otherwise when registering a mass media outlet.
Subject to the List of documents an applicant must attach to the application to register a mass media
outlet approved by Order No. 1752-р of 6 October 2011 of the Government of the Russian Federation, the
application shall be accompanied by the documents to confirm the identity and place of registration of the
individual (where the applicant is a citizen of the Russian Federation), and also the applicant is free to file a
document to the federal executive body responsible for registration of mass media to confirm that the
individual is not serving a sentence in penitentiary facilities on the basis of a court decision (where the
applicant is an individual).
The requirement set out in Roskomnadzor’s letter No. 04-37089 of 24 April 2015 to oblige the
applicant to confirm that its founder complies with the requirements of Part 2, Article 7, Law “On mass
media” is not elaborated, Roskomnadzor fails to indicate officially which ground of the implemented norm
of the Law must be confirmed by the applicant.
Given the legal entity is the founder of the media submitted for registration, the applicant believes
that Roskomnadzor’s requirement is related to the applicant’s confirmation of Clause 2 of Part 2 of Article 7
of the Law that the activities of the applicant as a media founder within the scope of the concept of an
association of citizens, an enterprise, institution, organisation are not prohibited by law.
Subject to Part 1 of Article 7 of the Law “On mass media”, a citizen, an association of citizens, an
organisation or a state body may act as a founder (co-founder) of a mass media.
Taking into account that an organisation is the founder of mass media outlet – LALE TV channel,
the relevant reason for this founder is “the organisation’s activities prohibited by law”. As such, the fact that
the founder of this media exists as a legal entity and submits applications to register a media already
indicates that the activities of that founder are not prohibited by the Law, which is confirmed by valid
certificates of registration and tax registration, the extract from the unified state register of legal entities of 23
March 2015 and other documents of title attached to application, incoming reference No. 33248-smi.
Subject to Part 2, Article 10 of the Law “On mass media”, a document to confirm the payment of a
state duty, and also the documents to confirm the applicant’s compliance with the requirements established
by that Law when founding a media, shall be attached to the application to register a mass media outlet. The
Government of the Russian Federation shall approve the list of such documents.
The list of documents to be attached by applicants to applications to register (re-register) a media is
approved by Order of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1752-р of 6 October 2011 “On
approval of the list of documents to be attached by the applicant to the application for registration (reregistration)
of a mass media outlet” (the “List”), and includes:
1. Documents to confirm the identity and place of registration of the individual (where the
applicant is a citizen of the Russian Federation).
2. Documents to confirm the identity and the right to permanent residence in the Russian
Federation (where the applicant is a foreign citizen or a stateless individual).
3. Copies of the constituent documents certified in the manner prescribed by the legislation of
the Russian Federation (where the applicant is a legal entity).
4. The list of members or an extract from the register of shareholders (where the applicant is a
legal entity) for incorporating a TV channel, radio channel, TV-, radio-, video program.
Annex 247
4
5. Copies of documents to confirm the right to use the domain name of the website in the
Internet information and telecommunications network where a network media is being founded, certified in
the manner prescribed by the legislation of the Russian Federation.
6. Copies of the Articles of Association of the media’s editorial office or, if substituted by, the
contract between the founder and the editorial office (editor-in-chief) valid at the time of filing of the
application, certified in the manner prescribed by the legislation of the Russian Federation (in case of reregistration).
7. Copy of the document to transfer the rights and obligations of the media founder to a third
party approved by the editorial office (editor-in-chief) and co-founders, certified in the manner prescribed by
the legislation of the Russian Federation (in case of re-registration of the media due to rotation or a change
among the co-founders).
As can be seen from the presented List, the Law does not establish the need to provide a document to
confirm that the activities of an organisation are not prohibited, moreover, there is even no document as such
to confirm the absence of such prohibition.
Taking into account that the applicant was a legal entity, the applicant voluntarily submitted the
extract of 23 March 2015 from the unified state register of legal entities to Roskomnadzor together with the
application to register a media, incoming reference No. 30318-smi, the list of members and the package of
other mandatory documents; that fact was confirmed by the applicant’s cover letter outgoing reference No.
13 of 20 March 2015.
Thereby, Roskomnadzor’s requirement for the applicant, which was set out in letter
No. 04-37089 of 24 April 2015 demanding to confirm that the founder as a legal entity complies completely
with the requirements of Part 2 of Article 7 of the Law “On mass media”.
The provisions of Clause 60 of the Regulations establish an exclusive List of grounds entitling to
return the documents required for the provision of a state service; an application to register a mass media
outlet shall be returned to the applicant without consideration indicating the ground for the return:
1) where the application is filed in violation of the requirements of Part 2 of Article 8 or Part 1,
of Article 10 of Law No. 2124-1 of the Russian Federation of 27 December 1991 “On mass media”, namely:
60.1.1. Application to register a media producing the products intended for distribution mainly on the
whole territory of the Russian Federation, beyond its borders, on the territories of several constituent entities
of the Russian Federation, is submitted to the territorial body.
60.1.2. Application to register a media producing the products intended for distribution mainly on the
territory of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, the territory of a municipality, is submitted to the
registration body.
60.1.3. Application contains incomplete information.
2) Where the application is submitted on behalf of the founder by a non-authorised individual.
3) Where the applicant failed to pay a state duty (sub-clause 3 as amended by Order
No. 349 of the Ministry of Digital Development, Communications and Mass Media of the
Russian Federation of 17 October 2014 No. 349).
The said violations were not committed by Lale Children’s TV Channel LLC in the application and
the attached documents on registration of media LALE TV channel; that fact was confirmed by the very
Roskomnadzor’s response No. 04-37089 of 24 April 2015, which only obliged the company to confirm the
founder’s compliance with the requirements of Part 2 of Article 7 of the Law “On mass media”.
Having received the Roskomnadzor’s response of 24 April 2015 (outgoing reference No. 04-37089),
Roskomnadzor sent an oral demand to the applicant specifying that a confirmation of the founder’s
compliance with the requirements of Part 2 of Article 7 of the Law “On mass media” was meant by the
Roskomnadzor to be a provision of evidence that a member (owner) the founder of Lale Children’s TV
Channel LLC had a Russian citizenship and had no citizenship of another state.
When applying for registration of a mass media outlet, the applicant’s package of attached
documents provided to Roskomnadzor contained photocopies of the passports of the citizens of the Russian
Annex 247
5
Federation, member of the Company E.M. Sokhtaeva and head of Lale Children’s TV Channel LLC E.R.
Islyamova, and also the list of members of the applicant; that fact was confirmed by cover letter No. 13 of 20
March 2015.
However, Roskomnadzor believed that evidence of E.M. Sokhtaeva (member of Lale Children’s TV
Channel LLC) of Russian citizenship was insufficient and obliged the company to provide evidence that the
said founder of the applicant had no citizenship of another state.
These requirements of Roskomnadzor were not justified by law.
Subject to Clauses 57 and 58 of the Regulations, employees of Roskomnadzor are not entitled to
send the following requests to the applicant when providing a state service:
- Provision of documents and information or performance of actions, the provision and performance
of which is not stipulated in the statutory legal acts governing the relations arising in connection with the
provision of a state or municipal service;
- Provision of documents and information held by the bodies providing state services and bodies
providing municipal services, other state bodies, local self-government authorities, organisations, in
accordance with the statutory legal acts of the Russian Federation, statutory legal acts of the constituent
entities of the Russian Federation, municipal legal acts.
Should the provision of a state service require documents held by other state bodies, local selfgovernment
authorities, organisations, such documents shall be requested from the relevant state bodies,
local self-government authorities, organisations, subject to the statutory legal acts of the Russian Federation,
statutory legal acts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, municipal legal acts electronically
using the electronic interaction system and shall not be requested from the applicant.
Given Clause 30 of the Regulations, it is prohibited to require the applicant to perform actions
particularly obtaining approvals necessary to receive a state service and related to any application to other
state bodies, local self-government authorities, organisations, other than to receive services included in the
list of services necessary and mandatory to provide state services approved by the Government of the
Russian Federation.
Subject to sub-clause 5 of clause 142 of the Regulations, if a state service shall be provided using the
required documents held by Roskomnadzor or other state bodies, local self-government authorities,
organisations, such documents shall be requested from the relevant state bodies, local self-government
authorities, organisations, subject to the statutory legal acts of the Russian Federation, statutory legal acts of
the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, municipal legal acts electronically using the
Interdepartmental Electronic Interaction System.
Therefore, Roskomnadzor is not entitled to oblige the applicant to confirm the founder’s compliance
with the requirements of Part 2, Article 7 of the Law “On mass media” since it is not provided for by the said
provisions of Law “On mass media”, the List and the Regulations. These statutory legal acts do not entitle
the Roskomnadzor to contact the applicant directly, but, on the contrary, oblige the registrar to contact other
authorities to verify information.
Therefore, Roskomnadzor’s actions in letter No. 04-37089 of 24 April 2015 by obliging the
applicant to confirm the founder’s compliance with the requirements of Part 2 of Article 7 of the Law “On
mass media” were unenforceable and illegal.
Subject to Clause 3 of Part 5 of Article 201 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian
Federation, in the operative part of the resolution to invalidate a refusal to act, the court shall specify the
obligation of the relevant state body to perform certain actions and rectify violations of the applicant’s rights
and legitimate interests within the time period determined by the court.
At the same time, the court finds no ground to justify granting the applicant’s claims to the extent of
invalidating inaction of the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology,
and Mass Media, by avoiding registration of the applicant’s mass media outlet since all the applications filed
by Lale Children’s TV Channel LLC were considered by the defendant.
Annex 247
6
Relying on the above, guided by Articles 65, 71, 110, 167-170, 199-201 of the Arbitrazh Procedural
Code of the Russian Federation, the court
DECIDED:
To dismiss the motion of the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information
Technology, and Mass Media to terminate the proceedings.
To find illegal actions of the Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Communications,
Information Technologies and Mass Media by returning without consideration the application of 20 March
2015 (incoming reference No. 30318-smi of 24 March 2015) filed by Lale Children’s TV Channel LLC on
registration of mass media outlet – LALE TV channel (reviewed for compliance with Law No. 2124-1 of the
Russian Federation of 27 December 1991 “On mass media”).
The Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media
be obliged to rectify the violations of the rights and legitimate interests of Lale Children’s TV Channel LLC
by considering the application on registration of mass media outlet – LALE TV channel on its merits.
The rest of the claims be dismissed.
Legal costs in the amount of 3,000 (three thousand) rubles incurred to pay the state duty be
recovered from the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass
Media to the benefit of Lale Children’s TV Channel LLC.
The decision can be appealed to the Arbitrazh Court of Appeal within one month from the date of its
adoption.
Judge I.V. Korogodov
Annex 247
Annex 248
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Case No. 9-APU15-17,
Appellate Decision, 7 October 2015 (excerpts)
1
Translation
Excerpts
SUPREME COURT
OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Case No. 9-APU15-17
APPELLATE DECISION
Moscow 7 October 2015
The Judicial Chamber on Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation,
consisting of:
presiding judge K.E. Skriabin,
judges S.A. Shmotikova and O.K. Zatelepina,
with the secretary V.A. Miniaeva,
with the participation of prosecutor L.V. Shchukina,
convicted persons M.T. Usmonov, Kod.I. Kasimov, Kom.I. Kasimov, I.T. Ermatov,
attorneys E.M. Shevchenko, L.A. Chiglintseva, S.V. Poddubnii, S.V. Krotova,
has considered in an open court hearing a criminal case on appeals of convicted persons M.T. Usmonov,
Kod.I. Kasimov, Kom.I. Kasimov, I.T. Ermatov and their defence attorneys V.Yu. Shkanov, N.A. Shigonina,
M.M. Antonova, Yu.I. Yushkov against the decision of the Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court of 28 April
2015, whereby
Murodzhon Tursunboevich Usmonov, born on 26 June 1970, native and citizen of the Republic of
Tajikistan, with no previous convictions, was convicted to:
6 years 6 months of imprisonment under Part 1, Art. 30, para “a”, Part 2, Art. 205 of the Criminal Code
of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law No. 352-FZ of 9 December 2010), with the application
of Part 1, Art. 62 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation;
5 years 2 months of imprisonment under Part 3, Art. 222 (as amended by Federal Law No. 92-FZ of
25 June 1998), with the application of Part 1, Art. 62 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation;
5 years 2 months of imprisonment under Part 3, Art. 223 (as amended by Federal Law No. 92-FZ of
25 June 1998), with the application of Part 1, Art. 62 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
On the basis of Part 3, Art. 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, for the totality of the
committed crimes, by partial addition of punishments, M.T. Usmonov was finally convicted to 9 years 6
months of imprisonment with service of the punishment in a maximum security facility.
A punishment was imposed on M.T. Usmonov under Part 1, Art. 282.2 (as amended by Federal Law
No. 420-FZ of 7 December 2011), with the application of Part 1, Art. 62 of the Criminal Code of the Russian
Federation, in the form of a fine equal to 150,000 rubles; on the basis of Art. 24, Part 1, para 3 of the Criminal
Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, M.T. Usmonov was released from the punishment for committing
this crime due to the expiry of the period of limitation.
Komilzhon Ismoilovich Kasimov, born on 25 December 1972,
native of the Republic of Tajikistan, with no criminal record, was convicted to:
imprisonment for a term of 9 years under Part 1, Art. 30, para “a”, Part 2, Art. 205 of the Criminal
Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law No. 352-FZ of 9 December 2010);
imprisonment for a term of 5 years 2 months under Part 3, Art. 222 (as amended by Federal Law No.
92-FZ of 25 June 1998);
imprisonment for a term of 6 years under Part 3, Art. 223 (as amended by Federal Law No. 92-FZ of
25 June 1998).
Annex 248
2
On the basis of Part 3, Art. 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, for the totality of the
committed crimes, by partial addition of punishments, Kom.I. Kasimov was finally convicted to 10 years of
imprisonment with service of the punishment in a maximum security facility.
In accordance with Part 2, Art. 282.2 (as amended by Federal Law No. 420-FZ of 7 December 2011),
with the application of Part 1, Art. 62 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, a punishment in the
form of a fine equal to 100,000 rubles was imposed; on the basis of Art. 24, Part 1, para 3 of the Criminal
Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, Kom.I. Kasimov was released from the punishment for
commitment of this crime in connection with the expiry of the term of limitation of criminal prosecution.
Kodirzhon Ismoilovich Kasimov, born on 18 March 1980,
native of the Republic of Tajikistan, with no criminal record, was convicted to:
imprisonment for a term of 6 years 6 months under Part 1, Art. 30, para “a”, Part 2, Art. 205 of the
Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law No. 352-FZ of 9 December 2010);
imprisonment for a term of 5 years 2 months under Part 3, Art. 222 (as amended by Federal Law No.
92-FZ of 25 June 1998), with the application of Part 1, Art. 62 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation;
imprisonment for a term of 5 years 2 months under Part 3, Art. 223 (as amended by Federal Law
No. 92-FZ of 25 June 1998), with the application of Part 1, Art. 62 of the Criminal Code of the Russian
Federation.
On the basis of Part 3, Art. 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, for the totality of the
committed crimes, by partial addition of punishments, Kod.I. Kasimov was finally convicted to 9 years of
imprisonment with service of the punishment in a maximum security facility.
In accordance with Part 2, Art. 282.2 (as amended by Federal Law No. 420-FZ of 7 December 2011),
with the application of Part 1, Art. 62 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, a punishment in the
form of a fine equal to 120,000 rubles was imposed; on the basis of Art. 24, Part 1, para 3 of the Criminal
Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, Kod.I. Kasimov was released from the punishment for
commitment of this crime in connection with the expiry of the term of limitation of criminal prosecution.
Ilkhomdzhon Tulkinovich Ermatov, born on 3 December 1985 in the Republic of Tajikistan, with
no criminal record, was convicted to:
imprisonment for a term of 6 years under Part 1, Art. 30, para “a”, Part 2, Art. 205 of the Criminal
Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law No. 352-FZ of 9 December 2010);
imprisonment for a term of 5 years under Part 3, Art. 222 (as amended by Federal Law No. 92-FZ of
25 June 1998).
On the basis of Part 3, Art. 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, for the totality of the
committed crimes, by partial addition of punishments, I.T. Ermatov was finally convicted to 8 years of
imprisonment with service of the punishment in a maximum security facility.
In accordance with Part 2, Art. 282.2 (as amended by Federal Law No. 420-FZ of 7 December 2011),
with the application of Part 1, Art. 62 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, a punishment in the
form of a fine equal to 100,000 rubles was imposed; on the basis of Art. 24, Part 1, para 3 of the Criminal
Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, I.T. Ermatov was released from the punishment for commitment
of this crime in connection with the expiry of the term of limitation of criminal prosecution.
The term of punishment for M.T. Usmonov, Kod.I. Kasimov, Kom.I. Kasimov, I.T. Ermatov is
calculated from 28 April 2015.
The following terms were taken into account as the term of service of punishment:
For M.T. Usmonov - the term of his temporary detention in accordance with Articles 91, 92 of the
Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation from 29 to 30 November 2012, the term under house
arrest from 30 November 2012 to 14 December 2012 and the term of detention in custody from 24 December
2012 to 28 April 2015;
For Kod.I. Kasimov - the term of his temporary detention in accordance with Articles 91, 92 of the
Criminal Procedural of the Russian Federation from 29 to 30 November 2012, the term of detention from 26
December 2012 to 28 April 2015.
Annex 248
3
For Kom.I. Kasimov - the term of his temporary detention in accordance with Articles 91, 92 of the
Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation from 29 to 30 November 2012, the term of detention from
24 December 2012 to 28 April 2015.
For I.T. Ermatov - the term of his temporary detention in accordance with Articles 91, 92 of the
Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation from 29 to 30 November 2012 and from 18 to 20
September 2013, the term of detention from 26 December 2012 to 5 March 2013 and from 20 September to
28 April 2015.
The decision of the court resolved the fate of the material evidence.
[…]
Page 4
established:
By the court decision, M.T. Usmonov, Kod.I. Kasimov, Kom.I. Kasimov, and I.T. Ermatov were found
guilty and were convicted of preparation of a terrorist act, that is, of making explosions intimidating the
population and creating a danger of human death, causing significant property damage and other serious
consequences in order to influence the decision-making by authorities, committed by an organised group.
[…]
Page 13
During the preliminary investigation, the convicted Kom.I. Kasimov also admitted his participation in
the banned organisation “Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami”, as well as in the preparation of a terrorist act in Nizhny
Novgorod, giving testimony consistent with the testimony of other convicts at the stage of the case
investigation, as well as of witnesses in the criminal case.
[…]
Page 21
In view of the above and guided by Articles 389.13, 389.20, 389.28 of the Criminal Procedural Code
of the Russian Federation, the Judicial Panel
decided:
To uphold the decision of the Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court of 28 April 2015 in respect of
Murodzhon Tursunboevich Usmonov, Komilzhon Ismoilovich Kasimov, Kodirzhon Ismoilovich
Kasimov, Ilkhomdzhon Tulkinovich Ermatov and to dismiss the appeals of the convicted persons and their
defence counsels V.Yu. Shkanov, N.A. Shigonina, M.M. Antonova, and Yu.I. Yushkov.
Presiding judge /Signature/
Judges /Signature/ /Signature/
Annex 248
Annex 249
Moscow Arbitrazh Court, Case No. A40-124221/2015, Decision,
13 October 2015
1
Translation
1217_11246766
MOSCOW ARBITRAZH COURT
17 Bolshaya Tulskaya St., 115191, Moscow
http://www.msk.arbitr.ru
DECISION
In the name of the Russian Federation
Case No. А40-124221/2015
Moscow
13 October 2015
The operative part of the decision was announced on 6 October 2015
The full text of the decision was drawn up on 13 October 2015
The Arbitrazh court consisting of:
presiding judge T.I. Makhlaeva (judge code: 2-833)
solely
when keeping the record of the court hearing by the courtroom secretary T.Yu. Antonova
having considered the case at the court session
on the application of “Television Company ‘Atlant-SV’” LLC (Atlant-SV Television Company LLC)
to the defendant: the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass
Media on challenging the actions of Roskomnadzor on the multiple return without consideration of the
application on the registration of the mass media outlet
with the participation in the hearing:
from the applicant: A.S. Titov, legal practicing certificate No. 4229, the power of attorney of 24 August 2015,
from the defendant: A.A. Kulikov, certificate No. 9226, the power of attorney No. 129-D of 30 July 2015,
ESTABLISHED:
A break was announced from 30 September 2015 to 6 October 2015 during the hearing.
Taking into account the clarification of claims, accepted by the court for consideration at the hearing on
6 October 2015 in accordance with Art. 49 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, Atlant-
SV Television Company LLC asks the arbitrazh court to recognise illegal the omissions of the Federal Service
for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media on the return of the application
of Atlant-SV Television Company LLC on the registration of the mass media outlet – the ATRT TV channel
under the application of 20 March 2015 (incoming reference No. 30330-smi of 24 March 2015) that was
returned by letter of 24 April 2015 No. 04-37088.
In support of the stated claims, Atlant-SV Television Company LLC refers to the following
circumstances.
According to Art. 9 of the Federal Law of 25 July 2002 No. 114-FZ “On countering extremist activities”,
creation and operation of public and religious associations and other organisations, goals or actions of which
are aimed at carrying out extremist activities, are prohibited in the Russian Federation.
In the case provided for in Part 4 of Article 7 of this Federal Law or in the event that extremist activities
are carried out by a public or religious association, other organisation or their regional or other structural
subdivision, which entailed the violation of human and civil rights and freedoms, as well as the harm to a
person, the health of citizens, environment, public order, public safety, property, legitimate economic interests
of individuals and (or) legal entities, society and the state, or creating a real threat of causing such harm, the
relevant public or religious association or other organisation may be liquidated, and the activity of a relevant
public or religious association that is not a legal entity may be prohibited by a court decision on the basis of
the application of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation or a corresponding prosecutor subordinate
to him.
According to Paragraphs 5 and 141 of the Regulations, if the provision of a public service requires
documents that are in Roskomnadzor or other state bodies, local government bodies and organisations, such
Annex 249
2
documents are requested from the relevant state bodies, local government bodies and organisations in
accordance with the normative legal acts of the Russian Federation, normative legal acts of the constituent
entities of the Russian Federation or municipal legal acts in electronic form using the Interdepartmental
Electronic Interaction System. Thus, as the applicant points out, it is Roskomnadzor that is responsible for
obtaining an extract from the unified state register of legal entities upon an interdepartmental request. From
the extract, it will be seen whether the organisation that is submitting an application is active or liquidated.
Roskomnadzor’s statement that it has the right to demand confirmation of the founder’s compliance
with Art. 7 of the Law “On mass media” (Paragraph 1, page 7 of the response), according to the Company,
directly contradicts its own Administrative Regulations. According to Clause 30, it is prohibited to require the
applicant to take actions, including approvals, necessary to obtain a public service and related to contacting
other state bodies, local government bodies and organisations.
The list of documents required for registration of a mass media outlet is determined by Order of the
Government of the Russian Federation of 6 October 2011 No. 1752-r “On approval of the list of documents to
be attached by the applicant to the application for registration (re-registration) of a mass media outlet” and
Paragraph 45 of the Administrative Regulations, which, in addition to the application and confirmation of the
state duty (Article 10 of the Law “On mass media”), includes for a legal entity: copies of constituent documents
certified in accordance with the procedure established by the legislation of the Russian Federation (for an
applicant – a legal entity); copies of documents confirming the right to use the domain name of the website in
the information and telecommunications network of Internet when establishing a mass media outlet, certified
in accordance with the procedure established by the legislation of the Russian Federation.
According to Art. 10 of the Law “On mass media”, it is prohibited to present other requirements when
registering a mass media outlet. Thus, according to the applicant, all the necessary documents for registering
an online outlet were provided. Any suggestions of Roskomnadzor to provide other documents/approvals
directly violate the Law “On mass media”.
The contested return of documents is in fact a refusal to register a mass media outlet, since it was made
not on grounds for returning, but on grounds for refusing to register the mass media outlet.
The defendant objects to the application, referring to the legality and validity of the contested decision,
as well as to the absence of legal grounds to satisfy the applicant’s claims.
Having heard the representatives of the applicant and the defendant and having examined the materials
of the case, the arbitrazh court found that the stated claims are not subject to satisfaction on the following
grounds.
In accordance with Part 1 of Article 198 of the Code, citizens, organisations and other persons have the
right to apply to the arbitrazh court with an application for invalidating non-normative legal acts and declaring
illegal the decisions and actions (omissions) of state bodies, local authorities and other bodies and officials, if
they believe that the challenged non-normative legal act, decision and action (omissions) do not comply with
the law or other normative legal act and violate their rights and legitimate interests in the field of
entrepreneurial and other economic activity, illegally impose any obligations on them and create other
obstacles for implementing entrepreneurial and other economic activities.
Part 4 of Art. 198 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation stipulates that an
application can be filed with an arbitrazh court within three months from the day when a citizen, organisation
became aware of the violation of their rights and legitimate interests, unless otherwise provided by federal law.
A deadline for filing an application missed for compelling reasons may be restored by the court.
According to Part 1 of Article 65 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, each
person participating in the case must prove the circumstances to which they refer as the basis for their claims
and objections. The duty of proving the circumstances that served as the basis for the commission of actions
(omissions) rests with the relevant body or official.
The contested decision (case sheet 23) of Atlant-SV Television Company LLC indicated, in connection
with the received application for registration of the ATR T TV channel, the Department of Permitting Work,
Control and Supervision in the Sphere of Mass Media of the Federal Service for Supervision of
Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media offers to confirm the founder’s compliance with
the requirements of Part 2 of Art. 7 of the Law of the Russian Federation of 27 December1991 No. 2124-1
“On mass media”.
As follows from the case materials, Roskomnadzor registers mass media outlets on the basis of clauses
5.4, 5.4.1 of the Provisions on the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information
Technology, and Mass Media, approved by Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation of 16
March 2009 No. 228 (hereinafter – the Provisions).
Annex 249
3
In accordance with clause 31 of the Administrative Regulations for the provision of state service for
registration of mass media outlets by the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information
Technology, and Mass Media, approved by Order of the Ministry of Communications and Mass Media of
Russia of 29 December 2011 No. 362 (registered with the Ministry of Justice of Russia on 6 April 2012,
registration No. 23752) (hereinafter – Administrative Regulations), the result of the provision of a state service
is: issuance of a mass media outlet registration certificate (as a result of a mass media outlet registration, a
mass media outlet re-registration or amendments to a mass media outlet registration certificate); issuance of a
duplicate of a mass media outlet registration certificate; return of an application for mass media outlet
registration (for a mass media outlet re-registration, amendments to a mass media outlet registration certificate,
issuance of a duplicate of a mass media outlet registration certificate) without consideration; refusal to register
a mass media outlet (to re-register a mass media outlet, amend a mass media outlet registration certificate);
entering information into mass media outlet register; providing information from a mass media outlet register
in the form of an extract.
Each procedure for registering a mass media outlet and its result are independent and cannot be
considered in conjunction with other procedures.
On 5 November 2014, the applicant filed an application for the registration of the mass media outlet –
the ATR T TV channel with the Roskomnadzor Administration for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol.
Notification of 14 November 2014 No. 720-05/91 on the return of the application and the documents
attached thereto submitted for the purpose of registration of the ATR T TV channel, was sent to the Applicant
by the Roskomnadzor Administration for the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol without
consideration.
On 24 December 2014, Roskomnadzor received an application from the Company for the registration
of the mass media outlet – the ATR T TV channel.
Part 3 of Article 13 of the Law “On mass media” establishes that non-payment of the state duty is the
basis for returning without consideration the application filed for registration of a mass media outlet.
Due to the fact that the submitted state duty contained incorrect requisites, the application for the
registration of the mass media outlet was returned to the applicant along with a notification of 26 January 2015
No. 04-6235, containing the grounds for return. On 9 February 2015, Roskomnadzor received an application
from the Company for the registration of the mass media outlet – the ATR T TV channel.
Part 2 of Article 10 of the Law “On mass media” establishes that the Application for registration of a
mass media outlet shall be returned to the applicant without consideration, indicating the grounds for the return,
if the application was submitted in violation of the requirements of Part 2 of Article 8 or Part 1 of Article 10
of the Law “On mass media”.
In accordance with the requirements of Article 10 of the Mass Media Law, an application for registration
of a mass media outlet must contain information about the founders of the mass media outlet.
Article 10 of the Law “On mass media” obliges the applicant to provide documents confirming that the
applicant complied with the requirements established by the Law “On mass media”.
The list of documents attached by the applicant to the application for registration of a mass media outlet
is established by the Mass Media Law and the List of documents to be attached by the applicant to the
application for registration of a mass media outlet approved by the order of the Government of the Russian
Federation of 6 October 2011 No. 1752-r (hereinafter – the Order No. 1752-r).
According to clause 4 of the Order No. 1752-r, the applicant shall attach a list of participants or an
extract from the register of shareholders (for the applicant – a legal entity) to the application for registration
(re-registration) of the mass media outlet when establishing a TV channel, radio channel, television, radio and
video program.
In accordance with Part 1 of Article 31.1 of the Federal Law of 8 February 1998 No. 14-FZ “On limited
liability companies”, the Limited Liability Company maintains a list of participants in the company indicating
information about each participant in the company, the amount of his share in the authorised capital of the
company and its payment, as well as the size of shares owned by the company and the dates of their transfer
to the company or acquisition by the company.
Due to the fact that the information on the size of the shares of the company’s participants indicated in
the list of participants did not correspond to the information contained in the Unified State Register of Legal
Entities, the application for registration of the mass media outlet was returned to the applicant together with
the notification of 6 March 2015 No. 04-21932, containing grounds for the return.
On 24 March 2015, Roskomnadzor received an application from the Company for registration of the
mass media outlet – the ATR T TV channel.
Annex 249
4
Roskomnadzor asked the applicant to confirm the founder’s compliance with the requirements of Part 2
of Art. 7 of the Law No. 2124-1, which does not contradict the provisions of Art. 5, 7, 13 of the Law “On mass
media”.
When making the challenged decision, Roskomnadzor took into account the letter of the Prosecutor
General’s Office of the Russian Federation, according to which Atlant-SV Television Company LLC is the
founder of ATR TV channel. Based on the information contained in this letter, ATR TV channel publicly
broadcasted appeals leading to incitement of social, racial, ethnic and religious hatred, which are prohibited
by Article 1 of the Federal Law of 25 July 2002 No. 114-FZ “On countering extremist activities” (hereinafter
– the Federal Law No. 114-FZ). The letter also indicates that the Prosecutor of the Republic of Crimea issued
a warning on 16 May 2014 to L.E. Islyamov, who is the founder of Atlant-SV Television Company LLC, about
the inadmissibility of extremist activities and violations of the Federal Law of 25 July 2002 No. 114-FZ “On
countering extremist activities”, as well as the Mass Media Law. In addition, in the course of the prosecutor’s
check, other facts of violation of the legislation of the Russian Federation were revealed.
Roskomnadzor also received a letter from the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Crimea, according
to which the TV programs of ATR TV channel, founded by Atlant-SV Television Company LLC, contain
signs of extremist activity, namely the incitement of social, racial, ethnic or religious hatred.
The official website of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation contains data only for noncommercial
organisations in the information and telecommunications network of Internet at the addresses
indicated in the statement of claim (http://minjust.ru/nko/perechen_zapret and
http://miniust.ru/nko/perechen_priostanovleni). According to Part 1 of Article 2 of the Federal Law of 12
January 1996 No. 7-FZ “On non-profit organisations”, a non-profit organisation is an organisation that does
not have profit as the main goal of its activities and does not distribute the received profit among the
participants. Atlant-SV Television Company LLC is not a non-profit organisation according to its charter.
An extract from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities (hereinafter – the Unified State Register of
Legal Entities) and a certificate of registration of an organisation with a tax authority at its location in the
Russian Federation (hereinafter – the certificate of registration) do not confirm that the activities of a legal
entity are not prohibited in accordance with the current legislation of the Russian Federation, since the entry
of information on the liquidation of a legal entity in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities is carried out
on the basis of a court decision that has entered into legal force.
At the same time, the entry of the corresponding notation into the Unified State Register of Legal Entities
is carried out only after the federal executive body receives a court decision that has entered into legal force.
The deadline for making changes to the Unified State Register of Legal Entities is not established by the
legislation of the Russian Federation. In this regard, the information contained in the Unified State Register of
Legal Entities may be out of date.
Thus, the extract from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities and the certificate of registration do
not confirm the fact that the activities of a legal entity are not prohibited in accordance with the legislation of
the Russian Federation, and therefore Roskomnadzor did not have information on the presence or absence of
a ban on the activities of Atlant-SV Television Company LLC.
Part 2 of Article 10 of the Law of the Russian Federation of 27 December 1991 No. 2124-1 “On mass
media” (hereinafter – the Mass Media Law) provides for the submission of documents confirming the
applicant’s compliance with the requirements stipulated by the Mass Media Law when establishing a mass
media outlet.
Part 2 of Article 7 of the Mass Media Law establishes requirements regarding the status of the founder
of a mass media outlet. Thus, the founder cannot be: a citizen who has not reached the age of eighteen, a citizen
serving a sentence in places of detention by a court decision, a mentally ill person recognised by the court as
incompetent; an association of citizens, an enterprise, an institution, or an organisation whose activities are
prohibited by law; a citizen of another state or a stateless person not permanently residing in the Russian
Federation.
There is currently no normative legal act that defines the procedure for the implementation of this article.
Due to the current absence of a normative legal act, defining the procedure for implementing Article 7 of the
Mass Media Law, Roskomnadzor, as the body authorised to register mass media outlets in the Russian
Federation, requests the necessary information from applicants when submitting documents for registering a
mass media outlet.
The request for information by Roskomnadzor using the electronic interaction system in accordance
with the Federal Law of 27 July 2010 No. 210-FZ “On the organisation of the provision of state and municipal
services” when providing the state service for registering a mass media outlet is not possible due to the fact
Annex 249
5
that the procedure for implementing Article 7 of the Mass Media Law is not established by by-laws, such as a
resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation or an order of Roskomnadzor (this article does not
regulate these powers).
In accordance with clause 30.29 of the Provision on the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation,
approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of 13 October 2004 No. 1313, the Ministry of
Justice of the Russian Federation (hereinafter – the Ministry of Justice of Russia) provides information on
registered organisations to individuals and legal entities in accordance with the established procedure. In this
regard, the applicant has the opportunity to send a request to the Ministry of Justice of Russia to confirm the
fact that there is no ban on the activities of the organisation Atlant-SV Television Company LLC.
Clause 1 of Part 3 of Article 13 of the Mass Media Law also provides for the return of an application
for registration of a mass media outlet without consideration in case of violation of the requirements of Part 2
of Article 8 or Part 1 of Article 10 of the Mass Media Law. At the same time, in accordance with Part 1 of
Article 10 of the Mass Media Law, the application for registration of a mass media outlet must contain
information about the founders of the mass media outlet, resulting from the requirements of the Mass Media
Law.
In accordance with clause 60.1.3 of the Administrative Regulations for the provision of state service for
registration of mass media outlets by the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information
Technology, and Mass Media, approved by Order of the Ministry of Communications and Mass Media of
Russia of 29 December 2011 No. 362, the application for registration of a mass media outlet is returned to the
applicant without consideration if the application contains incomplete information.
In connection with the above, Atlant-SV Television Company LLC, by letter of Roskomnadzor of 24
April 2015 No. 04-37090, was reasonably asked to confirm the compliance of the mass media outlet founder
with the requirements of Article 7 of the Mass Media Law.
Refusing to satisfy the applicant’s claims, the court takes into account that the proposal to provide
information confirming compliance with the requirements of Article 7 of the Mass Media Law does not
constitute a refusal to register a mass media outlet and does not deprive the founder of the right to re-apply for
registration of a mass media outlet. Thus, at the same time, the return of documents to the applicant does not
entail the obligation to pay the state duty again.
Roskomnadzor acted within the framework of the current legislation and within its competence.
According to Part 3 of Art. 201 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the court
decides to refuse to satisfy the stated claim in the event that the arbitrazh court finds that the challenged nonnormative
legal act, decisions and actions (omissions) of state bodies, local authorities and other bodies and
officials, comply with the law or other normative legal act and do not violate the rights and the legitimate
interests of the applicant.
In view of the above, the court has no legal basis to satisfy the applicant’s claims.
The costs of paying the state duty are borne by the applicant in accordance with Art. 110 of the Arbitrazh
Procedural Code of the Russian Federation.
Based on the above and guided by Art. 4, 8, 9, 16, 41, 64, 65, 71, 75, 110, 137, 167-170, 176, 198, 200,
201 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the court
DECIDED:
To refuse Atlant-SV Television Company LLC in satisfying the application for recognising as illegal
the omissions of the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass
Media on the return of the application of Atlant-SV Television Company LLC on the registration of the mass
media outlet – the ATRT TV channel on the application of 20 March 2015 incoming reference No. 30330-smi
of 24 March 2015 (the return by letter of 24 April 2015 No. 04-37088).
The decision can be appealed within a month from the date of its adoption in the Ninth Arbitrazh Court
of Appeal.
Judge: T.I. Makhlaeva
Annex 249
Annex 250
Moscow Arbitrazh Court, Case No. A40-119488/2015, Decision,
16 October 2015
1
Translation
QR code 33_11272913
MOSCOW ARBITRAZH COURT
17 Bolshaya Tulskaya St., 115191, Moscow
http://www.msk.arbitr.ru
DECISION
In the Name of the Russian Federation
Moscow Case No. А40-119488/2015
16 October 2015
The decision was produced in full on 16 October 2015
The operative part of the decision was announced on 30 September 2015
The Arbitrazh court consisting of judge S.O. Laskina (judge code 33-986),
when keeping the record of the court hearing by the secretary of the court hearing V.F. Kharlamova
having considered the case at the court hearing
on the application of “Television Company ‘Atlant-SV’” LLC (Atlant-SV Television Company LLC)
to Roskomnadzor
on challenging the actions (omissions) of the state body
with the participation:
according to the record of the court hearing
ESTABLISHED:
Atlant-SV Television Company LLC (hereinafter also the applicant, the Company) applied to the
arbitrazh court with an application on declaring illegal the actions of the Federal Service for Supervision of
Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor) on the return without
consideration of the application of the founder of Atlant-SV Television Company LLC of 24 March 2015,
incoming reference No. 33248-smi of 27 March 2015 on the registration of a mass media outlet – online outlet
“15 minutes”, illegally imposing on the applicant the obligation to confirm the founder’s compliance with
requirements of Part 2 Article 7 of the Law “On mass media” specified in the letter of Roskomnadzor of 24
April 2015 No. 04-37090, which impedes the registration of the applicant’s mass media outlet, as well as on
making illegal the omissions of Roskomnadzor evading registration of the applicant’s mass media outlet; on
the obligation of Roskomnadzor to eliminate the violation of the applicant’s rights and freedoms and, in a short
time, to consider the application of Atlant-SV Television Company LLC on the registration of a mass media
outlet – online outlet “15 minutes”, by registering the mass media outlet – online outlet “15 minutes”, according
to the legislation of the Russian Federation.
At the hearing in accordance with Art. 163 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation,
a break was announced from 23 September 2015 to 30 September 2015, which is reflected in the record of the
court session.
The applicant’s claims are motivated by the fact that these actions and omissions of Roskomnadzor
violate the legitimate rights and interests of the Applicant, as well as contradict the current legislation.
The defendant’s representative did not agree with the stated requirements on the grounds set out in the
written response.
Having examined the case materials, having heard the representatives of the persons participating in the
case and having evaluated the evidence presented in their entirety and interconnection, the arbitrazh court
considers the stated claims not subject to satisfaction, based on the following.
In accordance with Part 1 of Article 198 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation,
citizens, organisations and other persons have the right to apply to the arbitrazh court with an application for
invalidating non-normative legal acts and declaring illegal the decisions and actions (omissions) of state
bodies, local authorities and other bodies and officials, if they believe that the challenged non-normative legal
act, decision and action (omissions) do not comply with the law or other normative legal act and violate their
Annex 250
2
rights and legitimate interests in the field of entrepreneurial and other economic activity, illegally impose any
obligations on them and create other obstacles for implementing entrepreneurial and other economic activities.
In the sense of the above norm, a necessary condition for the recognition of a non-normative legal act
or actions (omissions) as invalid is at the same time the inconsistency of the challenged act or actions
omissions) with the law or other normative act and violation of the rights and legitimate interests of the
organisation in the field of entrepreneurial and other economic activities.
By virtue of Part 5 of Art. 200 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the obligation
to prove the compliance of the challenged non-normative legal act with the law or other normative legal act,
the legality of making the challenged decision and committing the challenged actions (omissions), the
possession of the proper powers to adopt the challenged act or decisions by the body or person, the commission
of the challenged actions (omissions), as well as the circumstances that served as the basis for the adoption of
the challenged act, decision or the commission of the challenged actions (omissions) is assigned to the body
or person who adopted the act, decision or committed actions (omissions).
According to Part 1 of Art. 65 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, each person
participating in the case must prove the circumstances to which they refer as the basis of their claims and
objections.
As follows from the case materials, on 27 March 2015, Atlant-SV Television Company LLC as the
founder of the mass media outlet (hereinafter – the mass media outlet) submitted with its representative, the
application of 24 March 2015 on the registration of the mass media outlet – online outlet “15 minutes”, which
was registered by Roskomnadzor under the incoming reference No. 33248-smi on 27 March 2015, to the
Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media, attaching the
appropriate package of documents.
On 12 May 2015 the applicant received a response from Roskomnadzor of 24 April 2015 No. 04-37090
on the application for registration of the online outlet “15 minutes”, accompanied by the application of 24
March 2015 incoming reference No. 33248-smi and the attached package of documents, without indicating
that the documents were returned without consideration, in which Roskomnadzor invites the applicant to
confirm the founder’s compliance with the requirements of Part 2 of Art. 7 of the Law of the Russian Federation
of 27 December 1991 No. 2124-1 “On mass media”.
Considering the actions of the authorised body as well as the factual omission and evasion of the
authorised body from registration of the specified mass media outlet illegal and violating the rights and
legitimate interests of the Company in the field of entrepreneurial activity, the latter challenged them in an
arbitrazh court.
The court checked and established the applicant’s compliance with the time limit for going to court,
provided for in Part 4 of Art. 198 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation.
Refusing to satisfy the stated requirements, the court proceeds from the following.
Based on clauses 5.4, 5.4.1 of the Provisions on the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications,
Information Technology, and Mass Media, approved by resolution of the Government of the Russian
Federation of 16 March 2009 No. 228 (hereinafter – Provisions), Roskomnadzor registers mass media outlets.
In accordance with clause 31 of the Administrative Regulations for the provision of state service for
registration of mass media outlets by the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information
Technology, and Mass Media, approved by Order of the Ministry of Communications and Mass Media of
Russia of 29 December 2011 No. 362 (registered with the Ministry of Justice of Russia on 6 April 2012,
registration No. 23752), the result of the provision of a state service is:
1) Issuance of a mass media outlet registration certificate (as a result of a mass media outlet registration,
a mass media outlet re-registration or amendments to a mass media outlet registration certificate).
2) Issuance of a duplicate of a mass media outlet registration certificate.
3) Return of an application for mass media outlet registration (for a mass media outlet re-registration,
amendments to a mass media outlet registration certificate, issuance of a duplicate of a mass media outlet
registration certificate) without consideration.
4) Refusal to register a mass media outlet (to re-register a mass media outlet, amend a mass media outlet
registration certificate).
5) Entering information into a mass media outlet register.
6) Providing information from a mass media outlet register in the form of an extract.
On 24 March 2015, the applicant applied to Roskomnadzor with an application for registration of a mass
media outlet – online outlet “15 Minutes” (incoming Roskomnadzor No. 33247-smi).
Annex 250
3
Roskomnadzor asked the applicant to confirm the founder’s compliance with the requirements of Part 2
of Art. 7 of the Law No. 2124-1, which does not contradict the provisions of Art. 5, 7, 13 of the Law “On mass
media”.
When making the challenged decision, Roskomnadzor took into account the letter of the Prosecutor
General’s Office of the Russian Federation, according to which Atlant-SV Television Company LLC is the
founder of ATR TV channel. Based on the information contained in this letter, ATR TV channel publicly
broadcasted appeals leading to incitement of social, racial, ethnic and religious hatred, which are prohibited
by Article 1 of the Federal Law of 25 July 2002 No. 114-FZ “On countering extremist activities” (hereinafter
– the Federal Law No. 114-FZ). The letter also indicates that the Prosecutor of the Republic of Crimea issued
a warning on 16 May 2014 to L.E. Islyamov, who is the founder of Atlant-SV Television Company LLC, about
the inadmissibility of extremist activities and violations of the Federal Law of 25 July 2002 No. 114-FZ “On
countering extremist activities”, as well as the Law “On mass media”. In addition, in the course of the
prosecutor’s check, other facts of violation of the legislation of the Russian Federation were revealed.
Roskomnadzor also received a letter from the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Crimea, according
to which the TV programs of ATR TV channel, founded by Atlant-SV Television Company LLC, contain
signs of extremist activity, namely the incitement of social, racial, ethnic or religious hatred.
The official website of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation contains data only for noncommercial
organisations in the information and telecommunications network of Internet at the addresses
indicated in the statement of claim (http://minjust.ru/nko/perechen_zapret and
http://miniust.ru/nko/perechen_priostanovleni). According to Part 1 of Article 2 of the Federal Law of 12
January 1996 No. 7-FZ “On non-profit organisations”, a non-profit organisation is an organisation that does
not have profit as the main goal of its activities and does not distribute the received profit among the
participants. Atlant-SV Television Company LLC is not a non-profit organisation according to its charter.
An extract from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities (hereinafter – the Unified State Register of
Legal Entities) and a certificate of registration of an organisation with a tax authority at its location in the
Russian Federation (hereinafter – the certificate of registration) do not confirm that the activities of a legal
entity are not prohibited in accordance with the current legislation of the Russian Federation, since the entry
of information on the liquidation of a legal entity in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities is carried out
on the basis of a court decision that has entered into legal force.
At the same time, the entry of the corresponding notation into the Unified State Register of Legal Entities
is carried out only after the federal executive body receives a court decision that has entered into legal force.
The deadline for making changes to the Unified State Register of Legal Entities is not established by the
legislation of the Russian Federation. In this regard, the information contained in the Unified State Register of
Legal Entities may be out of date.
Thus, the extract from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities and the certificate of registration do
not confirm the fact that the activities of a legal entity are not prohibited in accordance with the legislation of
the Russian Federation, and therefore Roskomnadzor did not have information on the presence or absence of
a ban on the activities of Atlant-SV Television Company LLC.
Part 2 of Article 10 of the Law of the Russian Federation of 27 December 1991 No. 2124-1 “On mass
media” (hereinafter – the Mass Media Law) stipulates the provision of documents confirming the applicant’s
compliance with the requirements set by the Mass Media Law when establishing a mass media outlet.
At the same time, Part 2 of Article 7 of the Mass Media Law establishes requirements regarding the
status of the founder of a mass media outlet. Thus, the founder cannot be: a citizen who has not reached the
age of eighteen, a citizen serving a sentence in places of detention by a court decision, a mentally ill person
recognised by the court as incompetent; an association of citizens, an enterprise, an institution, or an
organisation whose activities are prohibited by law; a citizen of another state or a stateless person not
permanently residing in the Russian Federation.
At the same time, there is currently no normative legal act that defines the procedure for the
implementation of this article. Due to the current absence of a normative legal act defining the procedure for
implementing Article 7 of the Mass Media Law, Roskomnadzor, as the body authorised to register mass media
outlets in the Russian Federation, requests the necessary information from applicants when submitting
documents for registering a mass media outlet.
The request for information by Roskomnadzor using the electronic interaction system in accordance
with the Federal Law of 27 July 2010 No. 210-FZ “On the organisation of the provision of state and municipal
services” when providing the state service for registering a mass media outlet is not possible due to the fact
Annex 250
4
that the procedure for implementing Article 7 of the Mass Media Law is not established by by-laws, such as a
resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation or an order of Roskomnadzor (this article does not
regulate these powers).
At the same time, in accordance with clause 30.29 of the Provision on the Ministry of Justice of the
Russian Federation, approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of 13 October 2004 No.
1313, the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation (hereinafter – the Ministry of Justice of Russia)
provides information on registered organisations to individuals and legal entities in accordance with the
established procedure.
In this regard, the Applicant has the opportunity to send a request to the Ministry of Justice of Russia to
confirm the fact that there is no ban on the activities of the organisation Atlant-SV Television Company LLC.
Clause 1 of Part 3 of Article 13 of the Mass Media Law also provides for the return of an application
for registration of a mass media outlet without consideration in case of violation of the requirements of Part 2
of Article 8 or Part 1 of Article 10 of the Mass Media Law.
At the same time, in accordance with Part 1 of Article 10 of the Mass Media Law, the application for
registration of a mass media outlet must contain information about the founders of the mass media outlet,
resulting from the requirements of the Mass Media Law.
In accordance with clause 60.1.3 of the Administrative Regulations for the provision of state service for
registration of mass media outlets by the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information
Technology, and Mass Media, approved by Order of the Ministry of Communications and Mass Media of
Russia of 29 December 2011 No. 362 (registered with the Ministry of Justice of Russia on 6 April 2012,
registration No. 23752), the application for registration of a mass media outlet is returned to the applicant
without consideration if the application contains incomplete information.
In connection with the above, Atlant-SV Television Company LLC, by letter of Roskomnadzor of 24
April 2015 No. 04-37090, was asked to confirm the compliance of the mass media outlet founder with the
requirements of Article 7 of the Mass Media Law.
It should be noted that the proposal to provide information confirming compliance with the requirements
of Article 7 of the Mass Media Law does not constitute a refusal to register a mass media outlet and does not
deprive the founder of the right to re-apply for registration of a mass media outlet.
In connection with the above, the court believes that Roskomnadzor acted within the framework of the
current legislation and within its competence.
At the same time, the return of documents to the applicant does not entail the obligation to pay the state
duty again.
After confirming that the founder meets the requirements of Article 7 of the Mass Media Law, the
application for registration of a mass media outlet will be considered in accordance with the established
procedure.
Thus, the return of documents does not impose the burden of financial losses and does not have a
negative impact on his entrepreneurial or other economic activities, as well as does not deprive him of the right
to re-submit documents.
Roskomnadzor did not violate the rights and freedoms of the Applicant and did not create obstacles to
the exercise by the citizen of his rights and freedoms, since the actions committed by Roskomnadzor were
carried out within the framework of the current legislation and within the powers granted to Roskomnadzor.
The court did not establish unlawful omission of the defendant.
Taking into account the foregoing, the court concludes that, in violation of the requirements of Article
65 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the applicant did not present evidence in the
case materials confirming that the challenged decision and order do not comply with the current legislation
and violate his rights and interests in the field of economic activity.
Judicial practice, to the presence of which the persons participating in the case refer, does not have
prejudicial significance when considering this case, since judicial acts were adopted on other factual
circumstances of the case, which are not identical to the present dispute. Judicial acts in each case are adopted
taking into account specific arguments and evidence presented by the parties.
Since the entirety of the circumstances necessary for the recognition of a non-normative legal act as
invalid (contradiction with the law and violation of rights and legitimate interests) has not been established by
the court, the stated requirements are not subject to satisfaction.
The court considered all the arguments of the applicant and rejected them as unfounded.
Annex 250
5
According to Part 3 of Art. 201 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the court
decides to refuse to satisfy the stated claim in the event that the arbitrazh court finds that the challenged nonnormative
legal act, decisions and actions (omissions) of state bodies, local authorities and other bodies and
officials, comply with the law or other normative legal act and do not violate the rights and the legitimate
interests of the applicant.
The costs of paying the state duty are borne by the applicant in accordance with Art. 110 of the Arbitrazh
Procedural Code of the Russian Federation. The overpaid state duty is subject to refund from federal budget
revenues.
Guided by Art. 167-170, 176, 201 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the court
DECIDED:
The application of the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology,
and Mass Media to terminate the proceedings in the case shall be dismissed.
The application of Atlant-SV Television Company LLC on making illegal the actions of the Federal
Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor) on
the return without consideration of the application of the founder of Atlant-SV Television Company LLC of
24 March 2015, incoming reference No. 33248-smi of 27 March 2015 on the registration of a mass media
outlet – online outlet “15 minutes”, illegally imposing on the applicant the obligation to confirm the founder’s
compliance with the requirements of Part 2 Article 7 of the Law “On mass media” specified in the letter of
Roskomnadzor of 24 April 2015 No. 04-37090, which impedes the registration of the applicant’s mass media
outlet, as well as on making illegal the omissions of Roskomnadzor evading registration of the applicant’s
mass media outlet; on the obligation of Roskomnadzor to eliminate the violation of the applicant’s rights and
freedoms and, in a short time, to consider the application of Atlant-SV Television Company LLC on the
registration of a mass media outlet – online outlet “15 minutes”, by registering the mass media outlet – online
outlet “15 minutes”, according to the legislation of the Russian Federation, shall be dismissed (checked for
compliance with the current legislation of the Russian Federation).
The decision can be appealed within one month from the date of its adoption to the Ninth Arbitrazh
Court of Appeal.
Judge: S.O. Laskina
Annex 250
Annex 251
Investigative Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security
Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol,
Resolution on the initiation of a criminal case No. 2015427050,
22 October 2015
1
Translation
RESOLUTION
on the initiation of a criminal case and commencement of the proceedings
Simferopol 22 October 2015
5:20 p.m.
[Name], Captain of Justice, an investigator of the Investigative Department of the Directorate of the
Federal Security Service for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, having studied the crime report – a report
on discovery of signs of crime provided for in Part 1 of Article 280.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian
Federation received from the department of assistance programs to the Directorate of the Federal Security
Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, and registered in the crime reports registration
book on 21 October 2015 under No. 343 with the materials of operative search activities attached, and a report
on discovery of signs of crime provided for in Part 2 of Article 280.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian
Federation received from the Centre for Countering Extremism of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the
Republic of Crimea and registered in the crime log on 22 October 2015 under No. 344 with the materials of
operative search activities attached,
ESTABLISHED:
On 8 September 2015 L.E. Islyamov, the citizen of the Russian Federation, when staying in the
“Ukrainian Crisis Media Centre” at 2, Khreshchatik St., Kiev, took part in the press conference named “Civil
blockade of Crimea: what will it be like?”, where he publicly said: “..if we are the state, and if the society has
a demand in its statesmanship – Crimea, ladies and gentlemen, must be returned...”.
On the same day, 8 September 2015 the video record of the said speech of L.E. Islyamov was posted
in the public domain on the web-site of the Ukrainian Crisis Media Centre at: http://uacrisis.org/ru/ and also
on YouTube at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBPPjZ2uz- M&feature=youtu.be on the Internet.
According to the expert’s report No. 98 of 11 September 2015 issued by the expert division of the
Directorate of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol and the
research note No. 10/69 of 5 October 2015 issued by Criminal Expertise Centre of the Ministry of Internal
Affairs for the Republic of Crimea in the terms of language qualification the statement of L.E. Islyamov
contains the calls to violation of territorial integrity of Russia, namely, to severing (detaching) the Republic of
Crimea from the Russian Federation and accession of Crimea to Ukraine.
In view of the foregoing, taking into account the presence of grounds for initiation of a criminal case
provided for in Articles 140 and 143 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, namely of a
report about discovery of signs of crime provided for in Part 1 Article 280.1 of the Criminal Code of the
Russian Federation received from the department of assistance programs to the Directorate of the Federal
Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol with the materials of operative search
activities attached and
/Stamp:
TRUE COPY
HEAD OF DEPARTMENT 27
[Name] (Signature)/
of the report about discovery of signs of crime provided for in part 2 Article 280.1 of the Criminal Code of the
Russian Federation received from the department of assistance programs to the Directorate of the Federal
Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea with the materials of operative search activities attached
and the grounds to initiate the criminal case provided for by part 2, Article 140 of the Criminal Procedural
Annex 251
2
Code of the Russian Federation, whereas there is adequate information showing the signs of crime provided
for in part 1 Article 280.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in accordance with Articles 140,
145, 146 and Part 1 Article 156 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation,
RESOLVED:
1. Initiate a criminal case on signs of crime provided for in Part 1 of Article 280.1 of the Criminal
Code of the Russian Federation against the citizen of the Russian Federation Lenur Edemovich Islyamov, born
1 January 1966, whose actions contain the public calls to actions aimed at violating the territorial integrity of
the Russian Federation, by assigning it identification number 2015427050.
2. Accept the criminal case for proceedings and start the investigation.
3. Send a copy of this resolution to the prosecutor.
Investigator of the Investigative Department
of the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of Russia
for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol,
Captain of Justice /Signature/ [Name]
A copy of this resolution was sent to the prosecutor on 22 October 2015 at 5:30 p.m.
The decision made was communicated on 22 October 2015 to the applicants: Investigation Department
of the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol and the
Centre for Countering Extremism of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Republic of Crimea.
Investigator of the Investigative Department
of the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of Russia
for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol,
Captain of Justice /Signature/ [Name]
/Stamp:
TRUE COPY
HEAD OF DEPARTMENT 27
[Name] (Signature)/
Annex 251
Annex 252
Explanation of Sinaver Kadyrov before the Armyansk City Court,
Case No. 5-369/2015, 18 October 2015
1
Translation
ARMYANSK CITY COURT
4 Shkolnaya St., Armyansk
Applicant: Sinaver Arifovich Kadyrov
Postal address:
[…]
S.A. KADYROV
EXPLANATION IN THE CASE
on the administrative offence envisaged by Part 1.1 of Article 18.8 of the Code on Administrative
Offences of the Russian Federation
(case No. 4a-285/2015)
5-369/2015
The case No. 4a-285/2015 5-369/2015 initiated under Part 1.1 of Article 18.8 of the Code on
Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation against Sinarver Arifovich Kadyrov is pending with the
Armyansk City Court.
The judicial decisions previously issued in these proceedings have been repealed by the decision of
Vice Chair of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea T.A. Shklyar of 3 September 2015 and the case
was sent for retrial. The reason for repeal of the decisions issued in the case by the Armyansk City Court on
23 January 2015 and 6 February 2015 was the judges’ failure to check the applicant’s citizenship.
In connection with the above, the applicant finds it necessary to give the following explanations.
First of all, the applicant would like to note that he is a citizen of Ukraine. The conclusions made by
judge T.A. Shklyar concerning applicant’s Russian citizenship are incorrect. The applicant has never claimed
that. As far as the applicant is concerned, his attorney has not made such statements either, and no statements
made by the attorney can be construed as a confirmation of S.A. Kadyrov’s Russian citizenship. In any event,
the applicant asserts that he has not acquired the Russian citizenship and admits that the information about
his Ukrainian citizenship set out in the record of the administrative offence and terms of stay on the Crimean
Peninsula is correct.
Secondly, the applicant believes that the decision on his administrative expulsion from the territory
of Crimea occupied by the Russian Federation is unlawful since it contradicts the obligations of the Russian
Federation under the Geneva Convention (IV) regarding the protection of civilian population in wartime1
and infringes his rights under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms and Protocols thereto.
1. Administrative expulsion infringes the right to respect for family life and home as well
as the freedom of movement guaranteed by the European Convention as well as obligations of the
Russian Federation under Article 49 of the Geneva Convention (IV).
/Seal: Armyansk City Court; (Illegible)/
(Illegible) /Signature/
/Stamp: TRUE COPY:
Judge: (Signature)
Secretary : (Signature)/
(Illegible) 19.10.2015
1 Hereinafter referred to as the Geneva Convention (IV).
Annex 252
2
1.1. The applicant asserts that prior to adoption of the repealed decision of the Armyansk City
Court of 23 January 2015 he permanently resided on the territory of the Crimean Peninsula approximately
from 1991. Thus, on 20 June 1991 in Simferopol, his Islamic marriage with Emina Usmanovna Suleymanova
was registered. In 1996 in Simferopol, he received a passport of a citizen of Ukraine and officially registered
his place of residence in Simferopol. Subsequently, he has changed his registered place of residence several
times (in 2004, 2007 and 2010), although in each case his registered place of residence was in or near
Simferopol. In 1998 in Simferopol, the applicant was assigned a taxpayer’s code and in 2007 (again in
Simferopol) he received a duplicate certificate of assignment of such code. In August 2004, the applicant
retired and received his pension through the Central Pensions Office in Simferopol. He and his wife always
paid for utility services at their registered places of residence. Since 2010, the applicant’s registered place of
residence has been at: Apt. 63, 60-Let Oktyabrya St. 37, Simferopol.
1.2. In February 2014, the Russian Federation occupied the Crimean Peninsula. Under Article 23
of the Federal Constitutional Law of the Russian Federation of 21 March 2014 No. 6-FKZ “On the admission
of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation and the formation of new constituent entities within the
Russian Federation – the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol” (hereinafter referred to as
FKZ-6), the Russian legislation was to be applied in the territory of Crimea from 1 April 2014.
The actions of the Russian Federation were qualified as occupation under the resolution of a number
of international bodies, the jurisdiction of which has been recognised by the Russian Federation, among
others. Thus, Russia’s actions were referred to as occupation in the following documents:
• European Parliament Resolution (2015/2036) of 11 June 2014 on the strategic military
situation in the Black Sea Basin following the illegal accession of Crimea to Russia;2
• Resolution 2067 (2015) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe “Missing
persons during the conflict in Ukraine” of 25 June 2015;3
• Resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE “Continuation of clear, gross and
unrepairable violations of OSCE commitments and international norms by the Russian Federation” of 8 June
2015.4
1.3. The Russian legislative acts the effect of which was extended to the occupied territory of
Crimea include the provisions of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the legal status of foreign nationals
in the Russian Federation”. However, the said law does not contain the provisions that would envisage the
situation faced by the applicant. Thus, the said law provides for a situation of when a foreigner arrives in the
Russian Federation. In this case the foreign national knowingly submits to the jurisdiction of that state and
should comply with all requirements of the said law, including the term of stay in the Russian Federation,
etc. However, in the applicant’s case it was the contrary – the Russian Federation extended the application
of its laws to the territory of Crimea regardless of the applicant’s will. The applicant, as opposed to a typical
foreign national, had no other place of residence but Crimea. Therefore, applying the limitations as to the
term of stay to him,
/Seal: (Illegible) Court of the Republic of Crimea/
/Stamp: TRUE COPY:
Judge: (Signature)
Secretary : (Signature)/
2 http://goo.gl/9CXkeA.
3 http://goo.gl/YqSCZK.
4 https://goo.gl/f9QOqD.
Annex 252
3
in fact, means that he is deprived of his home and his right of movement is restricted.
In these circumstances, the legal order in the occupied territory of the Crimean Peninsula is
established by the Geneva Convention (IV), the Article 49 of which directly prohibits Russia to expel the
applicant from the territory on which he resides.
2. Expulsion and results of the discriminatory treatment
2.1. Moreover, the applicant alleges that his expulsion is a manifestation of discrimination. Thus,
the discrimination manifests in the state’s failure to ensure various treatment of persons who find themselves
in a significantly different position (see the judgment of ECHR in Thlimmenos v. Greece, Application no.
34369/67, Judgment of 6 April 2000, para. 44).
2.2. Such situation is qualified as discrimination because:
(i) The statutory rule restricting the term of stay of foreign nationals in Russia was applied to
the applicant’s situation.
(ii) The said rule does not take into account the differences between the foreign national who
enters the territory controlled by the Russian Federation of their own accord and those who resided in the
territory to which Russia extended the application of its laws by means of annexation. The applicant has
never entered the territory of the Russian Federation as a foreign national: on the contrary, he has left the
occupied territory several times for short periods of time (6 times for a total of 27 days) returning home
afterwards.
3. Psychological and financial damage resulting from the expulsion
At the same time, the applicant would like to notice that he sustained psychological and financial
damage as a result of the administrative expulsion. Thus, the applicant had to rent a place to live in mainland
Ukraine. His costs of renting a place to live in the period following the expulsion amounted to 3,600 US
dollars, or 223,200 Russian roubles (as at 18 October 2015). Furthermore, the applicant was forced to leave
his home, his family ties were damaged, his ability to meet with his relatives and friends was limited. As a
result of that he sustained psychological damage which he estimates to amount to 1,000,000 Russian roubles.
Based on the above,
I HEREBY ASK:
1. To terminate the proceedings in the case due to the absence of elements of the administrative
offence in Sinaver Arifovich Kadyrov’s conduct.
2. To compensate the costs incurred by the applicant as a result of administrative expulsion
from the territory of the Crimean Peninsula: financial damage in the amount of 223,200 roubles and
psychological damage in the amount of 1,000,000 Russian roubles.
Applicant
S.A. Kadyrov
18 October 2015 /Signature/
(illegible)/10 2015
Additions and corrections are accurate. /Signature/ S.A. Kadyrov
/Seal: (Illegible) Court of the Republic of Crimea/
/Stamp: TRUE COPY: Judge: (Signature)
Secretary: (Signature)/
Annex 252
Annex 253
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea,
Ruling authorizing a search in the dwelling of Lenur Islyamov,
28 October 2015
Translation
Case No. (illegible)
RULING
On 28 October 2015, Judge of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea I.V.
Kagitina, with the participation of secretary A.A. Sobakin, Chief Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office of the
Republic of Crimea A.R. Pakul, having considered, in an open court hearing, the Resolution issued by [Name],
Major of Justice and the Senior Investigator for High-Priority Cases of the Investigative Department of the
Directorate of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, concerning
a motion for a search to be conducted in a dwelling,
ESTABLISHED:
On 22 October 2015, the Investigative Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of
Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol initiated criminal proceedings against L.E. Islyamov, a
Russian national, born on 1 January 1966, into a crime under Part 1 of Article 280.1 of the Criminal Code of
the Russian Federation.
The preliminary investigation found that on 8 September 2015, Russian national L.E. Islyamov, being
at the “Ukrainian Crisis Media Centre” located at: 2, Khreshchatik St., Kiev, Ukraine, took part in a press
conference named “Civil blockade of Crimea”, during which he publicly called for violating the territorial
integrity of the Russian Federation.
Later on, on 8 September 2015, the video footage of the above-mentioned speech by L.E. Islyamov was
posted on the website of the “Ukrainian Crisis Media Centre” at http://uacrisis.org/ru/ and on YouTube at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBPPjZ2uz-M&feature=youtu.be on the Internet, information and
telecommunications network, which is accessible by an unlimited number of persons.
After listening to the prosecutor who stated that it was necessary to satisfy the motion, the court, having
examined the provided materials, holds that the motion is subject to satisfaction.
In accordance with para. 5 of Part 2 of Article 29, Articles 165, 182 of the Criminal Procedural Code of
the Russian Federation, only the court has legal capacity to issue a ruling to carry out a search in a dwelling.
As it appears from the provided materials, the pre-trial investigation authority has sufficient grounds to
assume that Lenur Edemovich Islyamov, who is suspected of committing the above mentioned crime, born on
1 January 1966, registered at: 2/16, Bor Chokrak Kaptor, Simferopol, may have at his disposal things and
documents relevant to the criminal case, testifying the criminal activity pursued by L.E. Islyamov and
indicative of the financing of extremism by the above person.
In view of the foregoing, pursuant to Parts 1–4 of Article 165, Article 182 of the Criminal Procedural
Code of the Russian Federation,
RULED:
To allow [Name], Major of Justice and the Senior Investigator for High-Priority Cases of the
Investigative Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of
Crimea and Sevastopol, to carry out search in the dwelling located at: 2/16, Bor Chokrak Kaptor, Simferopol.
The ruling may be appealed to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea within ten days from the
date of its issue.
Judge: /Signature/ I.V. Kagitina
/SEAL: KIEVSKIY DISTRICT COURT OF SIMFEROPOL,
THE REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA, THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION/
/STAMP: TRUE COPY
JUDGE (Signature)
SECRETARY (Signature)/
The ruling was announced to me
(Signature) /illegible/ 2 November 2015
Annex 253
Annex 254
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea,
Case No. 3/6-821/2015, Ruling authorizing a search in the dwelling of
Lenur Islyamov, 28 October 2015
Translation
Case No. 3/6-821/2015
RULING
On 28 October 2015, Judge of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea I.V.
Kagitina, with the participation of secretary A.A. Sobakin, Chief Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office of the
Republic of Crimea A.R. Pakul, having considered, in an open court hearing, the Resolution issued by [Name],
Major of Justice and the Senior Investigator for High-Priority Cases of the Investigative Department of the
Directorate of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, concerning
a motion for a search to be conducted in a dwelling,
ESTABLISHED:
On 22 October 2015, the Investigative Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of
Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol initiated criminal proceedings against L.E. Islyamov, a
Russian national, born on 1 January 1966, into a crime under Part 1 of Article 280.1 of the Criminal Code of
the Russian Federation.
The preliminary investigation found that on 8 September 2015, Russian national L.E. Islyamov, being
at the “Ukrainian Crisis Media Centre” located at: 2, Khreshchatik St., Kiev, Ukraine, took part in a press
conference named “Civil blockade of Crimea”, during which he publicly called for violating the territorial
integrity of the Russian Federation.
Later on, on 8 September 2015, the video footage of the above-mentioned speech by L.E. Islyamov was
posted on the website of the “Ukrainian Crisis Media Centre” at http://uacrisis.org/ru/ and on YouTube at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBPPjZ2uz-M&feature=youtu.be on the Internet, information and
telecommunications network, which is accessible by an unlimited number of persons.
After listening to the prosecutor who stated that it was necessary to satisfy the motion, the court, having
examined the provided materials, holds that the motion is subject to satisfaction.
In accordance with Clause 5 of Part 2 of Article 29, Articles 165, 182 of the Criminal Procedural Code
of the Russian Federation, only the court has legal capacity to issue a ruling to carry out a search in a dwelling.
As it appears from the provided materials, the pre-trial investigation authority has sufficient grounds to
assume that Lenur Edemovich Islyamov, who is suspected of committing the above mentioned crime, born on
1 January 1966, owner of the dwelling – an apartment at: 3, Staromoskovskaya St., village of Glukhovo,
Krasnogorsk District, Moscow Region, may have at his disposal things and documents relevant to the criminal
case, testifying the criminal activity pursued by L.E. Islyamov and indicative of the financing of extremism by
the above person.
In view of the foregoing, pursuant to Parts 1–4 of Article 165, Article 182 of the Criminal Procedural
Code of the Russian Federation,
RULED:
To allow [Name] Major of Justice and the Senior Investigator for High-Priority Cases of the
Investigative Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of
Crimea and Sevastopol, to carry out a search in the dwelling located at: 3, Staromoskovskaya St., village of
Glukhovo, Krasnogorsk District, Moscow Region.
The ruling may be appealed to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea within ten days from the
date of its issue.
Judge: /Signature/ I.V. Kagitina
/SEAL: KIEVSKIY DISTRICT COURT OF SIMFEROPOL,
THE REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA, THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION/
/STAMP: TRUE COPY
JUDGE (Signature)
SECRETARY (Signature)/
Annex 254
Annex 255
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea,
Ruling authorizing a search in the dwelling of Lenur Islyamov,
28 October 2015
Translation
Case No. (illegible)
RULING
On 28 October 2015, Judge of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea I.V.
Kagitina, with the participation of secretary A.A. Sobakin, Chief Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office of the
Republic of Crimea A.R. Pakul, having considered in an open court hearing the ruling issued by [Name], Major
of Justice and Senior Investigator for High-Priority Cases of the Investigative Department of the Directorate
of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, concerning a
motion for a search to be conducted in a dwelling,
ESTABLISHED:
On 22 October 2015, the Investigative Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of
Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol initiated criminal proceedings against L.E. Islyamov, a
Russian national, born on 1 January 1966, into a crime under Part 1 of Article 280.1 of the Criminal Code of
the Russian Federation.
The preliminary investigation found that on 8 September 2015, Russian national L.E. Islyamov, being
at the “Ukrainian Crisis Media Centre” located at: 2, Khreshchatik St., Kiev, Ukraine, took part in a press
conference named “Civil blockade of Crimea”, during which he publicly called for violating the territorial
integrity of the Russian Federation.
Later on, on 8 September 2015, the video footage of the above-mentioned speech by L.E. Islyamov was
posted on the website of the “Ukrainian Crisis Media Centre” at http://uacrisis.org/ru/ and on YouTube at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBPPjZ2uz-M&feature=youtu.be on the Internet, information and
telecommunications network, which is accessible by an unlimited number of persons.
After listening to the prosecutor who stated that it was necessary to satisfy the motion, the court, having
examined the provided materials, holds that the motion is subject to satisfaction.
In accordance with Clause 5 of Part 2 of Article 29, Articles 165, 182 of the Criminal Procedural Code
of the Russian Federation, only the court has legal capacity to issue a ruling to carry out a search in a dwelling.
As it appears from the provided materials, the pre-trial investigation authority has sufficient grounds to
assume that Lenur Edemovich Islyamov, who is suspected of committing the above mentioned crime, born on
1 January 1966, owner of the dwelling – an apartment at: 6, Mashkova St., bld. 1, Apt. 4, Moscow, may have
at his disposal things and documents relevant to the criminal case evidencing the criminal activity of L.E.
Islyamov and indicative of the financing of extremism by the above person.
In view of the foregoing, pursuant to Parts 1–4 of Article 165, Article 182 of the Criminal Procedural
Code of the Russian Federation,
RULED:
To allow [Name], Major of Justice and Senior Investigator for High-Priority Cases of the Investigative
Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and the
city of Sevastopol, to carry out a search in the dwelling located at: 6, Mashkova St., bld. 1, Apt. 4, Moscow.
The ruling may be appealed to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea within ten days from the
date of its issue.
Judge: /Signature/ I.V. Kagitina
/SEAL: KIEVSKIY DISTRICT COURT OF SIMFEROPOL,
THE REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA, THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION/
/STAMP: TRUE COPY
JUDGE (Signature)
SECRETARY (Signature)/
Annex 255
Annex 256
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea,
Ruling authorizing a search in the dwelling of Lenur Islyamov,
28 October 2015
Translation
Case No. (illegible)
RULING
On 28 October 2015, Judge of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea I.V.
Kagitina, with the participation of secretary A.A. Sobakin, Chief Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office of the
Republic of Crimea A.R. Pakul, having considered in an open court hearing the ruling issued by [Name], Major
of Justice and Senior Investigator for High-Priority Cases of the Investigative Department of the Directorate
of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, concerning a motion for
a search to be conducted in a dwelling,
ESTABLISHED:
On 22 October 2015, the Investigative Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of
Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol initiated criminal proceedings against L.E. Islyamov, a
Russian national, born on 1 January 1966, into a crime under Part 1 of Article 280.1 of the Criminal Code of
the Russian Federation.
The preliminary investigation found that on 8 September 2015 Russian national L.E. Islyamov, being at
the “Ukrainian Crisis Media Centre” located at: 2, Khreshchatik St., Kiev, Ukraine, took part in a press
conference named “Civil blockade of Crimea”, during which he publicly called for violating the territorial
integrity of the Russian Federation.
Later on, on 8 September 2015, the video footage of the above-mentioned speech by L.E. Islyamov was
posted on the website of the “Ukrainian Crisis Media Centre” at http://uacrisis.org/ru/ and on YouTube at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBPPjZ2uz-M&feature=youtu.be on the Internet, information and
telecommunications network, which is accessible by an unlimited number of persons.
After listening to the prosecutor who stated that it was necessary to satisfy the motion, the court, having
examined the provided materials, holds that the motion is subject to satisfaction.
In accordance with Clause 5 of Part 2 of Article 29, Articles 165, 182 of the Criminal Procedural Code
of the Russian Federation, only the court has legal capacity to issue a ruling to carry out a search in a dwelling.
As it appears from the provided materials, the pre-trial investigation authority has sufficient grounds to
assume that Lenur Edemovich Islyamov, who is suspected of committing the above mentioned crime, born on
1 January 1966, owner of the dwelling – an apartment at: 4, Akademika Korolyova St., bld. 1, Apt. 24,
Moscow, may have at his disposal things and documents relevant to the criminal case evidencing the criminal
activity of L.E. Islyamov and indicative of the financing of extremism by the above person.
In view of the foregoing, pursuant to Parts 1–4 of Article 165, Article 182 of the Criminal Procedural
Code of the Russian Federation,
RULED
To allow [Name], Major of Justice and Senior Investigator for High-Priority Cases of the Investigative
Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and
Sevastopol, to carry out a search in the dwelling located at: 4, Akademika Korolyova St., bld. 1, Apt. 24,
Moscow.
The ruling may be appealed to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea within ten days from the
date of its issue.
Judge: /Signature/ I.V. Kagitina
/SEAL: KIEVSKIY DISTRICT COURT OF SIMFEROPOL,
THE REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA, THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION/
/STAMP: TRUE COPY
JUDGE (Signature)
SECRETARY (Signature)/
Annex 256
Annex 257
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea, Case
No. 3/6-833/2015, Ruling authorizing a search in the dwelling of
Elzara Islyamova, 29 October 2015
Translation
Case No. 3/6-833/2015
RULING
On 29 October 2015, Judge of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea I.V.
Kagitina, with the participation of secretary A.A. Sobakin, Chief Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office of the
Republic of Crimea A.R. Pakul, having considered in an open court hearing the ruling issued by [Name], Major
of Justice and Senior Investigator for High-Priority Cases of the Investigative Department of the Directorate
of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, concerning a motion for
a search to be conducted in a dwelling,
ESTABLISHED:
On 22 October 2015, the Investigative Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of
Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol initiated criminal proceedings against L.E. Islyamov, a
Russian national, born on 1 January 1966, into a crime under Part 1 of Article 280.1 of the Criminal Code of
the Russian Federation.
The preliminary investigation found that on 8 September 2015 Russian national L.E. Islyamov, being at
the “Ukrainian Crisis Media Centre” located at: 2, Khreshchatik St., Kiev, Ukraine, took part in a press
conference named “Civil blockade of Crimea”, during which he publicly called for violating the territorial
integrity of the Russian Federation.
Later on, on 8 September 2015, the video footage of the above-mentioned speech by L.E. Islyamov was
posted on the website of the “Ukrainian Crisis Media Centre” at http://uacrisis.org/ru/ and on YouTube at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBPPjZ2uz-M&feature=youtu.be on the Internet, information and
telecommunications network, which is accessible by an unlimited number of persons.
After listening to the prosecutor who stated that it was necessary to satisfy the motion, the court, having
examined the provided materials, holds that the motion is subject to satisfaction.
In accordance with Clause 5 of Part 2 of Article 29, Articles 165, 182 of the Criminal Procedural Code
of the Russian Federation, only the court has legal capacity to issue a ruling to carry out a search in a dwelling.
As it appears from the provided materials, the pre-trial investigation authority has sufficient grounds to
assume that the dwelling at the place of registration of Elzara Rustemovna Islyamova, born on 17 January
1979, located at: 29, Edebiyat St., Simferopol, may contain things and documents relevant to the criminal case
evidencing the criminal activity of L.E. Islyamov and indicative of the financing of extremism by the above
person, and other things and substances removed from the stream of commerce in the territory of the Russian
Federation.
In view of the foregoing, pursuant to Parts 1–4 of Article 165, Article 182 of the Criminal Procedural
Code of the Russian Federation,
RULED:
To allow [Name], Major of Justice and Senior Investigator for High-Priority Cases of the Investigative
Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and
Sevastopol, to carry out a search in the dwelling located at: 29, Edebiyat St., Simferopol.
The ruling may be appealed to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea within ten days from the
date of its issue.
Judge: /Signature/ I.V. Kagitina
/SEAL: KIEVSKIY DISTRICT COURT OF SIMFEROPOL,
THE REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA, THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION/
/STAMP: TRUE COPY
JUDGE (Signature)
SECRETARY (Signature)/
I have read the ruling
/Signature/ 2 November 2015
M.A. Asanova
Annex 257
Annex 258
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea, Case
No. 3/6-832/2015, Ruling authorizing a search in the dwelling of Lilya
Budzhurova, 29 October 2015
Translation
Case No. 3/6-832/2015
RULING
On 29 October 2015, Judge of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea I.V.
Kagitina, with the participation of secretary A.A. Sobakin, Chief Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office of the
Republic of Crimea A.R. Pakul, having considered in an open court hearing the ruling issued by [Name], Major
of Justice and Senior Investigator for High-Priority Cases of the Investigative Department of the Directorate
of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, concerning a motion for
a search to be conducted in a dwelling,
ESTABLISHED:
On 22 October 2015, the Investigative Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of
Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol initiated criminal proceedings against L.E. Islyamov, a
Russian national, born on 1 January 1966, into a crime under Part 1 of Article 280.1 of the Criminal Code of
the Russian Federation.
The preliminary investigation found that on 8 September 2015 Russian national L.E. Islyamov, being at
the “Ukrainian Crisis Media Centre” located at: 2, Khreshchatik St., Kiev, Ukraine, took part in a press
conference named “Civil blockade of Crimea”, during which he publicly called for violating the territorial
integrity of the Russian Federation.
Later on, on 8 September 2015, the video footage of the above-mentioned speech by L.E. Islyamov was
posted on the website of the “Ukrainian Crisis Media Centre” at http://uacrisis.org/ru/ and on YouTube at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBPPjZ2uz-M&feature=youtu.be on the Internet, information and
telecommunications network, which is accessible by an unlimited number of persons.
After listening to the prosecutor who stated that it was necessary to satisfy the motion, the court, having
examined the provided materials, holds that the motion is subject to satisfaction.
In accordance with Clause 5 of Part 2 of Article 29, Articles 165, 182 of the Criminal Procedural Code
of the Russian Federation, only the court has legal capacity to issue a ruling to carry out a search in a dwelling.
As it appears from the provided materials, the pre-trial investigation authority has sufficient grounds to
assume that the dwelling at the place of registration of Lilya Rustemovna Budzhurova, born on 1 November
1958, located at: 28, Stroiteley St., Simferopol, may contain things and documents relevant to the criminal
case evidencing the criminal activity of L.E. Islyamov and indicative of the financing of extremism by the
above person, and other things and substances removed from the stream of commerce in the territory of the
Russian Federation.
In view of the foregoing, pursuant to Parts 1–4 of Article 165, Article 182 of the Criminal Procedural
Code of the Russian Federation,
RULED:
To allow [Name], Major of Justice and Senior Investigator for High-Priority Cases of the Investigative
Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and
Sevastopol, to carry out a search in the dwelling located at: 28, Stroiteley St., Simferopol.
The ruling may be appealed to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea within ten days from the
date of its issue.
Judge: /Signature/ I.V. Kagitina
/SEAL: KIEVSKIY DISTRICT COURT OF SIMFEROPOL,
THE REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA, THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION/
/STAMP: TRUE COPY
JUDGE (Signature)
SECRETARY (Signature)/
I have read the ruling
(signed) 2 November 2005 (sic)
L.R. Budzhurova
Annex 258
Annex 259
Ninth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal, Case No. А40-131463/15,
Decision, 23 November 2015 (excerpts)
1
Translation
Excerpts
NINTH ARBITRAZH COURT OF APPEAL
12 Solomennoy Storozhky Lane, Municipal Post Office 4, Moscow, 127994
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www.9aas.arbitr.ru
DECISION
No. 09AP-48322/2015
Moscow
23 November 2015 Case No. А40-131463/15
The operative part of the decision was announced on 16 November 2015
The decision was produced in full on 23 November 2015
Ninth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal consisting of:
presiding judge V.A. Sviridov,
judges: I.V. Beketova, D.V. Kamenetsky,
with the courtroom secretary D.Sh. Sataev keeping the record,
Having considered in an open court session, in hall No. 15, the appeal of the Federal Service for
Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor) against the
decision of the Arbitrazh Court of Moscow of 8 September 2015 in case No. А40-131463/15 (139-1095) of
the judge I.V. Korogodov.
on the application of “Children’s TV Channel ‘Lale’” LLC (Lale Children’s TV Channel LLC) (MSRN
1149102110596) seeking to have the actions of the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications,
Information Technology, and Mass Media declared illegal,
with the participation of:
from the applicant: A. S. Titov under the power of attorney of 24 August 2015;
from the defendant: Yu. V. Vasina under the power of attorney of 28 September 2015;
ESTABLISHED:
Lale Children’s TV Channel LLC appealed to the Arbitrazh Court of Moscow with an application
seeking to have the actions of the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information
Technology, and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor) declared illegal; the actions are connected with the return,
without consideration, of the application of 20 March 2015 (incoming reference No. 30318-smi of 24 March
2015) of the founder Lale Children’s TV Channel LLC, about the registration of a mass media outlet – LALE
TV channel; omissions, and the obligation to remedy the violation of the applicant’s rights and freedoms, as
well as to consider the application of Lale Children’s TV Channel LLC about the registration of the mass
media outlet – LALE TV channel.
By the decision of the Moscow Arbitrazh Court of 8 September 2015 the applicant’s claims were
satisfied in part, since the court concluded that there were no legal grounds for refusing to register the news
agency. In addition, the court of first instance refused to satisfy the applicant’s claims regarding the recognition
of omissions of the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass
Media as illegal which manifested itself in avoiding registering the applicant’s mass media out since all
applications of Lale Children’s TV Channel LLC were reviewed by the defendant.
Disagreeing with the adopted judicial act, Roskomnadzor filed an appeal, in which it asked to revoke
the decision and adopt a new judicial act in the case refusing to satisfy the stated claims. It mentions that there
is a discrepancy between the conclusions of the court and the circumstances of the case, and that there is a
violation of substantive law.
Annex 259
2
The applicant responded to the appeal in accordance with Article 262 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code
of the Russian Federation, in which it asked to leave the court decision unchanged and to dismiss the appeal.
[…]
Page 8
Based on the foregoing, the Court of Appeal considers the court’s decision in this case to be lawful and
well-grounded and adopted with due regard to the factual circumstances, the case materials and the current
legislation, and therefore considers that the appeal cannot be satisfied given that the arguments presented in it
do not affect the legality and validity of the decision of the court of first instance that is essentially correct.
The judicial board found no violations of procedural law provided for in Part 4 of Article 270 of the
Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation that entail an unconditional revocation of the judicial act.
Pursuant to Articles 266, 268, 269, 271 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the
court
DECIDED:
to leave the decision of the Arbitrazh Court of Moscow of 8 September 2015 in case No. А40-131463/15
unchanged and to dismiss the appeal.
The decision of the Ninth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal comes into force from the date of its adoption and
may be appealed against within two months from the date when the decision was produced in full to the
Arbitrazh Court for the Moscow Circuit.
Presiding judge: V.A. Sviridov
Judges: I.V. Beketova
D.V. Kamenetsky
Telephone of the court’s query service: 8 (495) 987-28-00.
Annex 259
Annex 260
Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation,
Case No. 205-APU15-12s, Appellate Decision, 24 November 2015
1
Translation
SUPREME COURT
OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Case No. 205-APU15-12s
APPELLATE DECISION
Moscow 24 November 2015
Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation composed of the presiding judge
A.V. Voronov,
the judges O.A. Derbilova, Yu.V. Sitnikova
the secretary V.A. Zamolotskikh
having reviewed in an open court hearing a criminal case on the appeals of the convicted O.G.
Sentsov, A.A. Kolchenko, attorneys V.N. Samokhin, D.V. Dinze and S.I. Sidorkina against the decision of
the North Caucasus District Military Court of 25 August 2015, according to which
Oleg Gennadievich Sentsov, born on 13 July 1976 in the village of Skalistoe of the Bakhchisaray
District of the Republic of Crimea, no criminal background,
was sentenced to deprivation of liberty: according to Part 2 of Article 2054 of the Criminal Code of
Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law of 2 November 2013 No. 302-FZ) for a period of 15 years
without penalty and restrictions of freedom; according to item “a” of Part 2 of Article 205 of the Criminal
Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Laws of 27 July 2006 No. 153-FZ, of 30 December
2008 No. 321-FZ, of 27 December 2009 No. 377-FZ) for a period of 10 years without restrictions of
freedom; according to item “a” of Part 2 of Article 205 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as
amended by Federal Laws of 27 July 2006 No. 153-FZ, of 30 December 2008 No. 321-FZ, of 27 December
2009 No. 377-FZ) for a period of 11 years without restrictions of freedom; according to Part 2 of Article 30,
item “a” of Part 2 of Article 205 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal
Laws of 27 July 2006 No. 153-FZ, of 30 December 2008 No. 321-FZ, of 27 December 2009 No. 377-FZ, of
5 May 2014 No. 130-FZ) with the application of Part 2 of Article 66 of the Criminal Code for a period of 7
years without restrictions of freedom; according to Part 3 of Article 30, Part 3 of Article 222 of the Criminal
Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Laws of 25 June 1998 No. 92-FZ, of 28 December
2010 No. 398-FZ) in accordance with Part 3 of Article 66 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for
a period of 5 years; according to Part 3 of Article 222 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as
amended by Federal Laws of 25 June 1998 No. 92-FZ, of 28 December 2010 No. 398-FZ) for a period of 5
years.
On the grounds of Part 3 of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the basis of a
combination of crimes by the partial addition of punishments, Sentsov O.G. was sentenced to deprivation of
liberty for a period of 20 years in a high security penal colony.
Alexander Alexandrovich Kolchenko, born 26 November 1989 in the city of Simferopol of the
Republic of Crimea, no criminal background,
sentenced to deprivation of liberty: according to Part 2 of Article 2054 of the Criminal Code of the
Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law of 2 November 2013 No. 302-FZ) for a period of 6 years
without penalty; according to item “a” of Part 2 of Article 205 of the Criminal Code of the Russian
Federation (as amended by Federal Laws of 27 July 2006 No. 153-FZ, of 30 December 2008 No. 321-FZ, of
27 December 2009 No. 377-FZ) with the application of Article 64 of the Criminal Code for a period of 8
years without penalty and restrictions of freedom.
On the grounds of Part 3 of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the basis of a
combination of crimes by the partial addition of punishments, Kolchenko A.A. was sentenced to deprivation
of liberty for a period of 10 years in a high security penal colony.
The questions about the reimbursement of procedural costs, the fate of physical evidence were
resolved.
Having heard the report of Judge Voronov A.V., the explanations of the convicted Sentsov O.G. and
Kolchenko A.A., who supported the appeals’ arguments, the attorneys Samokhin N.V. and Dinze D.V. who
delivered a speech in defence of the convicted Sentsov O. G., attorney Sidorkina S.I. who delivered a speech
in defence of the convicted Kolchenko A.A., the opinion of the prosecutor Matskevich Yu.I., who considered
Annex 260
2
it necessary to uphold the decision and to dismiss the appeals, the Judicial Chamber on Cases of the Military
of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
ESTABLISHED:
Sentsov and Kolchenko were found guilty and convicted: Sentsov – for the organisation of a terrorist
community, that is, a stable group of persons who had previously united in order to carry out terrorist
activities, and for leading this community, for two terrorist acts of arson, committed by an organised group,
for preparing with an organised group for a terrorist act, for attempting to unlawfully acquire explosive
devices by an organised group and for the illegal possession of firearms and ammunition by an organised
group; Kolchenko – for participating in a terrorist group, that is, a stable group of people who had previously
joined together in order to carry out terrorist activities, and for committing a terrorist act by arson by an
organised group.
The crimes were committed by the convicts in March–May 2014 under the circumstances set out in
the decision.
At the court hearing, Sentsov and Kolchenko did not plead guilty.
In the appeal, the convicted Sentsov points out that the decision of the North-Caucasian District
Military Court of 25 August 2015 is illegal and unfounded and seeks to have it revoked.
In the appeal, the convicted Kolchenko states his objections to the decision of the court. He claims that
in the case there is no evidence of the existence of a terrorist community on the territory of the Republic of
Crimea, which is a structural unit of the Right Sector (Pravyj Sector) organisation. There is no evidence of
him becoming a member of the community and participating in it either. The court disregarded a statement
and a certificate of the Right Sector organisation stating that he and the other convicted in the case did not
belong to this organisation. No group claimed responsibility for the arson and did not make demands for the
Republic of Crimea to leave the Russian Federation. In violation of Article 75 of the Criminal Procedural
Code of the Russian Federation, the court referred in the decision to the testimony of representatives of
victims and witnesses, based on assumptions. The testimony of the convicted Afanasyev during the
investigation could not be taken into account since it was obtained under duress. The testimony of the
convicted Chirniy is also considered unreliable. The court did not take into account the fact of insignificant
pecuniary damage caused by the arson attacks. The convicted considers the criminal case to be falsified,
politically motivated, seeks to have the decision revoked.
In the appeals and amendments to them, attorneys Samokhin and Dinze, acting in the interests of the
convicted Sentsov, attorney Sidorkina in the appeal and amendments to it, filed in defence of the convicted
Kolchenko, citing their assessment of the evidence and circumstances of the case, ask to reverse the decision
and acquit Sentsov and Kolchenko.
According to the defence counsel, Sentsov and Kolchenko were proven guilty, the conclusions of the
court, stated in the decision, do not correspond to the actual circumstances of the case, the court made
substantial violations of procedural law, incorrectly applied substantive law, the conclusions of court are
based on inadmissible evidence and assumptions. The decision against the convicted persons is unjust, the
punishment imposed on them is unmotivated.
Attorney Samokhin, in substantiation of the appeal, argues that the court conclusions that Sentsov
created a terrorist community, led it, and committed acts in an organised group do not correspond to the
actual circumstances of the case and the evidence given in the decision. In the decision, there is no
description of the process of creating this community, no features of the community are indicated, there is no
evidence of Sentsov’s guilt in the incriminated acts, the commission of which by Sentsov was not
established. The evidence given in the decision contains contradictions, none of the witnesses indicated that
Sentsov was the person who created this community. The decision does not distinguish the signs of a
criminal community and an organised group, the qualification of Sentsov’s actions under Part 4.1 of Article
2054 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in this connection is superfluous. It is not established in
the case and the decision does not show evidence of Sentsov’s creation of a structural unit of the Right
Sector organisation, which is a significant change in the accusation. Sentsov did not commit the actions
expressed in arson attacks on the offices, did not destroy the window structure, did not set anything on fire,
therefore he was unreasonably convicted under item “a” of Part 2 of Article 205 of the Criminal Code of the
Russian Federation. The office of the United Russia party did not exist at the time of the arson, this
organisation was unreasonably involved as a victim. It is not proved that the arson attacks were carried out in
order to influence decision-making by the authorities, international organisations or to intimidate the
population, which is necessary for the recognition of actions as a terrorist act. The findings of the court about
Annex 260
3
this are assumptions. The court did not give a proper assessment of the testimony of the witnesses Panyuta,
Yablunovsky, Khomyak, Prokopenko. For actions to be recognised terrorist, it is necessary that the danger of
death of a person and the occurrence of other serious consequences be real, which was not established. As a
result of the arson, the damage was insignificant. The decision does not contain evidence of the illegal
possession of weapons and ammunition by an organised group, as well as evidence of an attempt to illegally
acquire explosive devices by an organised group with Sentsov’s participation. He is unreasonably convicted
for these acts. Nor did he make preparations, as part of an organised group, to blow up the Lenin monument
in the city of Simferopol. Evidence of this is missing and is not shown in the decision. The court unlawfully
used as evidence of Sentsov’s guilt the testimony of Afanasyev and Chirniy who withdrew the earlier
testimony at the court hearing. It is not taken into account that Afanasyev gave his testimony during the
investigation under duress. Chirniy’s testimony, as well as the witnesses to whom the court referred to in
support of its conclusions, deserved a critical assessment. All identification protocols examined by the court
are inadmissible evidence. The decision did not provide or disprove the testimony of Sentsov at the court
hearing. The copy of the decision handed to Sentsov was not signed by all the judges who were part of the
court.
According to attorney Dinze, the court, while delivering the decision, did not take into account the
positive characteristics of Sentsov, his marital status, that he was not convicted, he did not commit anything
obnoxious, and he had dependent underage children. The punishment imposed on Sentsov is unfair due to its
excessive severity. The testimony of Afanasyev and Chirniy, which they gave during the investigation, was
read out at the court hearing according to the rules relating to the interrogation of the accused, illegally and
could not be taken into account. At the same time, the defence was deprived of the opportunity to object to
the testimony of Afanasyev and Chirniy who denounced the convicts. The photograph identification
protocols of Sentsov and Kolchenko could not be recorded as evidence since these investigative actions were
carried out in violation of Article 193 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation. During the
investigation, Afanasyev was subjected to unlawful pressure from law enforcement officers. No assessment
was given to the arguments of the defence regarding the recognition of the results of operative search
activities as inadmissible for they were obtained in violation of Article 75 of the Criminal Procedural Code
of the Russian Federation. The court did not check and did not evaluate the materials of the operative search
activity in accordance with the requirements of Articles 87-88 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the
Russian Federation. The materials related to the Right Sector investigated in court are not related to Sentsov
and Kolchenko, it is not proved that they belonged to this organisation, and literary sources seized during a
search in Sentsov’s dwelling house were misassessed. Operational officers, with the help of the witness
Pirogov, provoked [Sentsov] into committing a crime under Part 1 of Article 30, item “a” of Part 2 of Article
205 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and other acts incriminated to Sentsov. In assessing the
testimony of the witnesses, the court did not take into account that some of them were involved in crimes of
a terrorist nature. The agencies of the federal security service created artificial conditions so that Afanasyev
and Chirniy could make false accusations against the convicted persons.
Attorney Sidorkina points out that Kolchenko was convicted in violation of the law for actions in
relation to which his guilt was not established. The existence of a terrorist community was not proved, the
decision does not indicate the circumstances on the basis of which the court concluded that Sentsov had
created such a community, as well as the presence of its signs. Kolchenko’s testimony at the court hearing
that he was not a member of the terrorist community was misassessed by the court. Also, it was not taken
into account that Kolchenko did not regard his actions when committing an arson attack on the office as
terrorist. This arson did not have a wide resonance, did not differ from other arson attacks that occurred in
the city of Simferopol, could not affect the decision on the admission of Crimea to Russia that had already
been made, therefore it cannot be regarded as a terrorist act. The amount of damage specified in the decision
was not supported by expenditure documents, and a wrong legal entity was recognised as the victim. The
testimony of the witnesses Pirogov, Burakovsky, Chirniy, Komanskaya, Purtov, Dobrovenko, Chernyakov
and others, which was the basis for the decision, deserved a critical assessment, as some of them were tried
and others held different views on the events. The findings of the court on the presence in the Republic of
Crimea of a terrorist community – a structural unit of the Right Sector organisation – contradict the materials
of the case. At the court hearing, the witness Afanasyev withdrew his earlier testimony, which had been
obtained as a result of torture. The witness Chirniy also withdrew his testimony. The decisions against
Afanasyev and Chirniy were not prejudicial, the reference to them in the contested decision is illegal. The
procedural documents in the case were drawn up in gross violations of criminal procedural law, including the
identification protocols. The investigation authorities illegally decided to conduct operative search activities.
During the investigation, they falsified documents and resorted to provocations.
Annex 260
4
In the objections to the appeals of the convicted Sentsov, Kolchenko, attorneys Samokhin, Dinze and
Sidorkina, public prosecutor Tkachenko O.V. considers the appeals to be unsubstantiated and asks to leave
the decision unchanged.
Having reviewed the materials of the criminal case, having discussed the arguments presented in the
appeals, the Judicial Chamber finds no reason to satisfy them.
The findings of the court of first instance on the guilt of Sentsov and Kolchenko in the criminal acts
set forth in the decision are corroborated by the totality of evidence collected in the case and examined at the
court session, which were obtained in compliance with criminal procedural law, are objectively set out and
evaluated in the decision in accordance with Article 88 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian
Federation. There were no violations of criminal procedural law, entailing the abolition or change of the
decision.
As follows from the case materials, the preliminary investigation and the court proceedings were
conducted in accordance with the requirements of the law, fully and completely, in compliance with the
principles of adversarial and equal rights of the parties. All the evidence gathered in the case was examined
at the court hearing, and it was properly assessed in the decision. The findings of the court do not contain any
assumptions, including with regard to specific actions referred to in the appeals. The suggestions that the
criminal case was falsified, its political motivation, contained in the appeals, are not supported by the
criminal case materials and recognised by the Judicial Board as unfounded.
Contrary to the claims of attorneys Samokhin and Sidorkina, in the decision, as provided for by the
requirements of Article 307 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, contains the
description of the criminal actions of Sentsov and Kolchenko, indicating the place, time, method of their
perpetration, forms of guilt and motives; the evidence of the guilt of Sentsov and Kolchenko on each
accusation supported in court is set forth, based on which certain evidence was found reliable and other was
rejected by the court, conclusions were drawn on the qualification of the actions of the convicted persons and
on other issues to be resolved when the guilty verdict was delivered.
The court checked the versions in defence of Sentsov and Kolchenko, the correct assessment was
given in the decision in relation to each of them. The petitions filed by the parties are permitted in
accordance with the requirements of criminal procedural law with the issuance of motivated definitions, the
petitions of the defence grounded in law were satisfied by the court. The position of the defendants and their
defence counsel – both in the case as a whole and in the individual details of the prosecution and the
circumstances – was brought to the notice of the court with sufficient completeness and certainty. It received
an objective assessment in the decision, as well as evidence presented by the defence. The content of the
testimony of the defendants, the representatives of the victims, witnesses and other evidence is set forth in
the decision in accordance with the minutes of the court hearing without any distortions that did not favour
Sentsov and Kolchenko.
The allegations of the defence, repeated in the appeals, about the absence in the case of evidence of
Sentsov and Kolchenko’s guilt in the crimes for which they were convicted, are refuted by the totality of
evidence examined at the court hearing.
The court found that in March 2014 in Simferopol Sentsov organised a terrorist community from
among people who did not share, like him, the decision on the admission of the Republic of Crimea to the
Russian Federation and entertained an idea that to commit criminal acts in order to destabilise activities of
the authorities of the Russian Federation established on the territory of the Republic of Crimea, to accelerate
the adoption of the decision concerning the withdrawal of the Republic of Crimea from the Russian
Federation.
The terrorist community organised by Sentsov included Afanasyev G.S. (convicted under the
decision of the Moscow City Court of 17 December 2014 under part 2 of Article 2054, item “a” of part 2 of
Article 205, item “a” of part 2 of Article 205, part 1 of Article 30, item “a” of part 2 of Article 205, part 3 of
Article 30, part 3 of Article 222 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), Chirniy A.V. (convicted
under the decision of the North Caucasus District Military Court of 21 April 2015 under part 2 of Article
2054, item “a” of part 2 of Article 205, item “a” of part 2 of Article 205, part 1 of Article 30, item “a” of part
2 of Article 205, part 3 of Article 30, part 3 of Article 222 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)
and other persons in respect of whom the criminal case was severed into separate proceedings. No later than
18 April 2014, Kolchenko joined this community, consenting to take part in a terrorist act.
Sentsov led the community, coordinated the activities of its members, planned terrorist acts, shared
responsibilities among participants of criminal acts, took measures to provide them with weapons,
ammunition, explosives, combustible materials and other items necessary to commit terrorist acts. The
community was well organised, performed coherent and intentional actions.
Annex 260
5
These circumstances, as well as the findings of the court on the existence of a terrorist community,
are supported in the case, as well as proved by two terrorist acts committed in a short period of time, namely:
on 14 April 2014, members of the community led by Sentsov as part of an organised group acting with the
objective to commit a terrorist act, set the office of the organisation “Russian Community of Crimea” on fire,
as well as on 18 April 2014, an arson attack directly involving Kolchenko against the regional office of the
United Russia political party.
In addition, on 9 May 2014 in Simferopol, members of the terrorist community, acting as an
organised group with the same objective and led by Sentsov, planned a terrorist act of blowing up the Lenin
monument, with the use of explosive devices which Sentsov as a member of the organised group attempted
to illegally acquire. Since Sentsov and other members of the terrorist community were detained, the terrorist
act was not committed.
Besides, Sentsov as a member of the organised group acting in the interests of members of the
terrorist community, illegally stored the following firearms: a Makarov pistol with a magazine and
ammunition – eight 9 mm rounds, 50 9x21 rounds, and a RGD-5 hand grenade, as well as a UZRGM-2
grenade exploder, which were seized after the arrest of Sentsov and other participants of the criminal acts.
The testimony of members of the terrorist community Afanasyev and Chirniy given at the stage of
preliminary investigation, as well as the testimony of Kolchenko at the initial investigation stage, were
reasonably considered in the courtroom as proving the guilt of Sentsov and Kolchenko in the committed
crimes.
Afanasyev’s and Chirniy’s testimony supports that Sentsov organised and led the terrorist
community, as well as the fact that Kolchenko was a member of the community and on 18 April 2014 as a
member of the organised group committed a terrorist act.
According to the testimony, Sentsov led the terrorist community while preparing to blow up the
Lenin monument on 9 May 2014. It was he who organised the terrorist attacks on 14 and 18 April 2014 by
providing to the perpetrators incendiary devices for arson attacks and other necessary items, choosing the
objects to attack, the composition of participants and the role of each of them in the criminal actions.
According to the testimony of Afanasyev and Chirniy, Sentsov as a member of an organised group
committed criminal acts of illicit trafficking of firearms, ammunition and the attempted illegal acquisition of
explosive devices.
Thus, according to the testimony of Afanasyev, after the referendum on the admission of the
Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation in March 2014 in Simferopol, he attended various events of
followers who supported the return of this region to Ukraine. At such meetings, Sentsov called for taking
action to declare the Republic of Crimea to be part of Ukraine by various methods, including radical, violent
ones. In late March – early April 2014, he joined Sentsov’s group, who in his private automobile brought
about thirty sets of gloves, black masks, two sledgehammers, several long wooden sticks, cans of engine oil
and gasoline to his apartment. At that meeting, Sentsov said that they had enough tools required to organise
events in order to intimidate the population and influence decision-making of the authorities of the Russian
Federation concerning the withdrawal of the Republic of Crimea from the Russian Federation. Besides, he
considered Sentsov to be the leader of the radical community, which included Chirniy, Kolchenko, and
others. On the night of 13-14 April 2014 in Simferopol, together with Chirniy and other persons, upon
instructions from Sentsov, they set fire to the office of the “Russian Community of Crimea” organisation. On
the night of 17-18 April 2014, upon instructions from Sentsov, Kolchenko, Chirniy and other participants set
fire to the office of the United Russia political party. In early April 2014, Sentsov instructed Chirniy to blow
up the Lenin monument in Simferopol, and Afanasyev was directed to coordinate the perpetrator’s actions.
To acquire components for an improvised explosive device, Sentsov conveyed money through him to
Chirniy. In late April 2014, he was informed by Chirniy that there were problems with producing a time
delay actuator and reported that to Sentsov who, via the Internet, instructed Chirniy and the person
assembling the explosive device to obtain the guidelines on how to produce a time delay actuator. In early
May 2014, he heard that Sentsov, during a telephone conversation with Chirniy, instructed the latter to
produce a second explosive device. After that, Sentsov demanded from him, Afanasyev, to make Chirniy
speed up the production of the explosive device for the explosion attack on 9 May 2014.
On 27 April 2015, at the confrontation with Kolchenko, Afanasyev supported his testimony about
Kolchenko’s participation in the terrorist attack on 18 April 2014 and Sentsov’s leading role in the
commission of this act.
According to the testimony of Chirniy, in March 2014, he participated in protests and events
organised by the proponents of the idea that the Republic of Crimea should secede from the Russian
Federation. At one of these events, Afanasyev introduced him to Sentsov, who promoted radical methods of
Annex 260
6
conducting actions against the authorities for the withdrawal of the Republic of Crimea from the Russian
Federation. At these meetings, Sentsov explained the need to blow up the Lenin monument since it would
attract the attention of the authorities and the mass media and cause panic among the population. In late
March 2014, he joined the group organised by Sentsov, considering him to be the leader. In early April 2014,
he informed Sentsov that an explosive device could be produced by another person, in the presence of
Afanasyev, who transferred him money to acquire the necessary components of the explosive device. On 16
April 2014, he agreed with his acquaintance Pirogov that he would produce the explosive device to blow up
the Lenin monument. On those days, he was present at one of the houses at a meeting of Sentsov with
Afanasyev and other members of the group, where Sentsov explained to him, Chirniy, the plan to blow up
the monument. On 24 April 2014, Sentsov directed him to produce a time delay actuator for the explosive
device. Later, he repeatedly conveyed money to Pirogov so that the necessary components could be
purchased for the explosive device. However, it was not produced. On 4 May 2014, during a telephone
conversation, Sentsov demanded that the actuator be produced without any external assistance, and that
another improvised explosive device be produced for a second explosion. On 8 May 2014, he received from
Pirogov two time delay actuators, which he kept at home. On 9 May 2014 at about 01.00 a.m., intending to
blow up the Lenin monument, he took the two explosive devices produced by Pirogov from a secret place,
but after a while he was detained with those devices. In addition, at the direction of Sentsov, on the night of
13-14 April 2014, he, along with Afanasyev and another member of the group, set fire to the office of the
public organisation “Russian Community of Crimea”. After that at night on 17-18 April 2014, directed by
Sentsov together with Afanasyev, Kolchenko and other participants, they set fire to the office of the United
Russia political party.
During the verification of testimony at the crime scene on 12 May 2014, Afanasyev, as well as on
10-12 May 2014 Chirniy supported their earlier testimonies concerning the leading role of Sentsov in the
commission of criminal acts and the participation of Kolchenko in the terrorist attack on 18 April 2014.
In addition, Chirniy indicated the place where Sentsov showed him a Makarov pistol with
ammunition, as well as the place where the incendiary devices and sledgehammers for breaking windows
were kept. During the examination of the mentioned place, the sledgehammer and incendiary devices were
found in a container made of polymeric material and removed.
Kolchenko, interrogated as a suspect on 16 and 19 May 2014, admitted that he was present in March
2014 at protests against the reunification of Crimea with the Russian Federation, where Sentsov introduced
him to Afanasyev. On 17-18 April 2014, having met with Afanasyev, Chirniy and other person, he was told
that there was an instruction to set fire to the office of the United Russia party in order to intimidate the
population and influence the government’s decision to withdraw the Republic of Crimea from the Russian
Federation, and agreed to participate in the commission of the terrorist act. Then, at the crime scene,
Afanasyev, handing over black masks and gloves, informed the group members of the plan of the arson
attack, according to which he, Kolchenko, and Afanasyev were to monitor the situation, and Chirniy and
another participant were to set fire to the office building.
On 19 May 2014, Kolchenko confirmed this information when his testimony was verified at the
crime scene.
The findings of the court about the guilt of the convicts are based both on the testimony of
Afanasyev, Chirniy and Kolchenko, and on other evidence examined and correctly considered in the
decision, including testimony at the court hearing:
- according to the witnesses Smirnitskaya (pseudonym) and Komanskaya, in late March 2014 in
Simferopol, the meetings led by Sentsov were organised with persons who shared the idea of taking action to
withdraw the Republic of Crimea from the Russian Federation. The witnesses attended the events. During
the events, Sentsov urged to take active action to exert pressure on the authorities of the Russian Federation,
and on around 10-11 April 2014, declared the need to blow up the Lenin monument in Simferopol, force the
population to protest against the actions of the authorities of the Russian Federation in Crimea. This meeting
was attended by about 10 people from the Sentsov group, including Kolchenko, Afanasyev and Chirniy, who
declared their willingness to blow up the Lenin monument;
- according to the witnesses Makarov and Cherniakov, in early April 2014 they rejected Chirniy’s
proposal to join the group organised to commit terrorist acts in Crimea. Subsequently, Chirniy informed
them that in April 2014 together with other persons he committed the arson attacks on the offices of the
Russian Community of Crimea and the United Russia party. In early May 2014, Chirniy told them that on 9
May 2014, the Victory Day, he was going to commit a terrorist act in Simferopol. Besides, the witness
Cherniakov explained that, according to Chirniy, he knew about a man named Oleg – the leader of a terrorist
group in Simferopol;
Annex 260
7
- according to the witness Burakovskiy, in March–early April 2014 he attended the meetings of
opponents of Crimea’s accession to the Russian Federation, where he spoke with various people, including
Chirniy and Afanasyev, who introduced him to Sentsov. At these meetings, the latter called people sharing
the same views to blow up the Lenin monument in order to influence decision-making of the authorities
concerning the withdrawal of the Republic of Crimea from the Russian Federation. Meeting with Afanasyev
and other participants of the protests, he found out that Sentsov led the group, which included Afanasyev,
Kolchenko, Chirniy, and other people who regularly attended meetings, where Sentsov called for radical
action. Afanasyev and another member of the group informed him of the arson attacks on the offices of the
public organisations in Simferopol committed by the Sentsov group in April 2014;
- according to the witness Dobrovenko, somewhere in the middle of April 2014, he found out that
Chirniy was looking for his acquaintance Pirogov, and he knew that Chirniy was a proponent of one of the
extremist organisations. Later, Pirogov informed him of Chirniy’s request to produce an explosive device to
commit a terrorist act in Crimea. To prevent the crime, he advised Pirogov to refer to the law enforcement
agencies, which the latter did;
- according to the witness Pirogov, on 16 April 2014, during the meeting with Chirniy, the latter
told him about the plan to blow up the Lenin monument in Simferopol in order to destabilise the activities of
the authorities and invited him to produce an improvised explosive device, transferring money for the
acquisition of the necessary components. Having found out Chirniy’s intentions, he went to the Federal
Security Service of Russia, and then took part in an operative search activity, during which Chirniy, taking
the initiative, met with him several times to get the explosive device. During the meetings, Chirniy told him
that in April 2014 in Simferopol, as a member of the community, employing radical methods of pressure on
the authorities of the Russian Federation, he set fire to the offices of the public organisation “Russian
Community of Crimea” and the United Russia political party. Besides, he said that there organisation had the
leader and other perpetrators.
Counsels of the victims Kozenko, Bochkarev, the witnesses Filipenko, Konoval, Andryukhin,
Baraban, Ionin, Purtov, Chirniy in the courtroom testified about the circumstances and consequences of the
arson attacks. The testimony of the counsels of the victims and the documents filed in the case also supported
the grounds for involving the entities mentioned in the court decision.
According to the testimony of the above-mentioned persons, the criminal acts caused property
damage and disrupted the normal operation of the organisations that occupied the offices. The arson attacks
were taken as terrorist acts committed to intimidate the population and destabilise the situation, while more
serious consequences were avoided due to the measures taken.
In particular, according to the witness Filipenko who on 14 April 2014 was guarding the office of the
public organisation “Russian Community of Crimea”, when the fire broke out, he was scared for his life and
the life of another security guard. He considered the arson to be an act of intimidation committed to
destabilise the situation in Crimea. According to the witness Andryukhin, who on 18 April 2014 participated
in extinguishing the fire in the office of the United Russia political party, the fire was dangerous because it
could have spread to the “Baby House” building, where there were deaf children, as well as to other houses
adjacent to the burning office building.
The testimonies of the counsels of the victims Kozenko, Bochkarev, the witnesses Filipenko,
Konovalov, Andryukhin, Baraban, Ionin, Purtov, Chirniy are consistent with the protocols of the inspection
of the crime scene and objects, estimates of construction work, other facts reflecting the consequences of the
attack, which, despite the arguments of the appeal of attorney Sidorkina, allowed the court to correctly
consider property damages suffered by the victims.
This evidence, in conjunction with other files of the case, refutes the opinion of attorneys Samokhin
and Sidorkina on the insignificance of the events and supports the grounds for the court’s conclusion that the
committed arson attacks were terrorist attacks, since they were aimed at influencing decision-making by the
authorities, intimidating the population, as well as posed a serious danger to life and caused significant
property damage.
Files on the laptop seized in Sentsov’s apartment prove terrorist acts and instructions to produce and
use incendiary and explosive devices. This was correctly interpreted by the court as evidence of Sentsov’s
practice of employing terrorist methods.
Contrary to attorney Sidorkina’s assertions, the court did not refer in the decision to court resolutions
against Afanasyev and Chirniy as having prejudicial value and considered each resolutions as evidence in the
case, correlating them with the other facts found during the trial.
The statements by the convict Kolchenko, attorneys Samokhin, Dinze and Sidorkina on the lack of
evidence of participation of the convicts in the extremist organisation mentioned in the appeals, are also
Annex 260
8
unfounded since the decision does not specify this when describing criminal acts.
The guilt of Sentsov and Kolchenko was also proved by the following: the testimony of the witness
Ivanov (pseudonym) who reported that due to the voluntary participation of the witness Pirogov in the
operative search activities, the terrorist community led by Sentsov was revealed; identification protocols
according to which Sentsov was identified as the organiser of the terrorist acts, and Kolchenko was identified
as a participant of the terrorist acts; the record of search of 13 May 2014, during which pistols, namely a
Makarov pistol with a magazine and ammunition - eight 9 mm rounds, 50 9x21 rounds, and a RGD-5 hand
grenade, and a UZRGM-2 grenade exploder, inflammable fluid and other items, were found and seized in the
apartment, where, according to the testimony of Chirniy and Afanasyev, Sentsov organised meetings of
members of the terrorist community; a forensic expertise report on the fact that the firearms and ammunition
seized during the search are in good condition and fit for use and the Makarov pistol bears Sentsov’s
biological traces; operative search activities records, as well as various documents, physical and other
evidence.
All this evidence is set out in the decision in a comprehensive and detailed manner. It is coherent and
complies with other facts in the case and time frame, does not contain significant contradictions, and
therefore is considered by the court as reliable and is taken as a basis for the decision. The above constitutes
reasonable grounds for declaring the convicts to be guilty.
The arguments of the defence about the illegality of the testimony of Afanasyev and Chirniy
revealed in the courtroom and their use as evidence in this case are groundless.
Criminal procedural law does not prohibit interrogating in the courtroom a person convicted in a
separate criminal case about other accomplices of the crime and revealing the testimony of such an
accomplice if there are grounds for that.
Afanasyev’s statements set out in the appeals, concerning the fact that testimony against convicted
Sentsov and Kolchenko was given under duress, were verified and found to be untrue in the trial.
There is no such data in the case files regarding Chirniy either, who at the court hearing supported
his testimony during the preliminary investigation.
The court reasonably considered the testimony against Sentsov and Kolchenko, given by Afanasyev
and Chirniy in the presence of the defence attorneys, as well as the witnesses when verifying the evidence at
the crime scene. The above excluded the use of any unlawful measures against them. The accuracy of the
facts set forth in the protocols, as well as strict observance of the procedure of investigative actions, were
certified with personal signatures of Afanasyev, Chirniy and their attorneys. Afanasyev and Chirniy were
informed of their procedural rights, including the right not to incriminate themselves. Each of them was
informed that their testimony could be used as evidence in the criminal case, as well as if they subsequently
decide to retract it. Afanasyev and Chirniy independently spoke about the circumstances of the case, the
reports thereof were drawn up during the investigation, there were no objections made by the participants. In
the course of the investigation and the trial of the criminal case against Afanasyev and Chirniy concerning
unlawful methods of investigation used against them, they claimed no breaches of their rights, as well as
there were no proofs thereof.
There are no facts in the case that Afanasyev and Chirniy intended to slander Sentsov and Kolchenko
or incriminate themselves. Nor there are facts that, when testifying, they could not consciously understand
the meaning and significance of the questions and their answers to the questions.
The testimony of the witnesses Afanasyev and Chirniy, set out in the court decision, is detailed,
consistent, unchanged in content, coherent, consistent in their details, as well as with the testimony of the
witnesses Pirogov, “Ivanov”, “Smirnitskaya”, Komanskaya, Burakovskiy, Dobrovienko, Makarov,
Cherniakova and others, as well as reports of search, seizure, inspection of the crime scene, items,
identification protocols and other investigative measures, expert opinions, materials of operative search
activities, as well as other evidence. Given the above, the testimony is recognised reliable by the court.
The protocols of interrogation of Afanasyev and Chirniy were announced in the courtroom on legal
grounds – subject to part 4 of Article 281 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation since
these witnesses, being present at the hearing, refused to testify. At the same time, the defence counsel were
allowed interrogate Afanasyev and Chirniy, as well as defend before the court their position on the evidential
value of the testimony in question.
Given the above, the statement by attorney Dinze concerning the fact that Sentsov, Kolchenko and
their attorneys had no opportunity to object to the testimony of Afanasyev and Chirniy, is groundless.
The testimony of the convict Kolchenko, given on 16 and 19 May 2014 during interrogation as a
suspect and on 19 May 2014 when verifying the testimony at the crime scene, was considered by the court in
its decision.
Annex 260
9
The investigative actions were taken with the participation of the defence counsel, with procedural
rights explained to Kolchenko. Kolchenko and his defence counsel had no objections to the records or that
the testimony was given under duress. The testimony given by him during the interrogation and verification
at the crime scene was proved by the totality of evidence, and therefore Kolchenko’s testimony was
reasonably taken into account in the decision as evidence in the case.
The arguments of the appeals concerning the erroneous consideration of the testimony of the
witnesses Pirogov, Burakovskiy, Komanskaya and others, referred to in the decision as evidence of the guilt
of the convict, are groundless. Recognising that the information provided by the mentioned persons was
accurate, the court correctly proceeded from the fact that the witnesses reported the source of their
information. Moreover, they were interrogated in compliance with the requirements of criminal procedural
law. The testimony, upon which the court decision is based, is detailed, consistent, unchanged in content,
coherent, consistent in detail with other evidence in the case. There were found no reasons to slander the
convicts.
Given the above, the reference made by attorneys Samokhina and Sidorkina to the fact that some
witnesses were held criminally liable did not make their testimony in the criminal case unreliable.
The validity of the findings of the court about the guilt of Sentsov and Kolchenko interrogated in the
courtroom cannot be affected by the testimony of the witnesses Prokopenko, Paniuta, Khomyak and
Yablunovskiy invited upon the motion of the attorneys. The decision contains correctly considered the
circumstances in connection with which the testimony of these persons, containing a subjective assessment
of the convicts’ identity and the events in question, cannot refute the evidence presented by the prosecution
and properly considered in the decision.
The court considers the photograph identification protocols as proof of guilt of Sentsov and
Kolchenko. According to the case file, the investigative actions were taken in compliance with the
requirements of Article 193 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation. The court
considered the findings as evidence in combination with other facts. The above allowed to declare the
convicts guilty in the incriminated acts.
The decision contains the correct assessment of the findings of the operative search activities carried
out in the case. The findings of the court about the legality of these activities, the relevance of their findings
to the charges brought against Sentsov and Kolchenko, as well as lack of provocation of the part of the law
enforcement agencies during operative search activities, are convincing, thoroughly motivated in the
decision and based on the evidence examined at the court hearing. Given the above, the objections thereto
made by attorneys Samokhin, Dinze and Sidorkina are considered to be unreasonable.
Attorney Samokhin referred to the fact that the copy of the decision sent to Sentsov was not signed
by the judges constituting the panel of judges of the court. However, the copy of the decision was signed by
the presiding judge and officially sealed. Thus, no procedural breaches were found. The original of the
decision is signed by the judges of the panel trying the criminal case.
Having considered the relevance and reliability of evidence, having recognised that the collected
evidence is sufficient for the resolution of the criminal case, the court found Sentsov and Kolchenko guilty of
committing the criminal offences set forth in the decision, which are qualified correctly.
The findings of the court, which allowed qualifying the acts of Sentsov and Kolchenko under the
provisions of criminal law, specified in the decision, including the findings concerning the activities of the
terrorist community, the commission of terrorist acts and other criminal acts by an organised group, are
properly grounded in the court decision. They are based on the coherence of evidence examined in the
courtroom, as well as on the correct application of criminal law by the court. There are no grounds for a
different legal consideration of the criminal acts of the convicts.
The court verified the mental stance of Sentsov and Kolchenko. No information questioning their
sanity was provided in the case.
The penalty against Sentsov and Kolchenko was imposed taking into account the nature and public
danger of the crimes, the circumstances of the case, the identity of the convicts, extenuating circumstances,
as well as lack of aggravating circumstances, the effect of the imposed punishment on their redemption and
on the living conditions of their families. The court complied with the requirements of Articles 6 and 60 of
the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The following extenuating circumstances in Sentsov’s case were considered: two underage children,
positive personal characteristics, no criminal record, did not commit anything obnoxious, the circumstances
referred to in the appeals filed by his attorneys. When considering Kolchenko’s case, the court took into
account that he had never been convicted, had no criminal record, did not commit anything obnoxious, and
had positive characteristics.
Annex 260
10
The type and scope of the punishment of Sentsov and Kolchenko for each committed crime and their
totality are commensurate with the criminal offence, consistent with the personal characteristics of the
convicts and other circumstances of the case. No grounds for leniency were found in the case.
Given the above and subject to Articles 38913, 38920, 38928 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the
Russian Federation, the Judicial Chamber on Cases of the Military of the Supreme Court of the Russian
Federation
DECIDED:
To uphold the decision of the North Caucasus District Military Court of 25 August 2015 against
Oleg Gennadievich Sentsov and Alexander Alexandrovich Kolchenko, to dismiss the appeals of the convicts
Sentsov O.G., Kolchenko A.A., attorneys Samokhin V.N., Dinze D.V. and Sidorkina S.I.
Presiding judge /Signature/
Judges /Signature/ /Signature/
Annex 260
Annex 261
Armyansk City Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 5-369/2015,
Decision, 7 December 2015
1
Translation
Case No. 5-369/2015
DECISION
On 7 December 2015, V.U. Isroilova, judge of the Armyansk City Court of the Republic of Crimea, having
considered in an open hearing in Armyansk an administrative offence case envisaged by Part 1.1 of Article
18.8 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation against Sinaver Arifovich Kadyrov
born on 1 January 1955 in Samarkand, residing at: [address],
established:
according to the administrative offence record, on 23 January 2015 at 8:00 a.m., in the course of passport
control of individuals at the Armyansk - motorway cargo and passenger multiway border crossing point of the
Russian Federation, it was established that Ukrainian citizen S.A. Kadyrov breached the rules of stay in the
Russian Federation, which consisted in him not leaving the Russian Federation upon the expiry of the 90-day
period of stay: he entered the territory of the Russian Federation on 16 June 2014 (he left the territory of the
Russian Federation 6 times for a total of 27 days: on 29 June 2014 for 3 days, on 10 August 2014 for 5 days,
on 9 September 2014 for 3 days, on 10 November 2014 for 6 days, on 21 November 2014 for 1 day and on 16
December 2014 for 9 days) and as at the date of the record he was in the territory of the Russian Federation,
which amounts to 165 days.
S.A. Kadyrov, who was duly notified of the time and place of the hearings by a notice sent to [address]
and to [address], failed to appear at the hearings scheduled for 28 September 2015, 22 October 2015, 18
November 2015, 7 December 2015, and the notices were returned to the court with the post office’s remarks
stating that the “storage period expired”.
S.A. Kadyrov’s defence counsel, who was duly informed of the time and place of the hearings failed to
appear in court; on 22 October 2015, a telephonogram was received by the Armyansk City Court whereby
attorney A.V. Lesovoy informed that the legal services agreement between him and S.A. Kadyrov had been
rescinded and a petition for the consideration of the case in relation to the administrative offence against S.A.
Kadyrov without his participation was received.
On 21 October 2015, K.A. Kadyrov’s application for including S.A. Kadyrov’s application in the case
file and the enclosed power of attorney were received by the Armyansk City Court of the Republic of Crimea.
The proxy K.A. Kadyrov, who was also notified of the hearings scheduled for 18 November 2015 and 7
December 2015, failed to appear in court and did not notify the court of the reasons of his non-appearance.
Furthermore, a representative of the Directorate of the Federal Migration Service of Russia for the
Republic of Crimea, who was duly notified of the time and place of the hearing, failed to appear at the hearings
scheduled for 28 September 2015, 22 October 2015, 18 November 2015, 7 December 2015 and did not inform
of the reasons for his non-appearance.
On 21 October 2015, the application from S.A. Kadyrov was received by the Armyansk City Court of the
Republic of Crimea seeking the termination of the proceedings in the case in connection with the absence of
elements of an administrative offence in his actions.
Under Articles 25.1(3), 29.6(4) of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, when
an administrative offence case (which involves the administrative expulsion of a foreign national or stateless
person from the Russian Federation) is considered, the presence of the individual is obligatory and the case is
considered on the date of receipt of the administrative offence record.
The administrative offence case was again received by the Armyansk City Court of the Republic of
Crimea on 11 September 2015, S.A Kadyrov, his representatives, a representative of the Directorate of the
Federal Migration Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea were duly notified, and the court took all the
necessary measures to notify them; according to S.A. Kadyrov’s application, the latter is currently in Ukraine;
Annex 261
2
therefore, the court is unable to notify S.A. Kadyrov in any other way and concludes that it is possible to
consider the case in his absence.
According to the Ukrainian passport, [series] issued by the Central District Department of the Simferopol
City Directorate of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in Crimea, S.A. Kadyrov
was registered at [address] on 11 March 2010.
Under Article 1.5 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation a person is held
administratively liable only for administrative offences in relation to which his guilt is proven. A person against
whom administrative proceedings are brought is deemed to be innocent until his guilt is proven in accordance
with the procedure envisaged by this Code and established by an effective decision of the judge, authority,
official that considered the case.
Under Article 26.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, evidence in an
administrative offence case includes any factual information on the basis of which the judge, authority, official
considering the administrative case establishes the existence or absence of the facts of the administrative
offence, the guilt of the person held administratively liable as well as other circumstances relevant for the
correct resolution of the case. This information is established by means of the administrative offence record,
other records envisaged by this Code, explanations of the person against whom the administrative proceedings
are brought, the testimony of the victim, witnesses, expert reports, other documents and evidence of special
technical devices, physical evidence.
Part 1.1 of Article 18.8 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation establishes
liability for a breach by a foreign national or stateless person of the rules of entry in the Russian Federation or
the rules of stay (residence) in the Russian Federation consisting in a breach of the established rules of entry
in the Russian Federation, the rules of migration registration, travel or the procedure of choice of the place of
stay or residence or transit through the Russian Federation, in failing to comply with the obligations to notify
about the confirmation of one’s residence in the Russian Federation as provided for by federal law.
Under Article 4 (1) of Federal Constitutional Law of 21 March 2014 No. 6-FKZ “On the admission of the
Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation and the formation of new constituent entities within the Russian
Federation – the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol” as of the date of admission of the
Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation and the formation of new constituent entities within the Russian
Federation, Ukrainian nationals and stateless persons who permanently reside in the Republic of Crimea or the
federal city of Sevastopol as at the said date are recognised as citizens of the Russian Federation, save for the
individuals who within one month from the said date manifest their wish to preserve their other citizenship
and (or) that of their minor children or to remain stateless.
Under Article 3 (1) of Federal Constitutional Law of 21 March 2014 No. 6-“On the admission of the
Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation and the formation of new constituent entities within the Russian
Federation – the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol” the Republic of Crimea is admitted to
the Russian Federation as of the date of signing of the Agreement between the Russian Federation and the
Republic of Crimea on the admission of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation and the formation
of new constituent entities within the Russian Federation.
Under Article 3 of Federal Law of 31 May 2002 No. 62-FZ “On the citizenship of the Russian Federation”
the term “residence” is understood to include the person’s residence on lawful grounds in the territory of the
Russian Federation or abroad.
On 1 October 2015, the Armyansk City Court received a reply from the head of the Directorate of the
Federal Migration Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea in the Armyansk District where it was stated
that Sinaver Arifovich Kadyrov, born on 1 January 1955, had not filed any application with the Municipal
Office of the Directorate of the Federal Migration Service of Russia for Republic of Crimea in the Armyansk
District manifesting his wish to preserve his other citizenship or remain stateless under Article 4 (1) of Federal
Constitutional Law of 21 March 2014 No. 6-FKZ “On the admission of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian
Federation and the formation of new constituent entities within the Russian Federation – the Republic of
Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol”.
Annex 261
3
On 15 October 2015, a reply from the head of the Directorate of the Federal Migration Service of Russia
for the Republic of Crimea was received by the Armyansk City Court of the Republic of Crimea whereby S.A.
Kadyrov, born on 1 January 1955 in Samarkand, was recognised to be a citizen of the Russian Federation
under Article 5 of the Agreement between the Republic of Crimea and the Russian Federation of 18 March
2014 on the admission of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation and the formation of new
constituent entities within the Russian Federation. He was not provided with a Russian passport and, according
to the records maintained by the Reference Department of the Directorate of the Federal Migration Service of
Russia for the Republic of Crimea, S.A. Kadyrov has been registered at: [address] since 11 March 2010
according to the Ukrainian passport, [series] issued on 5 July 1996 by the Central District Department of the
Simferopol City Directorate of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in Crimea;
S.A. Kadyrov did not file any application seeking to preserve his Ukrainian citizenship.
Therefore, as at 18 March 2014, S.A. Kadyrov was a citizen of Ukraine and was registered in the Republic
of Crimea and did not manifest his wish to preserve his other citizenship within one month and the court thus
concludes that S.A. Kadyrov is a citizen of the Russian Federation under Article 4(1) of Federal Constitutional
Law of 21 March 2014 No. 6-FKZ “On the admission of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation
and the formation of new constituent entities within the Russian Federation – the Republic of Crimea and the
federal city of Sevastopol” and was lawfully staying in the Republic of Crimea.
The subjects of the administrative offence in question include only foreign nationals and stateless persons
and given that S.A. Kadyrov is neither a foreign national or a stateless person and was recognised to be a
citizen of the Russian Federation, I believe that the proceedings in relation to the administrative offence
brought against S.A. Kadyrov should be terminated in connection with the absence of elements of the
administrative offence envisaged by Part 1.1 of Article 18.8 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the
Russian Federation in his actions.
Under Article 24.5(1(2)) of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, pursuant to
Articles 29.9-29.10, 30.3 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation,
decided:
to terminate the proceedings in relation to the administrative offence envisaged by Part 1.1 of Article 18.8 of
the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation initiated against Sinaver Arifovich Kadyrov
in connection with the absence of elements of the administrative offence envisaged by Article 18.8(1.1) of the
Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation in his actions.
This decision can be appealed against to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea within 10 days
from the date of receipt of a copy thereof.
Judge /Signature/
Annex 261
Annex 262
Appeal of Sinaver Kadyrov against the Decision of the Armyansk
City Court of the Republic of Crimea of 7 December 2015 in Case
No. 5-369/2015, 24 December 2015
1
Translation
/Signature/ (Illegible)
(Name illegible) /Signature/
Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea
(Submitted via the Armyansk City Court,
4 Shkolnaya St., Armyansk)
Applicant: Sinaver Arifovich Kadyrov
Postal address:
[address]
APPEAL
against the decision of the judge of the Armyansk City Court V.U. Isroilova of 7 December 2015
on the termination of proceedings in the administrative offence case
envisaged by Part 1.1 of Article 18.8 of
the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation
(case No. 5-369/2015)
The decision of the judge of the Armyansk City Court V.U. Isroilova of 7 December 2015 terminated
the proceedings in administrative offence case No. 5-369/2015 (previous number 4a-285/2015) against the
citizen of Ukraine Sinaver Arifovich Kadyrov under Part 1.1 of Article 18.8 of the Code on Administrative
Offences of the Russian Federation.
A copy of the said decision was obtained by the applicant on 20 December 2015 through his relatives
who are staying in Crimea. Therefore, the decision in question can be appealed against within 10 days of the
mentioned date, that is, through 30 December 2015 inclusive. Since the applicant was expelled from the
territory of Crimea based on the decision of the Armyansk City Court of 23 January 2015, the applicant is
permanently residing in Kiev. Notwithstanding that the court was notified of the applicant’s address of
residence in the documents addressed to the court, no court summons or decisions were received at the
applicant’s address.
The reason for the adoption of the contested decision was that the applicant, in the court’s opinion, is a
citizen of the Russian Federation and, therefore, not subject to the restrictions as to the stay of foreign nationals
in Russia.
The applicant disagrees with this conclusion since it was adopted in breach of international law.
Moreover, the applicant alleges that the argument as to his Russian citizenship is false and notified the court
to this effect in his written explanations. As the court established, the applicant did not apply for or receive a
Russian passport.
The court decision on the recognition of the applicant as a Russian citizen contains signs of
discrimination and breaches Article 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms. Moreover, the applicant was recognised to be a citizen of the Russian Federation based on the
Russian laws and the fact that he failed to submit an application for the preservation of his Ukrainian
citizenship. However, under the rules of international law, the authorities of the Russian Federation cannot
deprive the applicant of the citizenship of another state – only Ukraine can do it. At the same time, the applicant
was not
/Stamp: COURT OFFICE; Armyansk City Court of the Republic of Crimea; 24 DEC 2015;
RECEIVED 20155/6423 ; Signature (Signature)/
Annex 262
2
given an opportunity to file a citizenship application referred to by the court since the time (about three
weeks) and actual possibilities to do that were limited (as it transpired that such applications could be filed at
several offices the addresses of which were not widely announced).
Therefore, distinction was drawn between individuals based on their political beliefs and as a result the
persons who intended to speak against the acquisition of citizenship of the Russian Federation were not given
sufficient opportunities, whilst others were given enough time for obtaining a passport of a citizen of the
Russian Federation (they are still able to request one).
Moreover, the applicant asserts that in his written explanations he made several other references and
requested compensation for financial and psychological damage sustained as a result of the expulsion.
However, not a single argument of his was assessed by the court and the issue of compensation was not
considered.
The applicant insists on due consideration of his arguments during the review of the decision, the
review of the conclusions regarding him possessing Russian citizenship and payment of compensation to him
for financial and psychological damage sustained as a result of the administrative expulsion from Crimea.
***
Based on the above,
I HEBERY ASK:
1. To amend the statement of reasons of the decision issued by the judge of the Armyansk City
Court V.U. Isroilova on 7 December 2015 on the termination of proceedings in administrative offence case
No. 5-369/2015 (previous No. 4a-285/2015) initiated against a Ukrainian national Sinaver Arifovich Kadayrov
under Part 1.1 of Article 18.8 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation by removing
the reference to Sinaver Arifovich Kadyrov’s Russian citizenship therefrom.
2. To compensate the costs incurred by the applicant as a result of the administrative expulsion
from the territory of the Crimean Peninsula: financial damage in the amount of 223,200 Rubles and
psychological damage in the amount of 1,000,000 Russian Rubles.
Enclosure: copy of the appeal.
Applicant /Signature/ S.A. Kadyrov
224 December 2015
The corrections are true S.A. Kadyrov /Signature/
Annex 262
Annex 263
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Case No. 201-APU15-17,
Appellate Decision, 24 December 2015 (excerpts)
1
Translation
Excerpts
SUPREME COURT
OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Case No. 201-APU15-17
APPELLATE DECISION
Moscow 24 December 2015
The Judicial Chamber on Cases of the Military of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation,
consisting of
[…]
has considered in an open court hearing a criminal case on the appeal of public prosecutor - deputy
prosecutor of the Republic of Bashkortostan V.M. Loginov, appeals of the convicted persons I.A. Salakhov,
Sh.F. Khusniyarov, I.M. Salimov, G.G. Kutluyarov, R.D. Asylov, R.R. Galimkhanov, R.A. Gabdullin, A.R.
Faizullin, defence counsel of the convicted R.R. Galimkhanov – attorney A.I. Zagidullin against the decision
of the Moscow District Military Court of 10 June 2015, according to which citizens
Ilgiz Asgatovich Salakhov, born on 10 March 1975 in the town of Dyurtyuli of the Republic of
Bashkortostan, with no criminal record,
was sentenced to imprisonment under Part 1, Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian
Federation (as amended by Federal Law of 7 December 2011 No. 420-FZ) for a term of one year and for a
term of 10 years under Part 1, Art. 205.5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by
Federal Law of 2 November 2013 No. 302-FZ) with restrictions of freedom for a term of one year; and for the
totality of the crimes, in accordance with Part 3, Art. 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, by
partially summing up the imposed punishments - for a term of 10 years and 6 months in a high-security penal
colony, with restrictions of freedom for a term of one year;
Shamil Faritovich Khusniyarov, born on 28 September 1979 in the town of Dyurtyuli of the Republic
of Bashkortostan, with no criminal record,
was sentenced to imprisonment under Part 2, Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian
Federation (as amended by Federal Law of 7 December 2011 No. 420-FZ) for a term of six months and for a
term of 6 years under Part 2, Art. 205.5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; and for the totality of
the crimes, in accordance with Part 3, Art. 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, by partially
summing up the imposed punishments – for a term of 6 years 4 months in a general penal colony;
Ilshat Maratovich Salimov, born on 7 November 1987 in the town of Dyurtyuli of the Republic of
Bashkortostan, convicted on 2 November 2011 under Part 2, Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian
Federation to a one year suspended prison sentence with a probation of one year,
was sentenced to imprisonment under Part 2, Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian
Federation (as amended by Federal Law of 7 December 2011 No. 420-FZ) for a term of six months and for a
term of 6 years under Part 2, Art. 205.5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; and for the totality of
the crimes, in accordance with Part 3, Art. 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, by partially
summing up the imposed punishments - for a term of 6 years 4 months. On the basis of Art. 70 and 74 of the
Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, I.M. Salimov’s suspended sentence imposed by the decision of the
justice of the peace of Moscow Judicial District No. 3 of Kazan of 2 November 2011 was cancelled and a final
punishment was determined based on the totality of the decisions by partially adding the punishment unserved
Annex 263
2
by him under the decision of the justice of the peace of Moscow Judicial District No. 3 of Kazan of 2 November
2011 to the punishment imposed by the decision, in the form of 6 years 6 months of imprisonment in a general
penal colony;
Gazim Gafarovich Kutluyarov, born on 1 August 1959 in the village of Obyezdny Log of the
Nurimanovsky District of the Republic of Bashkortostan, with no criminal record,
was sentenced to imprisonment under Part 2, Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
(as amended by Federal Law of 7 December 2011 No. 420-FZ) for a term of 6 months and for a term of 6 years
under Part 2, Art. 205.5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; and for the totality of the crimes, in
accordance with Part 3, Art. 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, by partially summing up the
imposed punishments - for a term of 6 years 4 months in a general penal colony;
Ruslan Denisovich Asylov, born on 6 June 1986 in the town of Dyurtyuli of the Republic of
Bashkortostan, with no criminal record,
was sentenced to imprisonment under Part 2, Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian
Federation (as amended by Federal Law of 7 December 2011 No. 420-FZ) for a term of 6 months and for a
term of 6 years under Part 2, Art. 205.5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; and for the totality of
the crimes, in accordance with Part 3, Art. 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, by partially
summing up the imposed punishments - for a term of 6 years 4 months in a general penal colony;
Rustam Rafitovich Galimkhanov, born on 30 September 1991 in the town of Dyurtyuli of the
Republic of Bashkortostan, with no criminal record,
was sentenced to imprisonment under Part 2, Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian
Federation (as amended by Federal Law of 7 December 2011 No. 420-FZ) for a term of 4 months and for a
term of 5 years under Part 2, Art. 205.5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; and for the totality of
the crimes, in accordance with Part 3, Art. 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, by partially
summing up the imposed punishments – for a term of 5 years 2 months in a general penal colony;
Rustam Alfridovich Gabdullin, born on 19 April 1992 in the town of Dyurtyuli of the Republic of
Bashkortostan, convicted on 3 November 2011 under Part 2, Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian
Federation to 10 months of a suspended prison sentence with a probation of two years,
was sentenced to imprisonment under Part 2, Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian
Federation (as amended by Federal Law of 7 December 2011 No. 420-FZ) for a term of 4 months and for a
term of 5 years under Part 2, Art. 205.5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; and for the totality of
the crimes, in accordance with Part 3, Art. 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, by partially
summing up the imposed punishments – for a term of 5 years 2 months. On the basis of Art. 70 and 74 of the
Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, R.A. Gabdullin’s suspended sentence imposed by the decision of
the justice of peace of the judicial district for the Birskiy District and Birsk of 3 November 2011 was cancelled,
subject to amendments made by the decision of the Dyurtyulinsky District Court of the Republic of
Bashkortostan of 4 April 2012, and a final punishment was determined based on the totality of the decisions
by partially adding the punishment unserved by him under the decision of the justice of peace of the judicial
district for the Birskiy District and Birsk of 3 November 2011 to the punishment imposed by the decision, in
the form of 5 years 6 months of imprisonment in a general penal colony;
Aidar Rifovich Faizullin, born on 24 November 1985 in the town of Dyurtyuli of the Republic of
Bashkortostan, with no criminal record,
was sentenced to imprisonment under Part 2, Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
(as amended by Federal Law of 7 December 2011 No. 420-FZ) for a term of 4 months and for a term of 5 years
under Part 2, Art. 205.5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; and for the totality of the crimes, in
accordance with Part 3, Art. 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, by partially summing up the
imposed punishments – for a term of 5 years 2 months in a general penal colony.
Annex 263
3
The decision of the court resolved the fate of physical evidence.
Having heard the report of the Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation I.V. Krupnov,
speeches of the convicts I.A. Salakhov, Sh.F. Khusniyarov, I.M. Salimov, G.G. Kutluyarov, R.D. Asylov, R.R.
Galimkhanov, R.A. Gabdullin, A.R. Faizullin, their defence counsels – attorneys V.N. Ursul, S.N. Snurnikov,
V.V. Chekunov, Yu.N. Tinkov, Ya.V. Volvach, A.Yu. Gaitaev, N.P. Voskovtsev, E.S. Luzhin in support of
the arguments of the appeals, the opinion of the prosecutor S.I. Boiko, who considered it necessary to change
the decision, the Judicial Chamber on Cases of the Military
established:
I.A. Salakhov was found guilty of organising, during the period from August 2011 to 13 November
2013 and from 14 November 2013 to 25 February 2014, in the territory of the town of Dyurtyuli and the
Dyurtyulinsky District of the Republic of Bashkortostan, the activities of the terrorist organisation “Hizb ut-
Tahrir al-Islami” banned in the territory of the Russian Federation.
I.M. Salimov, Sh.F. Khusniyarov, A.R. Faizullin, R.A. Gabdullin, G.G. Kutluyarov, R.D. Asylov and
R.R. Galimkhanov were found guilty of participating in the territory of the town of Dyurtyuli and the
Dyurtyulinsky District of the Republic of Bashkortostan in the activities of the “Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami”
terrorist organisation banned in the territory of the Russian Federation during the following periods: I.M.
Salimov - from November 2011 to 13 November 2013 and from 14 November 2013 to 25 February 2014;
Sh.F. Khusniyarov - from January 2012 to 13 November 2013 and from 14 November 2013 to 25 February
2014; A.R. Faizullin - from February 2012 to 13 November 2013 and from 14 November 2013 to 25 February
2014; R.A. Gabdullin - from March 2012 to 13 November 2013 and from 14 November 2013 to 25 February
2014; G.G. Kutluyarov - from July 2012 to 13 November 2013 and from 14 November 2013 to 25 February
2014; R.D. Asylov and R.R. Galimkhanov - from September 2012 to 13 November 2013 and from 14
November 2013 to 25 February 2014.
[…]
Page 10
In view of the above, guided by Art. 38920, 38928 and 38933 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the
Russian Federation, the Judicial Chamber on Cases of the Military of the Supreme Court of the Russian
Federation
decided:
To change the decision of the Moscow District Military Court of 10 June 2015 in respect of Ruslan
Denisovich Asylov, Rustam Alfridovich Gabdullin, Rustam Rafitovich Galimkhanov, Gazim Gafarovich
Kutluyarov, Ilgiz Asgatovich Salakhov, Ilshat Maratovich Salimov, Shamil Faritovich Khusniyarov, Aidar
Rifovich Faizullin as follows:
To delete the reference to imposing an additional punishment on I.A. Salakhov in the form of
restrictions of freedom under Part 1, Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and for the
totality of crimes;
To release I.A. Salakhov from the punishment imposed under Part 1, Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code
of the Russian Federation, and I.M. Salimov, Sh.F. Khusniyarov, A.R. Faizullin, R.A. Gabdullin, G.G.
Kutluyarov, R.D. Asylov and R.R. Galimkhanov - from the punishment imposed under Part 2, Art. 282.2 of
the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the basis of para 3, Part 1, Art. 24 of the Criminal Code of the
Russian Federation in connection with the expiry of the limitation period of criminal prosecution;
To delete the reference to the cancellation of the suspended sentence imposed on I.M. Salimov by the
decision of the justice of the peace of Moscow Judicial District No. 3 of Kazan of 2 November 2011 and on
R.A. Gabdullin under the decision of the justice of peace of the judicial district for the Birskiy District and
Birsk of 3 November 2011, subject to amendments made by the decision of the Dyurtyulinsky Districtal Court
Annex 263
4
of the Republic of Bashkortostan of 4 April 2012, and to imposing punishments on I.M. Salimov and R.A.
Gabdullin for the totality of the decisions;
To delete the reference to the imposition of the final punishment on the convicts under the rules of Part
3, Art. 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
To uphold the decision in terms of imprisonment of:
I.A. Salakhov under Part 1, Art. 205.5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by
Federal Law of 2 November 2013 No. 302-FZ), with the application of Art. 64 of the Criminal Code of the
Russian Federation, for a term of 10 years in a high-security penal colony;
Sh. F. Khusniyarov under Part 2, Art. 205.5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for a term
of 6 years in a general penal colony;
I.M. Salimov under Part 2, Art. 205.5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for a term of 6
years in a general penal colony;
G.G. Kutluyarov under Part 2, Art. 205.5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for a term of
6 years in a general penal colony;
R.D. Asylov under Part 2, Art. 205.5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for a term of 6
years in a general penal colony;
R.R. Galimkhanov under Part 2, Art. 205.5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for a term
of 5 years in a general penal colony;
R.A. Gabdullin under Part 2, Art. 205.5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for a term of
5 years in a general penal colony;
A.R. Faizullin under Part 2, Art. 205.5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for a term of 5
years in a general penal colony,
and to uphold the rest of the decision; to dismiss the appeal of the public prosecutor and the appeals of
the convicts I.A. Salakhov, Sh. F. Khusniyarov, I.M. Salimov, G.G. Kutluyarov, R.D. Asylov, R.R.
Galimkhanov, R.A. Gabdullin, A.R. Faizullin and attorney A.I. Zagidullin.
Presiding judge /Signature/ I.V. Krupnov
Judges: /Signature/ O.A. Derbilov
/Signature/ A.N. Zamashniuk
Annex 263
Annex 264
Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, Decision No. 12-123/2016,
13 January 2016
1
Translation
SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA
Reg. No. 12-123/2016 Judge: V.U. Isroilova
DECISION
13 January 2016 Simferopol
Judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea O.Ya. Belyaevskaya, having considered in an open
court hearing the appeal filed by Sinaver Arifovich Kadyrov, born on 1 January 1955 in Samarkand, against
the decision issued by the judge of the Armyansk City Court of the Republic of Crimea on 7 December 2015
against S.A. Kadyrov in case No. 5-369/2015 in relation to the administrative offence envisaged by Article
18.8(1.1) of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation,
established:
the decision issued by the judge of the Armyansk City Court of the Republic of Crimea on 7 December 2015
terminated the proceedings in relation to the administrative offence envisaged by Article 18.8 (1.1) of the Code
on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation against S.A. Kadyrov in connection with the absence of
elements of the administrative offence in his actions.
Having disagreed with the said decision, S.A. Kadyrov filed an appeal seeking the modification of the
contested decision by removing conclusions contained therein about his Russian citizenship. He noted that he
had not been duly notified of the time and place of the court hearing. The judge’s conclusion that he [S.A.
Kadyrov] was a citizen of the Russian Federation is made in breach of international law, in particular, Article
14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
S.A. Kadyrov and his defence counsel K.A. Kadyrov were duly notified of the time and place of the
consideration of the appeal but failed to appear in court.
A representative of the Directorate of the Federal Migration Service of Russia for the Republic of
Crimea was duly notified of the time and place of the consideration of the appeal but failed to appear in court.
Given the above, the judge of the court of appeal believes it possible to consider the appeal in the
absence of the absent persons.
Having studied the materials of the administrative case and arguments contained in S.A. Kadyrov’s
appeal, the judge makes the following conclusions.
Under Article 30.6(3) of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation the judge is
not bound by the conclusions of the appeal and reviews the case in full.
As follows from the materials of the case, by virtue of the order of the judge of the Armyansk City
Court of the Republic of Crimea dated 14 September 2015, the consideration of the administrative material
against S.A. Kadyrov was scheduled to take place in an open hearing on 28 September 2015 at 3 p.m. (case
sheet 91).
Subsequently, the consideration of the case was rescheduled from 22 October 2015 to 18 November
2015 at 12 a.m. (case sheet 115) and from 18 November 2015 to 7 December 2015 at 08:30 a.m. (case sheet
120) in connection with S.A. Kadyrov’s failure to appear.
On 7 December 2015, the city court judge, having recognised that S.A. Kadyrov was duly notified of
the time and place of the consideration of the case and taking into account his repeated non-appearance in
court sessions scheduled for 28 September 2015, 22 October 2015, 18 November 2015 and 7 December 2015,
considered the case in relation to the administrative offence in his absence and set it out in the administrative
decision.
The judge of the court of appeal does not agree with the above conclusion based on the following.
Under Article 25.1(3(2)) of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, if an
administrative offence case (which entails the administrative arrest, administrative expulsion from the Russian
Federation of a foreign national or stateless person) is considered, the presence of the person against whom
the proceedings are brought is obligatory.
A similar legal stance is set out in clause 23.4 of Decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the
Russian Federation of 24 March 2005 No. 5 “On certain issues arising before the courts in relation to the
application of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation” from which it follows that
Annex 264
2
proceedings in relation to administrative offences punishable by the administrative expulsion from the Russian
Federation of a foreign national or stateless person under Article 25.1 (3) of the Code on Administrative
Offences of the Russian Federation are considered in the presence of the person against whom such
proceedings are brought.
The administrative offence envisaged by Article 18.8 (1.1) of the Code on Administrative Offences of
the Russian Federation is punishable by the administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation of a foreign
national or stateless person.
Therefore, by virtue of the above rules, if administrative offence cases envisaged by Article 18.8 (1.1)
of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation are considered, the presence of the person
against whom the proceedings are brought is obligatory.
However, in breach of the above requirements of the law, on 7 December 2015, the judge of the
Armyansk City Court of the Republic of Crimea considered the case in absence of S.A. Kadyrov.
In these circumstances, the decision of the judge of the Armyansk City Court of the Republic of Crimea
of 7 December 2015 issued against S.A. Kadyrov in the administrative offence case envisaged by Article
18.8(1.) of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation is subject to revocation and the
case is to be referred to the court for retrial.
During the retrial, the judge is to take into account the above facts and issue a lawful and valid decision
in the case.
In connection with the revocation of the judge’s decision for the above reasons, the court does not
consider the other arguments set out in the S.A. Kadyrov’s appeal as these can be verified by the judge in
during the reconsideration of the case.
Based on the above, pursuant to Article 30.7(1(4)), Article 30.8 of the Code on Administrative
Offences of the Russian Federation, the judge
decided:
To revoke the decision of the judge of the Armyansk City Court of the Republic of Crimea of 7
December 2015 issued against Sinaver Arifovich Kadyrov in the administrative offence case envisaged by
Article 18.8 (1.1) of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
To return the administrative offence case to the Armyansk City Court of the Republic of Crimea for
retrial.
Judge /Signature/ O.Ya. Belyaevskaya
Annex 264
Annex 265
Ninth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal, Case No. A40-124221/15,
Decision, 20 January 2016
1
Translation
NINTH ARBITRAZH COURT OF APPEAL
127994, Moscow, GSP-4, 12 Solomennoj Storozki Lane
E-mail address: [email protected]
Website address: http://www.9aas.arbitr.ru
DECISION
No. 09AP-55430/2015
Moscow Case No. A40-124221/15
20 January 2016
The operative part of the decision was announced on 13 January 2016
The full text of the decision was produced on 20 January 2016
The Ninth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal consisting of:
presiding judge L.G. Yakovleva,
judges S.M. Mukhin, M.V. Kocheshkova,
with the record kept by the courtroom secretary P.V. Ryasina,
having considered the appeal of “TC ‘Atlant-SV’” LLC (Atlant-SV Television Company LLC) in an open
court hearing
against the decision of the Moscow Arbitrazh Court dated 13 October 2015 in case No. A40-124221/15
adopted by the judge T.I. Makhlaeva (judge code 2-833)
at the request of Atlant-SV TC LLC
to Roskomnadzor
on challenging the actions of Roskomnadzor on the repeated return without consideration of the application
for the registration of the mass media outlet,
with the participation:
from the applicant: A.S. Titov under the power of attorney dated 24 August 2015;
from the person concerned: A.A. Kulikov under the power of attorney dated 30 July 2015;
ESTABLISHED:
Atlant-SV TC LLC (hereinafter – the applicant) applied to the Moscow Arbitrazh Court with an
application on recognising the omissions of the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications,
Information Technology, and Mass Media (hereinafter – the defendant) illegal for the return of the application
of Atlant-SV Television Company LLC on the registration of the mass media outlet – the ATR T TV channel
under the application of 20 March 2015 incoming reference No. 30330-smi dated 24 March 2015 (returned by
letter dated 24 April 2015 No. 04-37088) (taking into account the clarification of the claims in accordance with
Article 49 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation).
The claims were dismissed by a court decision of 13 October 2015.
Disagreeing with the decision, the applicant filed an appeal, in which he asks the court to revoke the
decision and satisfy the claims in full, indicating that the court incorrectly applied substantive law, the
circumstances relevant to the case were not fully clarified, and the court’s conclusions do not correspond to
the circumstances of the case.
At the hearing of the court of appeal, the applicant supported the arguments of the appeal and asked to
cancel the decision of the court of first instance, as well as to adopt a new judicial act to satisfy the claims.
The defendant objected to the arguments set out in the appeal, submitted a response to the appeal and
asked to leave the decision of the court of first instance unchanged, considering it lawful and justified.
The legality and validity of the decision were verified by the court of appeal in accordance with
Articles 266, 268 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation.
Having examined the evidence presented in the case, having heard the representatives of the applicant
and the defendant and having considered the arguments of the appeal and the response to it, the court of appeal
finds no grounds for cancelling or changing the court decision adopted in accordance with the legislation of
the Russian Federation and the established factual circumstances, as well as for satisfying the appeal, on the
basis of the following facts.
In accordance with Part 1 of Article 198 of the Code, citizens, organisations and other persons have
the right to apply to the arbitrazh court with an application for invalidating non-regulatory legal acts and
Annex 265
2
declaring illegal the decisions and actions (omissions) of state bodies, local authorities and other bodies and
officials, if they believe that the challenged non-regulatory legal act, decision and action (omission) do not
comply with the law or other regulatory legal act and violate their rights and legitimate interests in the field of
entrepreneurial and other economic activity, illegally impose any obligations on them and create other
obstacles for implementing entrepreneurial and other economic activities.
Part 4 of Art. 198 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation stipulates that an
application can be filed with the arbitrazh court within three months from the day when a citizen, organisation
became aware of the violation of their rights and legitimate interests, unless otherwise provided by federal law.
A missed deadline for filing an application may be restored by the court.
According to Part 1 of Article 65 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, each
person participating in the case must prove the circumstances to which he refers as the basis for his claims and
objections.
The duty of proving the circumstances that served as the basis for the commission of actions
(omissions) rests with the relevant body or official.
The contested decision of Atlant-SV Television Company LLC indicated, in connection with the
received application for the registration of the ATR T TV channel, the Department of Permitting Work, Control
and Supervision in the Sphere of Mass Media of the Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Telecom,
Information Technologies and Mass Communications requests confirmation of the founder’s compliance with
the requirements of Part 2 of Art. 7 of Law of the Russian Federation of 27 December 1991 No. 2124-1 “On
mass media”.
As follows from the case materials, Roskomnadzor registers mass media outlets on the basis of clauses
5.4, 5.4.1 of the Provisions on the Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Telecom, Information
Technologies and Mass Communications, approved by Resolution of the Government of the Russian
Federation dated 16 March 2009 No. 228 (hereinafter – the Provisions).
In accordance with clause 31 of the Administrative Regulations for the provision of a state service for
the registration of mass media outlets by the Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Telecom,
Information Technologies and Mass Communications, approved by Order of the Ministry of Communications
and Mass Media of Russia dated 29 December 2011 No. 362 (registered with the Ministry of Justice of Russia
on 6 April 2012, registration No. 23752) (“Administrative Regulations”), the result of the provision of the state
service is: issuance of a mass media outlet registration certificate (as a result of a mass media outlet registration,
a mass media outlet re-registration or amendments to a mass media outlet registration certificate); issuance of
a duplicate of a mass media outlet registration certificate; return of an application for mass media outlet
registration (for a mass media outlet re-registration, amendments to a mass media outlet registration certificate,
issuance of a duplicate of a mass media outlet registration certificate) without consideration; refusal to register
a mass media outlet (to re-register a mass media outlet, amend a mass media outlet registration certificate);
entering information into a mass media outlet register; providing information from the mass media outlet
register in the form of an extract.
Each procedure for registering a mass media outlet and its result are independent and cannot be
considered in conjunction with other procedures.
On 5 November 2014, the applicant filed an application for the registration of the mass media outlet –
the ATR T TV channel with the Administration of Roskomnadzor for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol.
The notification of 14 November 2014 No. 720-05/91 on the return of the application and the
documents attached thereto submitted for the purpose of registration of the ATR T TV channel, was sent to
the applicant by the Administration of Roskomnadzor for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol without
consideration.
On 24 December 2014, Roskomnadzor received an application from the Company for the registration
of the mass media outlet – the ATR T TV channel.
Part 3 of Article 13 of the Mass Media Law establishes that failure to pay the state duty is the basis for
returning without consideration the application filed for the registration of a mass media outlet.
Due to the fact that the submitted state duty contained incorrect requisites, the application for the
registration of the mass media outlet was returned to the applicant along with a notification dated 26 January
2015 No. 04-6235, containing the grounds for return. On 9 February 2015, Roskomnadzor received an
application from the Company for the registration of the mass media outlet – the ATR T TV channel.
Part 2 of Article 10 of the Mass Media Law provides for the submission of documents confirming the
applicant’s compliance with the requirements stipulated by the Mass Media Law when establishing a mass
media outlet.
Annex 265
3
Thus, the court of first instance rightfully pointed out in the decision that the applicant must comply
with the above requirements established by the Mass Media Law.
In addition, an application for the registration of a mass media outlet should be perceived as the entire
set of documents submitted by the applicant to the registering authority, and not just as a form approved by
Order of the Ministry of Communications and Mass Media of Russia dated 29 December 2011 No. 362
(registered with the Ministry of Justice of Russia on 6 April 2012, registration No. 23752).
In this regard, the court of first instance rightfully pointed out in the decision that the applicant
indicated an incomplete scope of information that meets the requirements of the Mass Media Law.
The applicant’s argument about the application of order of the Ministry of Justice of Russia dated 14
November 2011 No. 380 “On approval of the Administrative Regulations for the provision of a state service
for providing information to individuals and legal entities about registered organisations by the Ministry of
Justice of the Russian Federation” is based on the incorrect application of law. We draw the court’s attention
that the court does not apply the specified Administrative Regulations in the contested decision, and there is
no reference to it in the regulations on the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, approved by Decree
of the President of the Russian Federation of 13 October 2004 No. 1313.
Thus, the provisions of the Administrative Regulations indicated by the applicant do not apply to the
dispute under consideration.
The court of first instance also rightly pointed out that when making the challenged decision,
Roskomnadzor took into account a letter of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation,
according to which Atlant-SV Television Company LLC is the founder of ATR TV channel. Based on the
information contained in this letter, ATR TV channel publicly broadcast appeals leading to the incitement of
social, racial, ethnic and religious hatred, which are prohibited by Article 1 of Federal Law of 25 July 2002
No. 114-FZ “On counteracting extremist activity” (hereinafter –Federal Law No. 114-FZ). The letter also
indicates that the Prosecutor of the Republic of Crimea issued a warning on 16 May 2014 to L.E. Islyamov,
who is the founder of Atlant-SV Television Company LLC, about the inadmissibility of extremist activities
and violations of Federal Law of 25 July 2002 No. 114-FZ “On counteracting extremist activity”, as well as
the Mass Media Law. In addition, in the course of the prosecutor’s check, other facts of violation of the
legislation of the Russian Federation were revealed.
Extremist activities in the Russian Federation are prohibited.
Roskomnadzor also received a letter from the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Crimea, according
to which the TV programs of ATR TV channel, founded by Atlant-SV Television Company LLC, contain
signs of extremist activity, namely the incitement of social, racial, ethnic or religious hatred.
At the same time, the arguments of the applicant about the absence of relations Atlant-SV Television
Company LLC, the founder of which – L.E. Islyamov – received a warning about the inadmissibility of
extremist activities, and Atlant-SV Television Company LLC, which sent an application to Roskomnadzor for
the registration of a mass media outlet, did not find its confirmation, since L.E. Islyamov is also the founder
of a Russian company called Atlant-SV Television Company LLC. In addition, the specified company was
formed by the re-registration of the Ukrainian company Atlant-SV Television Company LLC in accordance
with the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation.
Also, the activities of the founder of Atlant-SV Television Company LLC L.E. Islyamov are clearly
illegal.
Thus, in accordance with data from open sources (TASS news agency
http://tass.ru/proisshestviya/2398927), the Investigation Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security
Service for the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol initiated a criminal case against a citizen of the
Russian Federation, Lenur Edemovich Islyamov, born in 1966. Investigative actions are ongoing. In addition,
according to information from the media (http://tass.ru/proisshestviya/2494553), the Court arrested the
property of one of the organisers of the blockade of Crimea – the former Deputy Prime Minister of Crimea
and the owner of the ATR TV channel Lenur Islyamov. TASS was informed about this by the prosecutor of
the Republic, Natalya Poklonskaya. (“Islyamov’s involvement in the crime has been established. Arrest has
been imposed on his property in order to ensure the execution of the sentence in the criminal case, that is, in
order to compensate for the damage caused.”)
Also, the ATR TV channel broadcasts in cable networks of Ukraine, as well as on the website on the
Internet at http://atr.ua/.
The applicant also challenges the conclusion of the court that the official website of the Ministry of
Justice of the Russian Federation contains data only for non-commercial organisations in on the Internet at the
addresses indicated in the statement of claim (http://minjust.ru/nko/perechen_zapret and
http://miniust.ru/nko/perechen_priostanovleni). According to Part 1 of Article 2 of Federal Law of 12 January
Annex 265
4
1996 No. 7-FZ “On non-profit organisations”, a non-profit organisation is an organisation that does not have
profit as the main goal of its activities and does not distribute the received profit among the members. Atlant-
SV Television Company LLC is not a non-profit organisation according to its Articles of Association.
In addition, the applicant’s assumption that Roskomnadzor is obliged to monitor all issues of
“Rossiyskaya Gazeta” for the publication of amendments to the list of organisations in respect of which the
court adopted a final court decision on the prohibition of activities, is not substantiated.
Also, the applicant does not take into account the court’s conclusion that an extract from the unified
state register of legal entities (hereinafter – the USRLE) and a certificate of registration of an organisation with
a tax authority at its location in the Russian Federation (hereinafter – the certificate of registration) do not
confirm that the activities of a legal entity are not prohibited in accordance with the current legislation of the
Russian Federation, since the entry of information on the liquidation of a legal entity in the USRLE is carried
out on the basis of an effective court decision.
At the same time, the entry of the corresponding notation into the USRLE is carried out only after the
federal executive body receives a court decision that has entered into legal force. The deadline for making
changes to the USRLE is not established by the legislation of the Russian Federation.
In this regard, information contained in the USRLE may be out of date.
Thus, the extract from the USRLE and the certificate of registration do not confirm the fact that the
activities of a legal entity are not prohibited in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, and
therefore Roskomnadzor did not have information on the presence or absence of a ban on the activities of
Atlant-SV Television Company LLC.
The conclusions of the Moscow Arbitrazh Court are based on an objective and direct study of all the
evidence in the case. All the circumstances having legal significance in the consideration of the case were
established by the court lawfully.
The arguments set out in the appeal do not refute the conclusions of the court of first instance and do
not indicate that there are grounds for cancelling the judicial act adopted in the case.
Thus, the court of first instance fully and comprehensively examined the circumstances of the case,
which was established during the consideration of the dispute and in the court of appeal, since the applicant
indicates the arguments in support of the appeal that were the subject of consideration in the court of first
instance and received a proper assessment in the court decision.
In such circumstances, the court of appeal considers the court’s decision in the present case lawful and
justified, since it was made on the submitted and considered application, taking into account the factual
circumstances, the case materials and the current legislation, and there are therefore no grounds for satisfying
the appeal.
Based on the foregoing and, guided by Art. 266, 268, 269, 271 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of
the Russian Federation, the Ninth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal
DECIDED:
To leave the decision of the Moscow Arbitrazh Court of 13 October 2015 in case No. А40-124221/15
unchanged and to dismiss the appeal.
The decision comes into force from the date of its adoption and can be appealed within two months
from the date when the decision was produced in full to the Arbitrazh Court of the Moscow District.
Presiding judge: L.G. Yakovleva
Judges S.M. Mukhin
M.V. Kocheshko
The court’s query service – 8 (495) 987-28-00
Annex 265
Annex 266
Ninth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal, Case No. A40-119488/15,
Decision, 25 January 2016
1
Translation
NINTH ARBITRAZH COURT OF APPEAL
127994, Moscow, GSP-4, 12 Solomennoj Storozki Lane
E-mail address: [email protected]
Website address: http://www.9aas.arbitr.ru
DECISION
No. 09AP-56196/2015
Moscow Case No. А40-119488/15
25 January 2016
The operative part of the decision was announced on 18 January 2016
The full text of the decision was drawn up on 25 January 2016
The Ninth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal comprised of:
presiding judge L.G. Yakovleva,
judges S.M. Mukhin, M.V. Kocheshkova,
keeping the record by the courtroom secretary M.L. Zhiltsova,
having considered the appeal of “Television Company ‘Atlant-SV’” LLC (Atlant-SV Television Company
LLC) in open court hearing against the decision of the Moscow Arbitrazh Court of 16 November 2015 in case
No. А40-119488/15, taken by judge S.O. Laskina (judge code 33-986)
at the request of Atlant-SV Television Company LLC
to the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media
on challenging the actions (omissions) of the state body
with the participation:
from the applicant: A.S. Titov under the power of attorney of 24 August 2015;
from the person concerned: A.A. Kulikov under the power of attorney of 30 July 2015;
ESTABLISHED:
Atlant-SV Television Company LLC (hereinafter – the applicant) applied to the Moscow Arbitrazh
Court with an application to declare unlawful the actions of the Federal Service for Supervision of
Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor) (hereinafter – the defendant) on
the return without considering of the application of the founder of Atlant-SV Television Company LLC of 24
March 2015, reference No. 33248-smi of 27 March 2015 on the registration of a mass media outlet – online
outlet “15 minutes”, unlawfully imposing on the applicant the obligation to confirm the founder’s compliance
with the requirements of Part 2 Article 7 of the Law “On mass media” specified in the letter of Roskomnadzor
of 24 April 2015 No. 04-37090, which impedes the registration of the applicant’s mass media outlet, as well
as for declaring unlawful the inaction of Roskomnadzor in avoiding the registration of the applicant's mass
media outlet; on the obligation of Roskomnadzor to eliminate the violation of the applicant’s rights and
freedoms and, on a short notice, to consider the application of Atlant-SV Television Company LLC on the
registration of a mass media outlet - online outlet “15 minutes”, by registering the mass media outlet – the
online outlet “15 minutes”, according to the legislation of the Russian Federation.
The claims were dismissed by a court decision of 16 October 2015.
Disagreeing with the decision, the applicant filed an appeal asking to set aside the court's decision and
to satisfy his claims in full, pointing out that the court had misapplied the substantive law, had not fully clarified
the circumstances relevant to the case and that the court's conclusions did not correspond to the circumstances
of the case.
At the hearing of the court of appeal, the applicant supported the arguments of the appeal and asked to
cancel the decision of the court of first instance, as well as to adopt a new judicial act to satisfy the claims.
Annex 266
2
The defendant objected to the arguments set out in the complaint, submitted a response to the complaint
and asked to leave the decision of the court of first instance unchanged, considering it lawful and justified.
The legality and validity of the decision was verified by the court of appeal in accordance with Articles
266, 268 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation.
Having examined the evidence presented in the case, having heard the representatives of the applicant
and the defendant and having considered the arguments of the appeal and the response to it, the court of appeal
finds no grounds for canceling or changing the court decision adopted in accordance with the legislation of the
Russian Federation and the established factual circumstances, as well as for satisfying the appeal, on the basis
of the following facts.
As seen from the materials of the case, on 27 March 2015, Atlant-SV Television Company LLC as the
founder of the mass media outlet (hereinafter – the mass media outlet) submitted in hand, through its
representative, the application of 24 March 2015 on the registration of the mass media outlet – online outlet
“15 minutes”, which was registered by Roskomnadzor under the incoming reference No. 33248-smi on 27
March 2015, to the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass
Media, attaching the appropriate package of documents.
On 12 May 2015, the applicant received a response from Roskomnadzor of 24 April 2015 No. 04-
37090 about the application for registration of the online outlet “15 minutes”, accompanied by the application
of 24 March 2015 incoming reference No. 33248-smi and the attached package of documents, without
indicating that the documents were returned without consideration, in which Roskomnadzor invites the
applicant to confirm the founder’s compliance with the requirements of Part 2 of Art. 7 of the Law of the
Russian Federation.
The company, considering the actions of Roskomnadzor unlawful, appealed them to the Moscow
Arbitrazh Court.
Part 2 of Article 1 of the Mass Media Law provides for the provision of documents confirming the
applicant’s compliance with the requirements provided by the Mass Media Law when establishing a mass
media outlet.
In addition, an application for registration of a mass media outlet should be perceived as the entire set
of documents submitted by the applicant to the registering authority, and not just as a form approved by Order
of the Ministry of Communications and Mass Media of Russia dated 29 December 2011 No. 362 (registered
with the Ministry of Justice of Russia on 6 April 2012, incoming reference No. 23752).
In this regard, the court of first instance rightfully found that the applicant had indicated an incomplete
amount of information that meets the requirements of the Mass Media Law.
The applicant’s argument about the application of the order of the Ministry of Justice of Russia of 14
November 2011 No. 380 “On approval of the Administrative Regulations for the provision of state service for
providing information to individuals and legal entities about registered organizations by the Ministry of Justice
of the Russian Federation” is rejected by the court of appeal.
In the challenged decision, the court of first instance lawfully did not apply the specified
Administrative Regulations, and there is no reference to it in the provision on the Ministry of Justice of the
Russian Federation, approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of 13 October 2004 No.
1313.
Thus, the norms of the Administrative Regulations indicated by the applicant do not apply to the
dispute under consideration.
The court of first instance also rightly pointed out that when making the challenged decision,
Roskomnadzor took into account the letter of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation,
according to which Atlant-SV Television Company LLC is the founder of ATR TV channel. Based on the
information contained in this letter, ATR TV channel publicly broadcasted appeals leading to incitement of
social, racial, ethnic and religious hatred, which are prohibited by Article 1 of the Federal Law of 25 July 2002
No. 114-FZ “On countering extremist activities” (hereinafter – the Federal Law No. 114-FZ). The letter also
indicates that the Prosecutor of the Republic of Crimea issued a warning on 16 May 2014 to L.E. Islyamov,
who is the founder of Atlant-SV Television Company LLC, about the inadmissibility of extremist activities
and violations of the Federal Law of 25 July 2002 No. 114-FZ “On countering extremist activities”, as well as
the Mass Media Law. In addition, in the course of the prosecutor’s check, other facts of violation of the
legislation of the Russian Federation were revealed.
Extremist activities in the Russian Federation are prohibited.
Roskomnadzor also received a letter from the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Crimea, according
to which the TV programs of ATR TV channel, founded by Atlant-SV Television Company LLC, contain
signs of extremist activity, namely the incitement of social, racial, ethnic or religious hatred.
Annex 266
3
At the same time, the arguments of the applicant about the lack of relationship between the company
Atlant-SV Television Company LLC, the founder of which – L.E. Islyamov – received a warning about the
inadmissibility of extremist activities, and the company Atlant-SV Television Company LLC, which sent an
application to Roskomnadzor for registration of a mass media outlet, are rejected by the court of appeal, since
L.E. Islyamov is also the founder of a Russian company called Atlant-SV Television Company LLC. In
addition the specified company was formed by the re-registration of the Ukrainian company Atlant-SV
Television Company LLC in accordance with the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation.
ATR TV channel broadcasts in cable networks of Ukraine, as well as on the website on the Internet at
http://atr.ua/. The website on the Internet, located at the address http://15minut.info/, which the applicant
indicated as the domain name of the online outlet in the application for registration of the mass media outlet,
carried out its activities until 16 December 2015, according to information posted on the specified website on
the Internet.
Thus, the following is reported on the specified site: “Today, on 16 December 2015, the team of the
website “15 minutes”, which recently worked as part of the Crimean production studio “QaraDeniz
Production”, stops working on this project. This decision was made by us due to the fact that Lenur Islyamov,
the owner of the ATR media holding that had previously moved to Kiev, of which “15 minutes” were originally
part, claimed the rights to this brand.”
The official website of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation contains data only for noncommercial
organizations in the information and telecommunications network of Internet at the addresses
indicated in the statement of claim (http://minjust.ru/nko/perechen_zapret and
http://miniust.ru/nko/perechen_priostanovleni).
According to Part 1 of Article 2 of the Federal Law of 12 January 1996 No. 7-FZ “On non-profit
organizations”, a non-profit organization is an organization that does not have profit as the main goal of its
activities and does not distribute the received profit among the participants. Atlant-SV Television Company
LLC is not a non-profit organization according to its charter.
Also, an extract from the unified state register of legal entities (hereinafter – the USRLE) and a
certificate of registration of an organization with a tax authority at its location in the Russian Federation
(hereinafter – the certificate of registration) do not confirm that the activities of a legal entity are not prohibited
in accordance with the current legislation of the Russian Federation, since the entry of information on the
liquidation of a legal entity in the USRLE is carried out on the basis of a court decision that has entered into
legal force.
At the same time, the corresponding entry is made in the USRLE only after the federal executive body
receives an enforceable court decision. The deadline for making changes to the USRLE is not established by
the legislation of the Russian Federation. In this regard, the information contained in the USRLE may be out
of date.
Thus, the extract from the USRLE and the certificate of registration do not confirm the fact that the
activities of a legal entity are not prohibited in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, and
therefore Roskomnadzor did not have information on the presence or absence of a ban on the activities of
Atlant-SV Television Company LLC.
On 26 December 2013, the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Tatarstan issued a submission to
eliminate violations of the federal legislation No. 2708-13, according to which Roskomnadzor indicated the
failure to verify the compliance with the requirements for the founders of mass media outlets established by
Article 7 of the Mass Media Law as a violation of the law.
A similar application challenging the return of the application for mass media outlet registration of the
radio channel “Radio Meydan” without consideration was submitted by Atlant-SV Television Company LLC
to the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media in the
Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (case No. A83-2758/2015).
By the decision of the Arbitrazh Court of the Republic of Crimea of 17 September, the application of
Atlant-SV Television Company LLC on the recognition of unlawful actions of the Federal Service for
Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media in the Republic of Crimea and the
city of Sevastopol on the return without considering of the application of the founder of Atlant-SV Television
Company LLC dated 2 April 2015 on the registration of the mass media outlet – Radio Meydan radio channel,
was dismissed. Atlant-SV Television Company LLC appealed against the specified decision to the Twenty-
First Arbitrazh Court of Appeal, however, by decision of 12 January 2016 No. 21AP-1953/2015, the decision
of the court of first instance was left unchanged, and the appeal was dismissed.
According to Clause 9 of the Charter of Atlant-SV Television Company LLC, the exclusive
competence of the company’s participants includes determining the main activities of the Company, including
Annex 266
4
making decisions on the company’s participation in associations and other coalitions of commercial
organizations, forming executive bodies of the company, terminating their powers early and so on.
That is, the founders, along with the General Director, manage the company and form its goals and
objectives.
Thus, the purpose of the creation of the radio channel “Radio Meydan” is the propaganda of the
nationalist ideology in its extreme forms, which incites hatred and enmity among peoples, which has an anti-
Russian orientation.
Based on the foregoing, it follows that there are signs of extremist activity in the activities of Atlant-
SV Television Company LLC.
Also, in accordance with Part 3 of Article 15 of the Federal Law of 25 July 2002 No. 114-FZ “On
countering extremist activities” (hereinafter – the Law No. 114-FZ), if the head or member of the governing
body of a public or religious association or other organization makes a public statement calling for the
implementation of extremist activity, without indicating that this is his personal opinion, as well as if a court
decision for an extremist crime enters into legal force against such a person, the relevant public or religious
association or other organization must publicly declare his disagreement with the statements or actions of such
a person within five days from the day when the specified statement was made. If the relevant public or
religious association or other organization does not make such a public statement, this can be considered as a
fact indicating the presence of signs of extremism in their activities.
Extremist activity in the Russian Federation is prohibited, which is confirmed by Part 1 of Article 15
of the Law No. 114-FZ, according to which citizens of the Russian Federation, foreign citizens and stateless
persons bear criminal, administrative and civil liability for carrying out extremist activities in accordance with
the procedure established by the legislation of the Russian Federation.
Thus, the proposal of Atlant-SV Television Company LLC to confirm compliance with the
requirements of Part 2 of Article 7 of the Mass Media Law is justified.
The arguments set out in the appeal do not refute the conclusions of the court of first instance and do
not indicate that there are grounds for canceling the judicial act adopted in the case.
Thus, the court of first instance fully and comprehensively examined the circumstances of the case,
which was established during the consideration of the dispute and in the court of appeal, since the applicant
indicates the arguments in support of the complaint that were the subject of consideration in the court of first
instance and received a proper assessment in the court decision.
In such circumstances, the court of appeal considers the court’s decision in the present case lawful and
justified, since it was made on the submitted and considered application, taking into account the factual
circumstances, the case materials and the current legislation, and therefore, there are no grounds for satisfying
the appeal.
On the basis of the above and in accordance with Articles 266, 268, 269, 271 of the Arbitrazh
Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the Ninth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal
DECIDED:
the decision of the Moscow Arbitrazh Court of 16 October 2015 in case No. А40-119488/15 shall be
upheld and the appeal shall be dismissed.
The decision enters into force from the date of its issuance and may be appealed within two months
from the date of from the date of issuing the decision in full to the Moscow District Arbitrazh Court.
Presiding judge: L.G. Yakovleva
Judges: S.M. Mukhin
M.V. Kocheshkova
The court’s query service: 8 (495) 987-28-00
Annex 266
Annex 267
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, Case No. 2-1201/2016,
Decision, 9 February 2016
1
Translation
/Stamp: COPY/
Case No. 2-1201/2016
DECISION
In the Name of the Russian Federation
9 February 2016 Simferopol
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, the Republic of Crimea, comprised of:
presiding judge A.N. Dolgopolov,
secretary E.A. Kozlova,
with the participation of the Prosecutor V.A. Chuprin,
and the representative of the Ministry of Justice of Russia in the Republic of Crimea A.A. Boyko,
having considered in an open court hearing a civil case under the application filed by
the Prosecutor of the Republic of Crimea acting in the interests of the Russian Federation
and general public, the interested party the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian
Federation for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, on the declaration of materials as extremist in
accordance with Article 13 of the Federal Law “On countering extremist activities”,
established:
The Prosecutor of the Republic of Crimea acting in the interests of the Russian Federation and
general public have filed the application to recognize the materials as extremist with the court, justifying the
request by the fact that the inspections of the compliance by the educational religious organizations with the
legislation on freedom of conscience and countering extremist activities, and the compliance with the
legislation in the course of teaching the basics of religion to minors outside educational institutions
conducted in August–September 2014, in the territory of the institutions “Higher Islamic Crimean Madrasa
(male)”, located at 128 Pobedy Avenue in Simferopol and “Higher Islamic Crimean Madrasa (female)”,
located at 1 Pontiyskaya Street, Kamenka microdistrict, Kievskiy District of Simferopol acting under the
Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Crimea resulted in discovering literature (books), which content may
demonstrate signs of calls for extremism, extremist statements, and including “Islamic State” by Taqi al-Din
al-Nabhani, “Radicalism, Extremism and Islamism” Realities and Myths in the “War on Terrorism”, “Hizb
ut-Tahrir” Publishing House, “The Beliefs of the Four Imams. Lost Trends and Sects in Islam”, by
Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Humayis, including “The Beliefs of the Four Imams (Abu Hanifah, Malik,
Ash-Shafi‘i, and Ibn Hanbal)”, “Lost Sects and Trends in Islam”, “The System of Islam” by Taqi al-Din al-
Nabhani. On the results of the conducted examination, it was established that these books contain a positive
assessment of the hostile actions of one group of persons in relation to another group of persons united on the
basis of their attitude to religion; statements of an incentive character calling for hostile actions of one group
of persons in relation to another group of persons united on the basis of their attitude to religion. These facts
are indicative of the extremist activity in the materials provided. On the basis of the above, asked the court to
declare the materials (books) including “Islamic State” by Taqi al-Din al-Nabhani, “Radicalism, Extremism
and Islamism” Realities and Myths in the “War on Terrorism”, Hizb ut-Tahrir Publishing House, “The
Beliefs of the Four Imams. Lost Trends and Sects in Islam”, by Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Humayis,
including “The Beliefs of the Four Imams (Abu Hanifah, Malik, Ash-Shafi‘i, and Ibn Hanbal)”, “Lost Sects
and Trends in Islam”, “The System of Islam” by Taqi al-Din al-Nabhani.
At the hearing, the Prosecutor upheld the application, insisted on its satisfaction for the reasons set
out therein and described above.
The representative of the interested party supported the application, and also explained that earlier
this literature had not been recognized as extremist.
After listening to the explanations provided by the Prosecutor, the interested party, and examining of
the case files, the Court considers the application justified and subject to satisfaction.
According to Part 2 of Article 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the state shall
guarantee the equality of rights and freedoms of man and citizen, regardless of sex, race, nationality,
language, origin, property and official capacity, place of residence, religion, convictions, membership of
public associations, and of other circumstances. All forms of limitations of human rights on social, racial,
national, linguistic or religious grounds shall be prohibited.
According to Part 2 of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the propaganda or
Annex 267
2
agitation instigating religious hatred and strife shall be prohibited. The propaganda of religious supremacy
shall be also prohibited.
Pursuant to Part 3 of Article 55 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the rights and
freedoms of man and citizen may be limited by the federal law only to such an extent, to which it is
necessary for the protection of the fundamental principles of the constitutional system, morality, health, the
rights and lawful interests of other people, for ensuring the defense of the country and security of the State.
In order to protect the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, the foundations of the constitutional
system, ensure the integrity and security of the Russian Federation, Federal Law No. 114-FZ of 25 July 2002
“On countering extremist activities” was adopted, which defines the legal and organizational basis for
countering extremist activities, establishes responsibility for its implementation.
In accordance with Clause 1 of Article 1 of the said Federal Law, the extremist activities was defined
to include, specifically, propaganda of the exceptional nature, superiority or deficiency of persons on the
basis of their social, racial, ethnic, religious or linguistic affiliation or attitude to religion; violation of human
and civil rights and freedoms and lawful interests in connection with a person's social, racial, ethnic,
religious or linguistic affiliation or attitude to religion by means including, inter alias, dissemination and
production of knowingly extremist material.
In accordance with Clause 3 of the said Article, the extremists materials are defined as documents
intended for publication or information on other media calling for extremist activity to be carried out or
substantiating or justifying the necessity of carrying out such activities, including works by leaders of the
National Socialist worker party of Germany, the Fascist party of Italy (including M.).
According to Article 13 of the said Federal Law, the distribution of extremist materials and their
production or storage for the purpose of distribution are prohibited in the Russian Federation.
According to paragraph 2, Article 13 of the Federal Law “On countering extremist activities”,
information materials shall be declared as extremist by the federal court with jurisdiction over the place
where they were discovered or distributed or the location of the organization having produced such materials,
on the basis of an application submitted by the Prosecutor or in the proceedings under the relevant
administrative infringement, civil or criminal case.
The court has established that the inspections of the compliance by the educational religious
organizations with the law on freedom of conscience and countering extremist activities, and of the
compliance with the law in the course of teaching the basics of religion to minors outside educational
institutions conducted in August–September 2014, in the territory of the institutions “Higher Islamic
Crimean Madrasa (male)”, located at 128 Pobedy Avenue in Simferopol and “Higher Islamic Crimean
Madrasa (female)”, located at 1 Pontiyskaya Street, microdistrict Kamenka, Kievskiy District of Simferopol
acting under the Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Crimea resulted in revealing literature (books),
which content may demonstrate signs of calls for extremism, extremist statements, and including “Islamic
State” by Taqi al-Din al-Nabhani, “Radicalism, Extremism and Islamism” Realities and Myths in the “War
on Terrorism”, Hizb ut-Tahrir Publishing House, “The Beliefs of the Four Imams. Lost Trends and Sects in
Islam”, by Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Humayis, including “The Beliefs of the Four Imams (Abu
Hanifah, Malik, Ash-Shafi‘i, and Ibn Hanbal)”, “Lost Sects and Trends in Islam”, “The System of Islam” by
Taqi al-Din al-Nabhani.
In accordance with expert opinion of 30 January 2015, the books “Islamic State” by Taqi al-Din al-
Nabhani, “Radicalism, Extremism and Islamism” Realities and Myths in the “War on Terrorism”, Hizb ut-
Tahrir Publishing House, “The Beliefs of the Four Imams. Lost Trends and Sects in Islam”, by Mohammed
bin Abdulrahman al-Humayis, including “The Beliefs of the Four Imams (Abu Hanifah, Malik, Ash-Shafi‘i,
and Ibn Hanbal)”, “Lost Sects and Trends in Islam”, “The System of Islam” by Taqi al-Din al-Nabhani
comprise a positive assessment of the hostile actions of one group of persons in relation to another group of
persons united on the basis of their attitude to religion; statements of an incentive character calling for hostile
actions of one group of persons in relation to another group of persons united on the basis of their attitude to
religion (case file sheets 11–125).
In accordance with Article 13 of Federal Law No. 114-FZ of 25 July 2002 “On countering extremist
activities”, distribution of extremist materials, as well as production or storage thereof with the aim of
distribution shall be prohibited in the Russian Federation.
According to Articles 55–60 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the Prosecutor
has provided sufficient evidence indicating that the seized literature contains a positive assessment of the
hostile actions of one group of persons in relation to another group of persons united on the basis of their
attitude to religion; statements of an incentive character calling for hostile actions of one group of persons in
relation to another group of persons united on the basis of their attitude to religion, in connection with which
Annex 267
3
there are all grounds for recognizing this literature as extremist.
In accordance with Article 13 of Federal Law No. 114-FZ of 25 July 2002 “On countering extremist
activities”, concurrently with recognition of the materials as extremist, the court shall decide on confiscation
thereof.
Therefore, the court considers it necessary to confiscate the seized literature recognized as extremist
on the basis of the said decision of the court.
In accordance with Articles 13, 29, 30, 129 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Federal
Law “On countering extremist activities”, being guided by Articles 194–198 of the Civil Procedural Code of
the Russian Federation, the court,
decided:
To sustain the application by the Prosecutor of the Republic of Crimea in the interests of the Russian
Federation and general public.
To recognize as extremist the following materials (books):
- “Islamic State” by Taqi al-Din al-Nabhani,
- “Radicalism, Extremism and Islamism” Realities and Myths in the “War on Terrorism”, Hizb ut-
Tahrir Publishing House
- “The Beliefs of the Four Imams. Lost Trends and Sects in Islam”, by Mohammed bin
Abdulrahman al-Humayis, including “The Beliefs of the Four Imams (Abu Hanifah, Malik, Ash-Shafi‘i, and
Ibn Hanbal)”, “Lost Sects and Trends in Islam”,
- “The System of Islam” by Taqi al-Din al-Nabhani.
To confiscate the materials (books) found in the territory of the institutions “Higher Islamic Crimean
Madrasa (male)” and “Higher Islamic Crimean Madrasa (female)” including “Islamic State” by Taqi al-Din
al-Nabhani, “Radicalism, Extremism and Islamism” Realities and Myths in the “War on Terrorism”, Hizb ut-
Tahrir Publishing House, “The Beliefs of the Four Imams. Lost Trends and Sects in Islam”, by Mohammed
bin Abdulrahman al-Humayis, including “The Beliefs of the Four Imams (Abu Hanifah, Malik, Ash-Shafi‘i,
and Ibn Hanbal)”, “Lost Sects and Trends in Islam”, “The System of Islam” by Taqi al-Din al-Nabhani.
A copy of the decision that has entered into force should be sent to the Main Directorate of the
Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol for submission to
the Ministry of Justice of Russia.
The decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea through the Kievskiy
District Court of Simferopol within one month from the date of drawing up of the final decision.
The motivated decision was drawn up on 12 February 2016.
Judge /In handwriting: (illegible)/ A.N. Dolgopolov
/Seal: Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, the Republic of Crime/
/Stamp: (illegible)/
/Signature/
/Seal: Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, the
Republic of Crimea/
/Stamp: TRUE COPY
Judge A.N. Dolgopolov
The decision was not challenged and entered into
force on 15 March 2016
True: Judge (Signature)
Secretary (Signature)/
Annex 267
Annex 268
Centre for Countering Extremism of the Ministry of Internal Affairs
for the Republic of Crimea, Certificate of inspection of the Internet
resource, 11 February 2016
1
Translation
CERTIFICATE
of inspection of the Internet resource
Simferopol 11 February 2016
Start time: 03:00 p.m.
Completion time: 05:58 p.m.
I, Senior Investigator for High-Priority Cases of the Centre for Countering Extremism of the Ministry
of Internal Affairs for the Republic of Crimea, Police Major A.V. Dovgel, pursuant to Article 13 of the Federal
Law “On police”, Articles 6, 15 of the Federal Law “On operative search activities”, at the address: 19
Dekabristov St., office 66, Simferopol, the Republic of Crimea, in artificial light, using an HP Compaq Elite
8300 Microtower personal computer, laser printer HP LaserJet P1102, using Internet browser “Yandex.
Browser”, performed examinations of Internet pages of the following websites specified in the order of the
Public Prosecution Office of the Republic of Crimea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBS9FgXCBtg.
The examination was performed in the presence of the following persons invited as public
representatives:
1. Grasenkov Alexander Valeryevich, [date of birth, citizenship, registered residence address]
2. Malykhin Dmitriy Alexandrovich, [date of birth, registered residence address]
who, before the beginning of the observation, were explained the right to be present at all actions
performed with their participation, to ask questions and to make comments regarding the course of the actions
performed that are to be entered in the record as well as their responsibility to witness the fact of the scope and
the result of the observation.
1. Grassenkov /Signature/ 2. Malykhin D. /Signature/
As a result of the observation, it has been revealed that, on the video hosting resource YOUTUBE at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBS9FgXCBtg, a video file under the title “Civil blockade of Crimea:
how it will be. Ukrainian Crisis Media Centre, 8-09-2015” is posted and stored.
/Signature/ /Signature/
As a result of observation of the video footage, the following has been established:
Time 00:00 - 46:06
Voice off:
- Colleagues journalists, thank you all who has come and who is watching us online. Let's start the press
conference on the topic “Civil blockade of Crimea - how it will be”. Our dear speakers: Mustafa Dzhemilev,
leader of the Crimean Tatar people, Refat Chubarov, head of “Mejlis” of the Crimean Tatar people and
president of the World Congress of Crimean Tatars, as well as Lenur Islyamov, vice-president of the World
Congress of Crimean Tatars. Dear speaker, the floor is yours.
Refat Chubarov:
- Good day. First of all, I would like to thank you all for showing interest in the topic announced by us.
We will try to briefly make such introduction and will be waiting for your questions. In the first place, I would
like to tell that, since the time when Crimea was occupied by the Russian Federation, two laws have appeared
in the Ukrainian legislation that govern main matters related to the temporarily occupied Crimea, the first one
being the law “on protection of civil rights and liberties and the legal regime in the temporarily occupied
territory of Ukraine” that provides for that the basis of the humanitarian, social and economic policy of the
state of Ukraine with regard to the population of the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine is protection
and fully-fledged enjoyment of national and cultural and political rights of citizens of Ukraine, including
indigenous peoples and national minorities. In this respect, Article 1 entitled “the legal status of the temporarily
occupied territory of Ukraine” provides for that, I am quoting, “the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine
is an inalienable part of the territory of Ukraine subject to the effect of the constitution of Ukraine and the laws
of Ukraine.” Nevertheless, we are all intelligent people, and we proceed from understanding that, under the
Annex 268
2
conditions of temporary occupation of Crimea, the effect of the Constitution and the laws of Ukraine extends
in so far as the State of Ukraine is able either independently or jointly with international partners and
institutions to find influential, on the occupants, levers of pressure. For more than a year and a half since the
occupation of Crimea, only the Commissioner of the Council of Europe for human rights Mr. Nils Muižnieks
and, subsequently, an unofficial Turkish delegation composed of influential experts and experienced former
diplomats have managed to visit the peninsula to study the situation of the Crimean Tatar people, with human
rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Based on the results of both monitorings, reports were prepared,
which are publicly available – here, I can only note that both reports, especially the second one made by the
Turkish unofficial delegation, were subjected to harsh criticism by the Russian Federation. We, as Crimean
Tatars, “Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people”, are grateful for these monitorings that became possible through
really very difficult diplomatic and other efforts. We understand that the Russian Federation will never again
admit anybody to the territory of Crimea occupied by it, and that is why the question what we do becomes yet
more actual to us. We, that is the State of Ukraine, in order to make the occupants, while they will be staying
in Crimea, observe the rights of
/Signature/ /Signature/
citizens of Ukraine who live in Crimea. On top of it, I told you about the law “on protection of civil rights and
liberties and the legal regime in the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine”. Under this law, we have
undertaken, by the way, those obligations that are substantially present also in other legislation of Ukraine in
effect. Regretfully, here, I don't want to talk a lot about well-known facts, we, the State of Ukraine, failing to
find any tools for influence on the occupants, at the same time have put in place to the greatest extent possible
another law, the law that grants preferences to the Ukrainian business in the context of mutual relations with
the occupied territory of Ukraine. I’m referring to the law “on the establishment of the free economic zone of
Crimea and on the peculiarities of carrying out economic activity in the temporarily occupied territory of
Ukraine”. I will quote only those data that… is official, that was literally some days ago provided... if I'm not
mistaken, by Journalist Investigation Centre for the week, here, the past week..., “from the mainland to Crimea,
5 777 tons of food were supplied”, here, there is a break-down by types, categories... you can see it... I will
just add another figure – since the beginning of 2015, from the mainland part of Ukraine to the annexed Crimea,
products worth of 475 million dollars have been supplied. So, to sum up... on the one hand, we have this and,
on the other, you receive information, every day we have facts of discrimination, pressure, arrests, searches,
violence against Crimean Tatars, people of other nationalities. We have political prisoners – deputy head of
Mejlis Akhtem Chiygoz, Crimean Tatar activists – Ali Asanov, Mustafa Degermeji, Ukrainian patriots - Oleg
Sentsov, Olexander Kolchenko. Of these, the two latter have already been convicted, three are waiting...
Akhtem Chiygoz, on the 29th of January... in an FSB (Federal Security Service) torture chamber in Crimea. In
respect of all of them, moral and physical pressure, tortures are exerted and continue. People continue to
disappear. Once again, we’ve found two killed. So, every day in Crimea, there are crimes against people and,
at the same time, Ukrainian business, on a massive, ocean-wide scale, effects supply... Ukrainian business
trades on blood. We believe that it is acceptable neither for public morals nor for the state of Ukraine which,
while declaring the obligations to protect rights of citizens of Ukraine and failing to find ways for such
protection, at the same time makes the occupants stronger, since these products are directed not only for
consumption by people living in Crimea – a substantial part of them is directed also for consumption by the
occupational forces, garrisons. They are used in the activity the goal of which is strengthening the military in
Crimea and which is aimed against the Ukrainian state. What we propose in this respect. We have held quite
wide discussions in our ambience. I mean among activists located here, in the mainland part of Ukraine. We
have consulted with many people living in Crimea, and, today, what we want to say is that we must approve a
specific plan of activities aimed at full blocking of the supply of products and other resources to the Crimean
Peninsula. We, as Crimean Tatars, want all Ukrainian patriots to join this our activity, patriots who proceed
from the same belief that, at the time when aggression and war is waged by Russia on Ukraine, we cannot
accept any further such form of interaction with the Russian Federation as such, since
/Signature/ /Signature/
it is clear that the occupation authority established by it in Crimea is an extension of the Kremlin authority,
even if temporary, but it is an occupation Kremlin authority. Today, we are announcing that soon we will make
known the start date of an action, that is the date of direct blocking of the administrative boundary. By this
press conference we are inviting certain people's deputies to join our common activity. Any people's deputies.
Annex 268
3
I don’t want to list right now names of those, but, among Ukrainian people's deputies, there are people who
are directly tied to Crimea. They are Crimean by origin, there is an association of deputies, “Crimea”. Among
them, there are deputies that represent different regions, but their hearts also grieve over Crimea just as hearts
of all of us do. We invite leaders of public organizations, including and first of all, those that unite Crimean
natives. We call upon reputable expert communities; I will omit their names – just to avoid any
misunderstanding if I forget to mention some of them. But I see representatives of some organizations here,
and we are grateful to them for it. We believe that literally in a week and a half all of us must stand at the
border if the situation is not resolved in another way. At the same time, I should point out at once that we
proceed from the position that nobody should understand our acts as carrying a threat to Ukrainian citizens
living in the temporarily occupied Crimea, we propose… we have some positions… perhaps, those who will
join us, stand with us will help us… we have certain proposals that, provided that are implemented by the
government of Ukraine, would help people feel less discomfort if such actions are put in effect. One of such
measures, is, let’s say, creation of hubs or retail and wholesale chains in Kherson Region which is immediately
adjacent to Crimea. Once again, I want to draw your attention to the fact that we are not assuming this business,
we want to avoid any speculations that someone wants to cut off one supply channel and open another business.
We propose the government to do it, as protection of rights of people, citizens who have to live in conditions
of occupation is, in the first place, the obligation of the state as such. So, dear journalists, other participants,
this is what I wanted to say, a long speech, but, perhaps, my colleagues, first of all, our leader Mr. Mustafa
Dzhemilev will add something. Please.
M. Dzhemilev:
- Dear journalists, something absurd is going on. The Crimean Peninsula is occupied, a terrorist regime
that is even worse than Soviet is established, dissidence is persecuted, especially in connection with Ukrainian
symbols, mentioning Ukraine. An especially great pressure is exerted by the occupation regime, in the first
place, on the indigenous people, and, at the same time, Ukraine dependably supplies the occupied territory
with water, electric power and food. I will tell you a few figures – approximately 80% of food is supplied to
the Crimean Peninsula from the mainland part of Ukraine. 85% of electric power is also supplied from the
mainland part of Ukraine. Approximately 80% of water, especially irrigation water, is also from the mainland
part of Ukraine. Whereas, during the Ukrainian authority, it was somewhat repaid by development of tourism,
business activity, now, there is none of that. Everything is mainly
/Signature/ /Signature/
provided from the budget of the Russian Federation that wants to keep everything there under a colonial
administration system. And a question now arises – for what reason does the mainland part of Ukraine have to
provide for the occupation regime? Arguments that our citizens live there, and, therefore, we may not leave
them without power supply, water and food are absurd. As under all international rules of responsibility for
legal, financial and social situation of occupied territories is borne by the occupant. But in no way the country
whose territory is occupied. Yes, supply of food, power from the mainland part will cost the Russian Federation
a few times more, but for what reason should we care about the situation of the occupant’s treasury!? Aren’t
we interested in the occupant’s soonest exhaustion and stopping its global rogue behavior. And, secondly,
people are very wrong when they think that when they send food from here, they feed out fellow citizens,
compatriots. I state authoritatively that over 80% of these food products are reloaded into other trucks and
dispatched further through the Kerch Strait to the Russian Federation, as prices there are yet higher. The rest
of them is directed to the occupant’s military units, punitive detachments, self-defense formations that
persecute our compatriots, our fellow citizens. But some of our oligarchs are interested in it. Refat Chubarov
has just quoted some figures - stunning! And do you really think that this money goes into the treasury!? Far
from it. After giving bribes to both Ukrainian and Russian border guards, a great margin remains that in no
way goes into the Ukrainian treasury. It goes into the pockets of these oligarchs and, notably, of criminal
groups too. Both Aksenov and others ruling in the occupied territory are interested in this business. It’s not
that our authorities are totally indifferent to it. We’ve had many discussions on this issue with the President,
and, recently, we had a conversation at the Cabinet of Ministers with Arseniy Yatsenyuk. Over a month ago,
the Cabinet developed a draft of activities aimed at resolving the situation between Crimea and the mainland
part of Ukraine. But, unfortunately, the adopted drafts of resolutions have not been implemented. It seems that
some powers badly want them not to be implemented. So, the goals of this action are to draw public attention
to the shame occurring at this border. And somehow to settle our relations with the occupation regime. We
can’t feed the bandits who abuse our compatriots in the occupied territory. We will put forth our conditions
before them. But we don’t want our actions to be inconsistent with, let’s say, actions of our nation’s leadership.
Annex 268
4
That is why, we will try to coordinate our actions as much as possible, and, today, a meeting with the President
is expected, we will discuss our steps in detail.
Refat Chubarov
- Dear friends, as you know, on 1-2 September, the world congress of Crimean Tatars was held in
Ankara. That was the second convocation, and, during the congress, the executive council of the congress was
elected; we have already held
/Signature/ /Signature/
one meeting a week ago or so in the city of Constantsa, Romania, where the greatest Crimean Tatar diaspora,
after Turkey, lives. Approximately 50 thousand Crimean Tatars live in Romania. They are of Crimean descent.
And, as a part of the planned actions, the world congress, the executive council will soon approve a single
worldwide day of every month when Crimean Tatars in countries of their residence will hold such protest
actions. I don’t think that this month we will have a chance to time the start of the blockade to coincide with
that day, but, subsequently, you will see that all these actions for the de-occupation of Crimea that will be held
worldwide will be held simultaneously, you’ll see it literally in a month and a half. We are scaling up our
movement and our pressure worldwide. We want Crimean Tatars and the diaspora at their location not only to
become as active as possible but, as our first priority, to get involved the society they live in and, most
importantly, to make their governments be consistent with the consolidated position against the aggressor and
for the protection of Ukraine. In some countries, we have been long engaged in these activities jointly with
Ukrainian diaspora organizations. One of vice-presidents of the World Congress is Lenur Islyamov. Let us
turn the floor over to him.
L. Islyamov
- Good afternoon, gentlemen, journalists, colleagues. I’ve been here for four months already, and all
these four months I’ve been hearing such things from Ukrainians who say, “well, Crimean Tatars, Crimea is
annexed, it’s a pity, but what can we do? It just turned out that way, we’re still weak, Ukraine is still like this”.
This is what some Ukrainians are telling themselves… it’s a kind of psychoanalysis of this situation… the
others say, “Well, what could have we done? Anyway, Crimea is a different territory”…Ukrainians – some of
them… are already ready to – they got used to the idea of Crimea being lost. And this happens more and more
day by day. Besides, there are regions in Ukraine that believe that the return to Crimea will be even
disadvantageous to them – you know what regions I’m talking about, I won’t name them aloud now. They’ve
become border regions now, and you understand what business processes are arising out of this. Who are we
at general!?
If we’re a state, if society has demand for its statehood, Crimea, gentlemen, should be returned. So I’m
glad that I was one of those who made the blockade decision, that Ukraine as a state would join the sanctions
in the person of Crimean Tatar leaders, the sanctions, the international sanctions against Crimea. I’m glad
about that. I think that the headquarters Refat has just mentioned that will be situated at that address – it is 22
Sedovtsev Street. I encourage all patriots, disregarding whether they are Crimean Tatars…all those who care
about the statehood of Ukraine, all those who think that Ukraine should have its statehood. Ukraine will have
none without Crimea. So I invite all patriots to the headquarters at 22 Sedovtsev Street, and we’ll be planning
this campaign in cooperation with all patriots of Ukraine. Thank you very much.
Voice off:
- Dear colleagues, thank you for your speeches, let’s move on to questions. Please raise your hand and
introduce yourself.
/Signature/ /Signature/
Voice off:
- Reuters. The question is: when will this blockade start, and will there be any physical methods of
influence, that is, will you be blocking roads, crossings to the occupied territory, or will it be just some
moral, political pressure? Thank you.
R. Chubarov:
- We are well prepared for the blockade. Technical matters, matters of support have been settled. Power
supply in the area having no utilities. We have worked out all this. Now, the process of engagement of our
partners is in progress. We really want it to be an all-Ukrainian action. We can close the roads by ourselves.
Annex 268
5
Mr. Lenur’s rhetoric was rather tough, as, perhaps, he is not a politician, but it’s true. If there is demand for
sovereignty, then we all must return Crimea. We believe that this date will be announced literally in a week.
We are planning to start blocking in the beginning of the last third of the month. We are telling this not only
to bring the situation diplomatically to the attention of the society. We want Ukrainian business making profit
from Crimean disaster also to know about it in advance, and we want to prevent any outright counteraction
when interests of money are on one side and interests of those who want to defend the country are on the other.
And our first priority is to protect those people who live in Crimea. So, in the beginning of the last third of the
month, we will be standing at the Crimean administrative border.
Voice off:
Next question.
Voice off:
Good day. Maria, Euromaidansos. Please tell, is there a risk in connection with this blockade of an
increase in repressions in the territory of the temporarily occupied Crimea against Crimean Tatars and other
activists who are staying on the occupied peninsula? Have you considered this risk, and how can it be
mitigated? Or how to counter it? Thank you.
M. Dzhemilev:
We are talking about the state’s integrity, about liberation of the occupied territories. Of course, it’s
impossible without any risks. Somewhere, to liberate the motherland, rivers of blood are shed, we want to
resolve these problems without bloodshed. We do not exclude that there will be some increased pressure, first
of all on activists of the Crimean Tatar national movement. But it is those who are most exposed to the risk of
repressions by the occupation authorities that the initiative, the requirement that Ukraine take some measures
for liberation of its territory comes from.
R. Chubarov:
- Let me add that... you know, I don’t want to tell obvious things, what you know perfectly well. But, in
such a situation, an attempt to be liked to any extent by the abuser will result in greater abuse of the one who
thinks that he will avoid abuse in this way, for one thing. Crimean Tatars, most regrettably, today are hostages
of their position, and we want the Ukrainian society to be conscious of this and have complete understanding
of this action. They are hostages of their position which they massively, frankly,
/Signature/ /Signature/
openly showed those days when nobody else took to the streets, roads in Crimea, and we should proceed
from this. And, secondly, I think that there will be attempts... here, I should rule out the possibility of such
attempts in the mainland Ukraine, but I have no doubts that they will be seen in Crimea. Attempts to find
deliberately forms of pressure on us. Well, just imagine. I am a person that is far from business, but I can
imagine – if there is a bunch of oligarchs here, and there are their partners in the occupied Crimea, it is
impossible that they do not communicate with one another. Especially in those forms that exist in that grey
zone when handbags of money are transferred there. You understand well what is happening today: Aksenov,
Sheremet take this hard cash, pay those bandit structures that the occupation Russian authority pays almost
nothing itself and those self-defense troops, and those self-defense troopers go and kill our people. That
Ukrainian money goes there. And that is why it is clear that those people, those bandits, especially Crimean,
will look for some ways for pressure, including on us, through those people who live there, in Crimea.
Voice off:
- Thank you. Next question.
L. Islyamov:
- I would like to add. One more thing... By what we will do we will know who is with us here. That will
be a very good moment. By this action, along the way, we will know who is among us. You understand what
I’m talking about? That is, we will rise and find out who is with us.
Voice off:
- Next question.
Voice off:
- Black Sea Television and Radio Broadcasting Company. I have two questions to all participants of the
press conference. First question: please tell, based on what law, that is provisions of law, participants of your
action may block the entry of trucks to the territory of Crimea. It is my understanding that a forceful scenario
is also possible there. What laws allow you to do it, lest participants of this action become hostages.
L. Islyamov:
- And what laws allow to ship goods to the annexed Crimea? Tell me please?
Voice off:
Annex 268
6
- Law “On free trade”.
L. Islyamov:
- And we are against this law. We want this law to be repealed. Are you for this law? I believe that this
law should be repealed. That’s why, a call also on our lawmakers... in what way... if you remember, during the
Great Patriotic War, even those who might shine the occupants’ boots would be executed by shooting. And
here we are shipping goods, supply power, there are some buses that are not even checked at the border, if you
don’t know about it, it is so. Your chief knows about it, and those are people who are oligarchs here and
oligarchs there. We both know who we are talking about. Here, along the way, we will give this situation a
shake, which is enough obvious for us, for journalists. Concurrently, we will understand how the rest will be
finding a way out of this situation,
/Signature/ /Signature/
those who call themselves deputies and the great ones of the earth, in Ukraine.
R. Chubarov:
- I understand what you are talking about. Believe me, we have passed all stages to find understanding
among all, including those who once lobbied the creation of the free economic zone “Crimea”, who support it
today. At various offices, there have been various discussions, and, here, one can say why not try to repeal this
law at the Parliament, the more so as two people's deputies are present here. But making such proposal without
raising awareness of this problem makes no sense. Makes no sense because all previous stages have shown us
that, for one thing. Secondly, I personally, as one of the organizers, will proceed from the law “on protection
of civil rights and liberties and the legal regime on the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine”. I have
already read you one of the respective articles. Ukraine is obliged to guarantee human rights. And let somebody
prove me that such a format when we can’t do anything, can’t anyhow influence on the occupant but feed him
is guaranteeing rights!? If he does, then I will be the first to leave that administrative border, for one thing.
Secondly, we will rely on moral support of not only the Ukrainian society but also the international community.
You know about constant coverage in the press of violations made by some countries’ business, for instance,
Romania, Turkey, Greece, Spain, – well, vessels call at ports. And some of them make us give almost a chase
to catch them... some scandals have place there... nobody else... Mr. Mustafa Dzhemilev and I have such hard
talks with our international partners. When we report, submit these lists of vessels that call at the ports and
violate... you know what the first question is? “And what do you do as a state?” If you are reproached and you
have a possibility to turn it against me, you will surely do it. We do understand that there are three factors by
means of which we will reduce the time of returning Crimea, and one of these factors is tightening up the
international sanctions, Ukrainian too, and a good thing too! We are all working to ensure that our partners
precisely follow this course. Let us help them, and that is it.
M. Dzhemilev:
Regarding the legal aspect. That law on the free economic zone is purely a lobbyist law. When it was
passed, the Department for Crimea, a special monitoring body established at our initiative, addressed the
President with a request not to sign that bill into law under no circumstances, that absurd bill, as no free
economic zone may exist in an occupied territory. A bandit zone ruled by bandits, occupants, and suddenly a
free economic zone. But many oligarchs were interested in it. They wanted to trade, they wanted to make
money. And, moreover, that law conflicts with other laws that R. Chubarov has just read, namely, concerning
protection of civil rights and liberties of our citizens in the occupied territory. And, most importantly, what I
want to draw your attention to is that we breach sanctions imposed on the occupant. We, the state that must be
/Signature/ /Signature/
before all in the forefront of these sanctions, crudely breaches these sanctions. Indeed, when we tell Turkish,
Greek companies, “What are you doing? You are breaching the sanctions... why do you breach, why do you
supply, why do you enter our territorial waters, call at the ports?” they say, “But you yourselves trade. Do you
want only make money yourselves and dictate us not to go there?”.
Voice off:
- Next question.
Voice off:
- “Crimea Realities”, brief question, please tell, will your action affect ordinary citizens with regard to
crossing the border?
Annex 268
7
R. Chubarov:
You know, we have a certain list of problems, participants’ demands, they have not been yet finalized.
I know that they have been handed out to you. Some of the items are still under discussion. If you look at them,
you will that Tair Smedlyayev is mentioned there. He had been locked up for a long time, and now, he has
been released on recognizance, and criminal proceedings are still conducted against him... It is release of
Ukrainian political prisoners, first item, removal of obstacles with regard to Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar mass
media’s work in Crimea, it is admittance to Crimea of foreign journalists and international human rights
monitors, it is stopping any persecution of Crimean Tatars and other citizens of Ukraine in Crimea, it is lifting
the ban to enter Crimea... Here, names of Mr. Mustafa, my name as well as Ismet, Sinaver Kadyrov are also
mentioned, these are those who are banned by the Russian Federation to enter our land. I would like to tell that
we have had discussions with the management of the State Migration Service for two days now... I was going
to tell this in the next speech... You know, there is another enactment, not a law this time, it’s an Resolution
of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine under the title “On the approval of procedures for entry to/exit from the
temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine”. Now, against the background of how the business expands, passing
this Resolution is nothing but a diversion. It just passed us by, we couldn’t respond to it timely. Literally next
day, we started to hold innumerable meetings, sessions at ministries and agencies... to cut a long story short. I
believe many of you know about this Resolution, they just created such draconian obstacles for those people
in whose stay the state is interested... let’s say, foreign journalists who want to enter Crimea from the mainland
Ukraine, and experts of various international institutions. After all, it is Crimean Tatar diaspora that entered in
hundreds and thousands, especially on commemorative dates, religious holidays. Literally in two weeks, we
will have a great holiday, Islamic Eid al-Adha. And today, tens of our citizens are waiting for the resolution of
the permission question. And what happens? We, the State of Ukraine, have channeled all foreigners who have
urgent business in Crimea, and especially Crimean Tatar diaspora, via Moscow, through Moscow airline
companies, due to violation of Ukrainian laws regarding the occupied territory. But now, allegedly, there is an
instruction of the Prime-Minister, and, before the eleventh of September, we must
/Signature/ /Signature/
find at least some temporary instruments to simplify these procedures. The point is that now, you enter Kherson
Region, pay a call to Department “K” of the Migration Service of Ukraine, stand in a queue and, if you meet
criteria established by this order, you may be granted a permit, and this permit will be issued within 5 days. It
is a lot easier to buy a ticket to Moscow and enter Simferopol illegally. I had some quite a wild case when a
family, Turkish citizens, was entering Crimea. The wife’s Crimean Tatar mother lives in Crimea, but her
husband has nobody there, that is he has no relatives there. So, she is admitted because she has a mother
residing in Crimea, and the husband is not because under Ukrainian laws a mother-in-law is not a relative. So,
I had to resolve that situation myself. Why on earth was that law adopted? Or a notice of burial of your
immediate family members may be a reason for your urgent entry. Well, those people who drafted it do not
know anything, including Islamic traditions. The point is that nobody will have a permit issued within 5 days,
and nobody will wait so long for you to come to the funeral.
M. Dzhemilev:
- Generally, any person may cross the border. You just need to give a bribe. So, that law contributes to
corruption. It is aimed to take bribes from people. Now, regarding the supply of food products to the occupied
Crimea. The draft decision of the Cabinet of Ministers provides for creation of “hubs” at the Crimean border.
That is, trade outlets, markets that our citizens may come to, of course, only with Ukrainian passports, from
the occupied territory, purchase goods and then come back to the occupied territory. But, of course, not truckloads
of goods. Therefore, measures for support... material support of our co-citizens in Crimea have been
provided for by us.
Voice off:
- Dear colleagues, next question.
Voice off three more questions from “The Crimea Realities”, “Radio Freedom”. The first question is to
M. Dzhemilev. Have you discussed those questions that you are to talk about with the President today…
perhaps, discussed… and what arguments did he have, or has he just had no time for Crimean matters? The
second question is to Mr. Chubarov. Please tell what consequences, in your opinion, may the action announced
by you today have for the unity of the Crimean Tatar movement in Crimea under the occupation authority?
As it's no secret that the occupation authority is trying to split it in every way. And the third question is to Mr.
Islyamov. Please tell what do you personally put at risk by taking part in this action? As it is common
knowledge that you have quite solid business interests in Russia.
Annex 268
8
M. Dzhemilev
- I have already told that we have had discussions of these matters both with the President and the Prime
Minister, and both the Prime Minister and the President have understanding that it is abnormal and that some
measures must be taken. When I told the President that the law on the free economic zone must be repealed,
the President expressly said “I agree”. But I cannot
/Signature/ /Signature/
dictate the Parliament to repeal it. And the fact that it is inconsistent with interests of the Ukrainian state was
clear to him. The Prime Minister told the same, that we must put an end to this disgrace. And the Cabinet of
Ministers even prepared a draft resolution. But for some reason it has not been implemented. I think that the
reason for this is that many very influential circles are not interested in taking effective measures for protection
of the territorial integrity of our country. Their top priority is making some money.
R. Chubarov:
- You know, now, the primary objective of the occupation authority in the public sphere is to crush, to
squash Crimean Tatars as a single organism. They have been doing this for a year and a half now. And I cannot
tell that they have failed to tear away from us anyone and make him join them. There are such people and
thank God that there are not too many people like that as the occupants wanted. It is clear that these people
will shout to the world and tell that our actions are aimed against people, against rights, against Crimean Tatars.
I will not repeat what Mr. M. Dzhemilev has told. Indeed, from the start of the action to be announced, we
allow the government to create such conditions that every honest man who lives in Crimea, who is not a traitor
can enter the territory of Kherson Region and provide himself with products at prices prevailing in the
mainland Ukraine in such volumes and assortment as to feel himself in a dignified way. Let those traitors and
collaborators go to Krasnodar Territory, Rostov, whatever. It is of especial importance for us that no resources
strengthening military presence are supplied. We have not yet talked about power supply today. We will raise
this topic later, perhaps in a month or so. But we will raise it without fail. The blocking itself will not split
Crimean Tatars as a community into two or three parts. People just live in hopes of soonest liberation from
that regime. And they understand very well why it is done.
Time 46:06 - 46:41 L. Islyamov tells about risks in his business.
- Crimea must be returned! And that is why, such people as I and people like that must be here so that
everyone fortifies his position and can... including giving a shake to the Ukrainian authority that has fallen
asleep but must return Crimea. That’s why, I risk it all, Anvar.
Time 46:54 - 48:31 M. Dzhemilev tells about the necessity to stop the supply of electric power to
Crimea.
Time 48:31 - 49:06 journalists ask the last three questions.
49:06 - 51:04 M. Dzhemilev discusses Crimea’s economy, prices and salaries.
- If the Russian Federation takes its economy seriously, then, of course, it should have..., but it should
not have taken such bandit steps at all, but, of course, it will have to vacate the territory.
Time 51:21 - 51:52 journalists ask about Crimean Tatars’ mood, if they are ready to tolerate for the sake
of returning Crimea.
/Signature/ /Signature/
51:52 - 53:55 M. Dzhemilev tells about a “landline phone” sociological survey conducted among
Crimean Tatars. About the inveracity of such surveys due to phone-tapping. Assures that Crimean Tatars
support them anyway.
Time 53:55 - 54:28 the journalist asks a question about declaring Eid al-Adha an all-Crimean public
holiday.
54:28 - 58:30 R. Chubarov tells that it is a trick of the authorities to earn the sympathy of Crimean
Tatars. Explains that the goal of their action is also to draw global public attention.
Say good-bye.
To the right of the examined video footage, video footages of various content are posted.
In the course of the examination, the examined video footage was downloaded, and an electronic copy
of the Web-page at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBS9FgXCBtg as well as the “desktop, date and time”
sub-menu on 1 page was made and printed using an HP LaserJet P1102 printer on 1 page and certified by
signatures of those present.
An electronic copy of the Webpage was recorded to the compact disc: “MASTER DVD-R х16” which
Annex 268
9
was put into an envelope and sealed with a slip of white paper with the seal impressions “For packages No.
33”.
The Certificate of inspection of the Internet resource is made in one copy on 13 (thirteen) pages, was
read aloud, is prepared correctly, no comments were received.
Attachment: 1. Screen copy of the Webpage on 1 page in 1 copy;
2. “MASTER DVD-R x16” Disc in a white envelope.
Public representatives:
1. Grassenkov /Signature/ 2. Malykhin /Signature/
Prepared by: A.V. Dovgel /Signature/
[Screen copy:
YouTube /search line: civil blockade/
Civil blockade of Crimea: how it will be. Ukraine Crisis Media Center, 8-09-2015
Ukraine Crisis Media Center
Sign up | 5 145
Add | Share | More
Published: 8 September 2015
Topic: “Civil blockade of Crimea: how it will be”
Mustafa Dzhemilev, leader of the Crimean Tatar people
Refat Chubarov, head of “Mejlis” of the Crimean Tatar people | President of the World Congress of
Crimean Tatars
Lenur Islyamov, vice-president of the World Congress of Crimean Tatars
Category: News and politics
License: Standard YouTube license
93 commentaries]
1) Grassenkov /Signature/ 2) /illegible/ /Signature/
Annex 268
Annex 269
Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 44U-27/2016
(4U-284/2015), Decision, 24 February 2016 (excerpts)
1
Translation
Excerpts
No. 44U-27/2016
4U-284/2015
Judge of the 1st instance: V.A. Mozhelianskiy
Court of Appeal Judge S.N. Pogrebnyak
/STAMP: COPY/
DECISION
of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea
24 February 2016 Simferopol
The Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea comprised of:
presiding Judge – I.I. Radionov,
members of the Presidium: V.N. Sklyarov, V.V. Evdokimova, R.V. Novikov, V.G. Sirotyuk, T.A. Shklyar,
with participating Deputy Prosecutor of the Republic of Crimea, Senior Counselor of Justice V.V.
Kuznetsov,
convicted person A.F. Kostenko through video conferencing,
defence counsels D.V. Sotnikov, E.P. Kostenko,
in the presence of secretary E.V. Reut,
Examined the materials related to the decision of 24 December 2015 issued by the judge of the Supreme
Court of the Russian Federation to transfer the cassation appeal submitted by Defence counsel D.V. Sotnikov
for review, to revise the decision of 15 May 2015 issued by the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, as
amended by the decision of 26 August 2015 issued by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea,
according to which
Alexander Fedorovich Kostenko, date of birth 10 March 1986, [place of
birth], no previous convictions, having a dependent underage child,
was sentenced:
Under Paragraph “b” of Part 2 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, to 1
year of community service;
Under Part 1 of Article 222 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, to 4-year imprisonment
without a fine.
Under Part 2 of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Kostenko was ultimately
sentenced to 4 years 2 months of imprisonment in a general regime penal colony without a fine.
Having heard the report of Judge V.Yu. Vasiliev, the speech of convict A.F. Kostenko, defence
counsels D.V. Sotnikov, E.P. Kostenko who supported the arguments specified in the cassation appeal,
Prosecutor V.V. Kuznetsov who considered it necessary to change the court decisions, the Presidium
ESTABLISHED:
[…]
Page 3
[…]
Having examined the materials of the criminal case, and having discussed the arguments of the
appeal for review, the Presidium has come to the following conclusions.
Page 4
The court concluded that Kostenko was guilty of the crimes on the basis of the testimony of victim
Polienko, witnesses Kudrik, Nadya, Kuznetsova who witnessed the convict’s participation in the riots on 18
February 2014 in Kiev, Karaseva, Mikitenko, Ermolina, Dolotenko who participated in the search performed
in the Kostenko’s apartment in Simferopol, the records of search and inspection of objects, expert opinions
and other evidence.
The said evidence confirm that Kostenko actually committed socially dangerous acts specified in the
decision. No ground was found for him to be slandered by the victim and witnesses. The decision contains
Annex 269
2
the motives, on the basis of which the court accepted some evidence and rejected others. No violation of the
criminal procedural law related to the consideration of the criminal case was found.
As regards Kostenko’s conviction under Paragraph “b” of Part 2 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code
of the Russian Federation, the Presidium believes that victim Polienko appealed to the preliminary
investigation body as a citizen of the Russian Federation on 22 December 2014 demanding to impose
criminal liability on Kostenko who injured him on 18 February 2014. The Presidium admits that it is
impossible for the victim to inform of the crime the bodies operating on the territory of commission thereof,
therefore it finds that imposition of criminal liability on Kostenko under the specified norm of the criminal
law would exercise the rights and legitimate interests of victim Polienko on the territory of the Russian
Federation.
Assessing the reasonableness of Kostenko’s conviction under Part 1 of Article 222 of the Criminal
Code of the Russian Federation, the Presidium finds that since the investigative bodies and the court failed to
determine, when, where and in which circumstances the convict acquired the rifled 9 mm caliber barrel, it is
impossible to determine the limitation period for the purpose of Kostenko’s criminal prosecution for a
medium severity crime. Due to the provisions of Part 3, Article 14 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the
Russian Federation related to mandatory interpretation of any doubt in favor of the convict, this circumstance
is the ground for Kostenko’s release from criminal liability due to the expiration of the limitation period.
Taking into account that illegal carrying of a firearm, the main parts thereof, ammunition, explosives
or explosive devices means their presence in the clothes or on the body of the accused, and equally carrying
thereof in a bag, briefcase, etc., the Presidium admits that the actus reus of the crime of “illegal carrying of
the main parts of a firearm” was not confirmed in Kostenko’s actions. This circumstance entails the
Kostenko’s release from criminal liability due to lack of corpus delicti.
The Presidium admits that the above violations of the requirements of the criminal and criminal
procedural laws committed by the court and not assessed by the panel during the appellate hearing of the
case are significant and affected the outcome of the criminal case and fairness of the punishment imposed on
Kostenko.
Page 5
Since the court found that a rifled 9 mm caliber barrel was found and confiscated after a safe was
opened at the place of Kostenko’s residence during the inspection of the scene of action, that barrel being the
main component of a firearm and made manually on the basis of a Makarov pistol and suitable for firing
shots when attached to a “PM” pistol, Kostenko’s act constitutes only storage of a component of a firearm.
Also, the Presidium admits that the decision of 23 September 2015 issued by the judge of the
Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea to rectify clerical errors in the motivational and operative parts of
the decision of 26 August 2015 fails to meet the requirements of Clause 15 of Article 397 of the Criminal
Procedural Code of the Russian Federation. In the said decision of the judge, a different principle of
imposing punishment for an aggregate of crimes is used by aggravating the position of the convict and
affecting the essence of the decision. Relying on the above, the Presidium treats the said ruling of the judge
as amending the decision in the situation of lacking cause for appeal, but anyway not to rectify clerical
errors.
The Presidium, pursuant to Article 401.13 and Clause 6 of Part 1 of Article 401.14 of the Criminal
Procedural Code of the Russian Federation,
DECIDED:
The decision of 15 May 2015 issued by the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, and the decision
of 26 August 2015 issued by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea against Alexander Fedorovich
Kostenko be amended in connection with a significant violation of the criminal and criminal procedural
laws.
The indication that Kostenko is found guilty of illegal acquisition and illegal carrying of a
component of a firearm be removed from the decisions by termination of the criminal prosecution to that
extent due to lacking corpus delicti on the basis of Clause 2 of Part 1 of Article 24 of the Criminal
Procedural Code of the Russian Federation.
Kostenko be considered guilty of storing the main part of a firearm and sentenced under Part 1 of
Article 222 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 3 years 6 months of imprisonment without a
Annex 269
3
fine; Kostenko’s punishment under Paragraph “b” of Part 2 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of the
Russian Federation in the form of community service shall stay unchanged, and regarding the aggregate of
crimes under Part 2 of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, a more severe punishment
absorbing a less severe one, to 3 years 6 months of imprisonment in a general regime penal colony without a
fine.
The ruling dated 23 September 2015 issued by the judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of
Crimea to amend the motivational and operative parts of the decision be cancelled.
The rest of the decisions shall be left unchanged.
Presiding Judge: /Signature/ I.I. Radionov
/STAMP: True copy
Judge: (Signature)
Secretary: (Signature)/
/SEAL: KIEVSKIY DISTRICT COURT OF
SIMFEROPOL OF THE REPUBLIC OF
CRIMEA/
/STAMP: Kievskiy District Court of
Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea
The original document of the decision is
kept in criminal case No. 1-213/2015
Copy issued on 2 August 2018
Judge (Signature)
Secretary (Signature)/
/SEAL: KIEVSKIY DISTRICT COURT OF
SIMFEROPOL OF THE REPUBLIC OF
CRIMEA/
Annex 269
Annex 270
Moscow Circuit Arbitrazh Court, Case No. А40-131463/2015,
Decision, 10 March 2016 (excerpts)
1
Translation
Excerpts
MOSCOW CIRCUIT ARBITRAZH COURT
9 Seleznyovskaya Street, Municipal Post Office 4, Moscow, 127994
Official website: http://www.fasmo.arbitr.ru
E-mail: [email protected]
DECISION
Moscow
10 March 2016 Case No. А40-131463/15
Operative part of the decision was announced on 1 March 2016.
The decision was made in full on 10 March 2016.
Moscow Circuit Arbitrazh Court consisting of:
presiding judge V.V. Kuznetsov,
judges: V.A. Dolgasheva, R. R. Latypova,
with the participation in the court hearing:
on behalf of the applicant: A. S. Titov, power of attorney of 24 August 2015;
on behalf of the interested party: Yu. V. Vasina, power of attorney of 28 September 2015;
having considered during the court hearing on 1 March 2016 a cassation appeal
of the interested party – Roskomnadzor
against the decision of 8 September 2015
of the Moscow Arbitrazh Cout,
taken by the judge I. V. Korogodov,
against the decision of 23 November 2015
of the Ninth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal
taken by judges V.A. Sviridov, I.V. Beketova, D.V. Kamenetsky
in case No. А40-131463/15
on the application of “Children’s TV Channel ‘Lale’” LLC (Lale Children’s TV Channel LLC) (Main State
Registration Number 1149102110596)
declaring illegal the actions of the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information
Technology, and Mass Media (Main State Registration Number 1087746736296),
ESTABLISHED:
“Children’s Television Channel ‘LALE’” limited liability company (hereinafter Lale Children’s TV
Channel LLC) appealed to the Moscow Arbitrazh Court with the application declaring illegal the actions of
the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media
(hereinafter Roskomnadzor); the actions are connected with the return without consideration of the application
dated 20 March 2015 of the founder of Lale Children’s TV Channel LLC (incoming reference No. 30318-smi
dated 24 March 2015), about registration of a mass media outlet – LALE TV channel, omission as well as the
obligation to eliminate the violation of the applicant’s rights and freedoms, and consider the application of
Lale Children’s TV Channel LLC about registration of a mass media outlet – LALE TV channel.
By the decision of 8 September 2015, the Moscow Arbitrazh Court declared illegal the actions of
Roskomnadzor to return without consideration the application of Lale Children’s TV Channel LLC dated 20
March 2015 (incoming reference No. 30318-smi dated 24 March 2015) on the registration of a mass media
outlet – LALE TV channel; the court obliged Roskomnadzor to eliminate the violations of the rights and
legitimate interests of Lale Children’s TV Channel LLC by examining the application for registration of a
mass media outlet – LALE TV channel on its merits; the court refused the rest of the claims.
The decision of the court of the first instance remained unchanged by the decision of the Ninth Arbitrazh
Court of Appeal dated 23 November 2015.
Disagreeing with the judicial acts adopted in the case, Roskomnadzor filed a cassation appeal in which
it asked for the decision and appellate decision to be canceled and a new judicial act on the refusal to satisfy
the stated requirements be adopted.
Annex 270
2
The applicant of the complaint considers the judicial acts illegal and unfounded, as adopted with the
wrong application of the norms of substantive and procedural law.
[…]
Page 12
[…]
The courts of the cassation instance did not find any violations of the norms of substantive and
procedural law by the courts of first and appeal instances, which could affect the correctness of judicial acts
adopted by the courts or entail the unconditional cancellation of the latter.
Page 13
Considering the foregoing, the grounds provided for in Article 288 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of
the Russian Federation for changing or canceling the judicial acts appealed in cassation are not available in the
case.
Pursuant to Articles 284 – 289 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the court
DECIDED:
to leave the decision of the Moscow Arbitrazh Сourt of 8 September 2015 and the decision of the Ninth
Arbitrazh Сourt of Appeal of 23 November 2015 in case No. А40-131463/15 unchanged, and to leave the
cassation appeal of Roskomnadzor without satisfaction.
Presiding judge V. V. Kuznetsov
Judges: V. A. Dolgasheva
R. R. Latypova
Annex 270
Annex 271
Investigative Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security
Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol,
Criminal Case No. 2014818017, Resolution on suspension of
preliminary investigation, 8 April 2016 (excerpts)
1
Translation
Excerpts
RESOLUTION
on suspension of preliminary investigation
Simferopol 8 April 2016
Senior Forensic Investigator of the Investigative Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security
Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, Major of Justice [initials and last name], having
considered the materials of criminal case No. 2014818017,
ESTABLISHED:
This criminal case was initiated on 11 August 2014 by the Department of Inquiry and Administrative
Practices of the Border Control Directorate of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of
Crimea in respect of Ukrainian citizen Mustafa Dzhemilev, born on 13 November 1943, into a crime under
Part 2 of Article 322 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; and on 1 December 2015 M. Dzhemilev
was declared as wanted, the search was entrusted to the operational department of the Border Control
Directorate of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea.
On 20 November 2015, the Investigative Department of the Federal Security Service of Russia
Directorate for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol commenced criminal case No. 2014177363, initiated
on 13 May 2014, by the Inquiry Department of the Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia
for the Bakhchisaray District in respect of Ukrainian citizen Mustafa Dzhemilev, born on 13 November 1943,
into crimes under Article 222 and Article 224 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and, on 30
July 2015, M. Dzhemilev's was declared as wanted at federal level.
At the same day, on 20 November 2015, the head of the Investigative Department of the Directorate
of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol consolidated the criminal
case No. 2014818017 with the criminal case No. 2014177363 under the unified registration number No.
2014818017.
The preliminary investigation found that M. Dzhemilev, Ukrainian citizen, on 2 May 2014, on
“Aeroflot” Kiev-Moscow flight No. SU-1805 arrived to Sheremetyevo International Airport of Moscow,
where, on the grounds of Part 1 of Article 27 of Federal Law No. 114-FZ of August 15, 1996 “On the procedure
for entry into the Russian Federation and exit from the Russian Federation”, the border control officers of the
Federal Security Service of Russia in Sheremetyevo International Airport decided to deny him entry to the
Russian Federation; in connection with this, on the same day, 2 May 2014, M. Dzhemilev left to Kiev
(Ukraine) on Aeroflot Moscow-Kiev flight No. SU-1800, leaving the territory of the Russian Federation.
On 3 May 2014, M. Dzhemilev, consciously knowing that, in accordance with Decision
No. 140/ZKS/13-1087 of 19 April 2015, he is banned from entering the Russian Federation for 5 years, i.e.
until 19 April 2019, on the grounds specified in Subparagraph 2 of Part 1 of Article 27 of Federal Law No. 114-
FZ of 15 August 1996 “On the procedure for entry into the Russian Federation and exit from the Russian
Federation”, on a Range Rover with registration plate AA 7003 MM arrived to the checkpoint Armyansk
(Turetskiy Val) on the border with the Russian Federation,
/SEAL: Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation * Directorate for the Republic of
Crimea and Sevastopol * 16 * for certificates and documents]
/STAMP: TRUE COPY INVESTIGATOR/
Page 2
located in the urban district Armyansk, Republic of Crimea, Russian Federation, to illegally enter the Russian
Federation.
On the same day, on 3 May 2014, at about 12:30 p.m., M. Dzhemilev, carrying out his criminal intent
to illegally cross the state border of the Russian Federation, while reliably knowing the established procedure
for crossing the state border of the Russian Federation, intentionally violating Federal Law No. 114-FZ of
August 15, 1996 “On the procedure for entry into the Russian Federation and exit from the Russian
Federation”, being aware of the public danger and the illegal nature of his actions, foreseeing the inevitability
of socially dangerous consequences in the form of a violation of the governance procedure established in the
Annex 271
2
Russian Federation and wishing their occurrence, crossed the state border of the Russian Federation from the
Kherson Region (Ukraine) at the specified checkpoint, between the geographical coordinates N 46008.243’
(latitude) E33038.701’ (longitude) and N46008.176’ (latitude) E33038.770’ (longitude), illegally entering the
territory of the Russian Federation.
[…]
Page 3
On 9 December 2015 a resolution was issued on the prosecution of M. Dzhemilev for the crimes under
Part 2 of Article 322 (as amended by Federal Law No. 312-FZ of 30 December 2012), Article 224 (as amended
by Federal Law No. 162-FZ of 8 December 2003) and Part 1 of Article 222 (as amended by Federal Law
No. 398-FZ of 28 December 2010).
On the same day, on 9 December 2015, the investigator issued a resolution on the search of the accused
to the operational department of the Federal Security Service of Russia Directorate for the Republic of Crimea
and Sevastopol.
On 30 July 2015, M. Dzhemilev was declared as wanted at federal level.
On 18 December 2015, M. Dzhemilev was declared as wanted at international level.
On 20 January 2016, by decision of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, in respect of the accused
M. Dzhemilev a preventive measure in the form of detention was chosen.
The whereabouts of M. Dzhemilev are currently unknown.
On 24 January 2016, this criminal case was suspended on the grounds of Paragraph 2 of Part 1 of
Article 208 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation.
On 1 April 2016, preliminary investigations for this criminal case were resumed, in connection with the
amendment to the decision of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of 20 January 2016 regarding the
calculation of the term of detention from the moment of the arrest in the Russian Federation or extradition to
Russia of the accused M. Dzhemilev.
On the same day, 1 April 2016, by a decision of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, the term of
detention of the accused M. Dzhemilev was established from the moment of his extradition to the Russian
Federation or of his arrest in the Russian Federation.
/SEAL: Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation * Directorate for the Republic of
Crimea and Sevastopol * 16 * for certificates and documents/
/STAMP: TRUE COPY INVESTIGATOR/
Page 4
Taking into consideration that the term of the preliminary investigation on this criminal case has expired,
and the investigative actions which can be carried out in the absence of the accused were performed, guided
by Paragraph 2 of Part 1 of Article 208 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation,
HAS RESOLVED TO:
1. Suspend the preliminary investigation on criminal case No. 2014818017 in respect of the
accusations against Mustafa Dzhemilev, born on 11 November 1943 in the village of Ayserez, Sudakskiy
District, Republic of Crimea, for the commission of the crimes under Part 2 of Article 322 (as amended by
Federal Law No. 312-FZ of 30 December 2012), Article 224 (as amended by Federal Law No. 162-FZ of 8
December 2003) and Part 1 of Article 222 (as amended by Federal Law No. 398-FZ of 28 December 2010)
of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
2. Instruct the Service for the Protection of the Constitutional Order and Countering Terrorism of the
Directorate of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol to perform
investigative activities aimed at searching for and arresting the accused, M. Dzhemilev.
3. Send a copy of this resolution to the prosecutor.
Senior Forensic Investigator of the Investigative Department of the
Directorate of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the
Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol
Major of Justice /Sigature/ [initials and surname]
Annex 271
3
A copy of this resolution was sent to the prosecutor of the prosecutor's office of the Republic of Crimea
on 8 April 2016.
Senior Forensic Investigator of the Investigative Department of the
Directorate of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the
Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol
Major of Justice /Signature/ [initials and surname]
/SEAL: Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation * Directorate for the Republic of
Crimea and Sevastopol * 16 * for certificates and documents/
/STAMP: TRUE COPY INVESTIGATOR/
Annex 271
Annex 272
Prosecutor of the Republic of Crimea, Decision on the
suspension of activities of “The Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar
People”, 12 April 2016
Translation
DECISION
on the suspension of activities of a public association
Simferopol
12 April 2016
N.V. Poklonskaya, Prosecutor of the Republic of Crimea, State Counsellor of Justice of the 3rd class,
having examined inspection materials concerning the activities of the unregistered public association “The
Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People”,
ESTABLISHED:
On 15 February 2016, the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Crimea lodged before the Supreme
Court of the Republic of Crimea an application seeking to ban the activities of the public association “The
Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People”, in view of its extremist activities.
Collected evidence indicates that the purposes and actions of the above public association are aimed
at extremist activities entailing violations of rights and freedoms of person and citizen, personal harm, harm to
citizens health, society, and the state, or creating a real threat of such harm.
By virtue of Articles 9 and 10 of the Federal Law “On countering extremist activities”, given the
circumstances, the prosecutor may suspend the activities of such an association since the application seeking
to ban the activities of the public association was lodged and until the above application has been examined in
court.
In view of the above and relying upon Article 10 of the Federal Law “On countering extremist
activities”,
DECIDED:
1. To suspend the activities of the public association “The Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People” until
the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea has examined the application seeking to ban the activities of the
above association.
2. To forward a copy of this decision to N.E. Dzhelyalov, First Deputy Chairman of the public
association “The Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People”, and the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation
for the purposes of including the above association into the list of public associations and religious
organizations whose operation is suspended in view of their extremist activities.
Prosecutor of the Republic
State Counsellor of Justice of the 3rd class
/Signature/
N.V. Poklonskaya
Annex 272
Annex 273
Armyansk City Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 5-22/2016,
Decision, 22 April 2016
1
Translation
Case No. 5-22/2016
DECISION
On 22 April 2016, the judge of the Armyansk City Court of the Republic of Crimea V.U. Isroilov, having
considered in an open court in the city of Armyansk the case on an administrative offence envisaged by Part
1.1 of Article 18.8 of the Code on Administrative Offences of he Russian Federation against Sinaver Arifovich
Kadyrov, born on 01 January 1955 in Samarkand, residing at: [address],
established:
on 23 January 2015 at 08:00 a.m. in the course of passport control of individuals at Armyansk - Motorway
Cargo and Passenger Multiway Border Crossing Point of the Russian Federation it was established that the
Ukrainian citizen S.A. Kadyrov breached the rules of stay in the Russian Federation, which consisted in
avoidance of leaving the Russian Federation upon expiry of the 90-day period of stay: he entered the territory
of the Russian Federation on 16 June 2014 (he left the territory of the Russian Federation 6 times for a total of
27 days: on 29 June 2014 for 3 days, on 10 August 2014 for 5 days, on 9 September 2014 for 3 days, on 10
November 2014 for 6 days, on 21 November 2014 for 1 day and on 16 December 2014 for 9 days) and stayed
on the territory of the Russian Federation until the date of the record, which totals 165 days.
Following its consideration by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, the administrative offence
case was referred to the Armyansk City Court of the Republic of Crimea. S.A. Kadyrov, his representative, a
representative of the Directorate of the Federal Migration Service of Russia for and in the Republic of Crimea
were notified about the court hearings that were scheduled for 5 February 2016, 9 March 2016 and 22 April
2016.
S.A. Kadyrov, who was duly notified of the time and place of consideration of the case by a notice sent
to his place of residence at: [address], failed to appear at the hearing scheduled for 22 April 2016 and did not
inform of the reasons for his non-appearance.
His representative under the power of attorney K.A. Kadyrov, who was duly notified of the time and place
of consideration of the case, failed to appear at the hearing scheduled for 22 April 2016 and did not inform the
court of the reasons of his non-appearance.
The representative of the Directorate of the Federal Migration Services of Russia for the Republic of
Crimea, who was duly notified of the time and place of consideration of the case, failed to appear in court and
on 21 April 2016 an application for consideration of the case in the absence of the representative of the
Directorate of the Federal Migration Service of Russia for and in the Republic of Crimea was received.
On 21 October 2015, the Armyansk City Court of the Republic of Crimea received an application from
S.A. Kadyrov seeking termination of the proceedings in connection with absence of elements of an
administrative offence in his actions.
Under Part 3, Article 25.1 and Part 4, Article 29.6 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation the consideration of the case in administrative proceedings involving administrative expulsion from
the Russian Federation of a foreign national or stateless person, the presence of the individual is obligatory
and the case shall be considered of the record on administrative offence.
Given that the court took all the necessary measures to duly notify S.A. Kadyrov and that the latter has
been residing in Ukraine lately, the court is unable to notify S.A. Kadyrov in any manner of the possibility of
consideration of the case in his absence.
According to the passport of a citizen of Ukraine series […] issued by Tsentralniy District Office of
Simferopol City Directorate of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in the
Crimea, S.A. Kadyrov was registered at: [address] on 11 March 2010.
Under Article 1.5 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation a person can be held
liable in administrative proceedings only for the administrative offences in relation to which his guilt has been
Annex 273
2
established. The person against which administrative proceedings are conducted shall be deemed innocent
until his guilt is proven in accordance with the procedure envisaged by this Code and established by an
effective decision of the judge, authority, official that considered the case.
Under Article 26.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation the evidence in
the case in relation to an administrative offence shall include any facts on the basis of which the judge, authority
or official that has the administrative case pending establishes the existence of absence of the facts of the
administrative offence, guilt of the person held liable in administrative proceedings as well as other
circumstances relevant for correct resolution of the case. This information is established by means of a record
of an administrative offence, other records envisaged by this Code, explanations of the person against which
the administrative proceedings are being conducted, testimony of the victim, witnesses, expert reports, other
documents and evidence of special technical devices, material evidence.
Part 1.1 of Article 18.8 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation establishes
liability for the breach by a foreign national or stateless person of rules of entry in the Russian Federation or
of say (residence) in the Russian Federation consisting in the breach of the established rules of entry in the
Russian Federation, rules of migration registration, travel or procedure of choice of the place of stay or
residence in or transit through the Russian Federation, in the failure to comply with the obligations to notify
about the confirmation of one’s residence in the Russian Federation in cases envisaged by the federal laws.
A record of administrative offence was made on 23 January 2015 in relation to the offence committed on
21 March 2015.
Under Part 1, Article 4.5 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation the time limit
for holding a person liable under Part 1.1 of Article 18.8 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation is one year.
Under Paragraph 6, Part 1, Article 24.5 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation
the administrative proceedings cannot be initiated and the pending proceedings shall be terminated in case of
expiry of the time limit for holding the person liable in administrative proceedings.
Given that the time limit for institution of administrative proceedings against S.A. Kadyrov expired on
21 March 2016, I believe that the administrative proceedings against S.A. Kadyrov shall be terminated in
connection with the expiry of the time limit for institution of administrative proceedings against him.
The court cannot take into consideration S.A. Kadyrov’s application for termination of the proceedings
in the case in connection with the absence of the elements of an administrative offence in his actions, since
the establishment of guilt in case of termination of the proceedings in relation to an administrative offence due
to the expiry of the time limit for institution thereof does not satisfy the requirements of Article 4.5, Article
Paragraph 6, Part 1, Article 24.5 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation whereby
upon the expiry of the established time limit for institution of administrative proceedings the matter concerning
administrative liability and, therefore, the guilt of the person against which the proceedings were initiated
cannot be discussed.
Under Paragraph 6, Part 1, Article 24.5 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation,
pursuant to Articles 29.9-29.10, 30.3 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation,
decided:
the proceedings in relation to the administrative offence envisaged by Part 1.1 of Article 18.8 of the Code
on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation against Sinaver Arifovich Kadyrov shall be terminated
due to expiry of the time limits for holding him liable in administrative proceedings by the date of consideration
of the case in relation to the administrative offence.
This decision can be appealed against in the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea within 10 days
from the date of receipt of a copy thereof.
Judge: (Signed)
Annex 273
Annex 274
Krasnoperekopsk District Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No.
2a-932/16, Decision, 17 May 2016
1
Translation
Case No. 2-a-932/16
DECISION
In the Name of the Russian Federation
17 May 2016 Krasnoperekopsk
Krasnoperekopsk District Court of the Republic of Crimea composed of: the presiding judge – O.V.
Shevchenko, in the presence of secretary – A.S. Ilyasova, with the participation of the claimant S.I.
Ametova, the defendant - the Head of the Administration of Voinskiy rural settlement - Voinskiy Rural
Council of the Republic of Crimea – E.V. Maksimova, having considered in open court hearing the case on
an administrative claim of Sanie Isaevna Ametova against the Head of the Administration of Voinskiy rural
settlement – Ekaterina Vasiylevna Maksimova on the recognition of the actions of the Head of the
Administration illegal, on approving of holding an event.
ESTABLISHED:
On 16 May 2016 S.I. Ametova applied to the court with an administrative claim against the Head of the
Administration of Voinskiy rural settlement – Ekaterina Vasiylevna Maksimova on the recognition of the
actions of the Head of the Administration, related to the refusal to grant permission to hold the rally on 18
May 2016 at 3 p.m. in the center of Voinka rural settlement of the Krasnoperekopskiy district near the
memorial complex, as illegal, to approve holding this event.
The demands are motivated by the fact that the refusal to consider holding a rally dedicated to
“commemorating the victims of the ethnocide of the Crimean Tatar people as a result of the deportation on
18 May 2016 from their historical homeland” on 18 May 2016 from 3 p.m. till 5 p.m., in the amount of 110
persons, with the use of sound-amplifying technical means and Crimean Tatar national symbols, is
discriminatory and was issued in violation of Article 31 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, of 54-
FZ “On assemblies, rallies, demonstrations, marches and picketing”, of 56-ZRK of 2 August 2014, of
Resolution No. 15 of 12 January 2015 on the approval of the Regulations “On assemblies, rallies,
demonstrations, marches and picketing on the territory of Voinskiy rural settlement of the
Krasnoperekopskiy district of the Republic of Crimea”. The response of the Head of the Administration on
holding the laying of flowers to the memorial sign on 18 May 2016 at 3 p.m., is considered by the applicant
as illegal, since the applicant, as the organizer of this event, does not want to lay flowers together with the
Head of the Administration, and also because a prayer service was planned. On 12 May 2016 the claimant
sent to the Administration of Voinskiy rural settlement of the Krasnoperekopskiy district the time agreement
for holding the rally, namely its moving forward from 3 p.m. till 4 p.m. to 11 a.m. till 12:30 p.m. 12 May
2016 the response was given, with which she - as the organizer - does not agree, since it violates the rights of
the Tatar population.
The claimant at the hearing asked to satisfy the claim.
The defendant – the Head of the Administration of Voinskiy rural settlement of the Krasnoperekopskiy
district of the Republic of Crimea E.V. Maksimova – asked to dismiss the claim.
Having examined the materials of the case, having heard the claimant and the representative of the
defendant, the court considers it necessary to dismiss the claim.
In accordance with Article 31 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, citizens of the Russian
Federation have the right to rally peacefully, without weapons, to hold assemblies, rallies, demonstrations,
marches and picketing.
As indicated by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in the Decision No. 4-P of 14
February 2013, this right, guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, is not absolute and may
be limited by federal law in order to protect constitutionally significant values with the obligatory observance
of the principles of necessity, proportionality and fairness, so that the limitations imposed by it do not
Annex 274
2
encroach on the very essence of this constitutional right and do not interfere with the open and free
expression of citizens' views, opinions and demands through the organization and conduct of peaceful public
actions.
According to this Federal Law, the executive bodies of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation
determine unified specially designated or adapted places for collective discussion of socially significant
issues and expression of public sentiments, as well as for the mass presence of citizens for open expression
of public opinion on topical issues of a predominantly social and political nature (Part 1.1 of Article 8), and
after the executive body of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation determines such places, public
events are held, as a rule, in determined places (Part 2.1 of Article 8). At the same time, the Federal Law “On
assemblies, rallies, demonstrations, marches and picketing” defines the list of places in where it is prohibited
to hold a public event (Part 2 of Article 8), and in order to protect the rights and freedoms of a person and a
citizen, to ensure the rule of law, order and public safety, the specified Federal Law provides for the
additional definition by the law of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation of places where it is
prohibited to hold assemblies, rallies, marches, demonstrations, including if the holding of public events in
the determined places may result in disruption of the functioning of vital, transport or social infrastructure,
communications, interfere with the movement of pedestrians and (or) vehicles or citizen’s access to
residential premises or objects of transport or social infrastructure (Part 2.2 of Article 8). At the same time,
as a basis for refusal to approve the holding of a public event, this Federal Law provides for the indication in
the notification as a place of holding a public event a place where, in accordance with this Federal Law or the
law of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, holding a public event is prohibited (Part 3 of Article
12).
In accordance with Clause 1 of Part 4 of Article 5 of the Federal Law dated 19 June 2004 No. 54-FZ
“On assemblies, rallies, demonstrations, marches and picketing”, as subsequently amended - the organizer of
a public event is obliged to submit to the executive body of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation or
to the local government body a notice of holding a public event in the manner prescribed by Article 7 of this
Federal Law.
According to Part 1 of Article 7 of the Federal Law No. 54-FZ, a notification of holding a public event
(with the exception of holding a assembly and picketing held by one participant without using a
prefabricated demountable structure) is submitted by its organizer in writing to the executive body of the
constituent entity of the Russian Federation or to the local government body in time no earlier than 15 days
and no later than 10 days before the day of holding a public event.
In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Federal Law “On assemblies,
rallies, demonstrations, marches and picketing”, a law was adopted - the Law of the Republic of Crimea
dated 21 August 2014 No. 56-ZRK “On providing conditions for the citizens of the Russian Federation to
exercise their right to hold assemblies, rallies, demonstrations and picketing in the Republic of Crimea” and
the Regulations were developed - according to which a public event is an open, peaceful, accessible to
everyone, held in the form of an assembly, rally, demonstration, march or picketing, or in various
combinations of these forms, action carried out on the initiative of citizens of the Russian Federation,
political parties, other public associations and religious associations, including with the use of vehicles. The
purpose of a public event is free expression and formation of opinions, as well as advancement of demands
on various issues of political and economic life.
It was established that the date of holding the mass event is 18 May 2016.
On 4 April 2016 the Administration of Voinskiy rural settlement of the Krasnoperekopskiy district of
the Republic of Crimea received a notification from S.I. Ametova on holding on 18 May 2016 from 3 p.m.
till 5 p.m. a public mass event in the form of a rally in the center Voinskiy rural settlement (memorial
complex), without specifying the address, with the purpose to commemorate the victims of the ethnocide of
the Crimean Tatar people as a result of the deportation on 18 May 1944 from their historical homeland, with
the estimated number of participants – 110 persons.
According to the claimant’s explanations, it was planned to hold a prayer service.
Annex 274
3
In the notification dated 4 May 2016, the organizer also indicated the date of holding the event (rally) on
18 May 2016 from 3 p.m. till 5 p.m.
On 10 May 2016 the Administration of Voinskiy rural settlement of the Krasnoperekopskiy district in
accordance with the provisions of Article 12 of the Federal Law of 19 June 2004 No. 54-FZ “On assemblies,
rallies, demonstrations, marches and picketing”, taking into the account weekend and public holidays, sent to
the applicant a letter No. 03-39/735 of 10 May 2016, signed by the Head of the Administration of Voinskiy
rural settlement of the Krasnoperekopskiy district, where the Administration documentarily confirmed the
receipt of the notification on holding the public event, at the same time informing the organizer on the
impossibility of holding the rally, proposing to hold a joint laying of flowers to the memorial sign on 18 May
2016 at 3 p.m.
On 12 May 2016, the Administration of Voinskiy rural settlement of the Krasnoperekopskiy district of
the Republic of Crimea received from S.I. Ametova the information for approval of the time of holding the
mass event, namely on moving forward the time of holding the rally from 3 p.m. to 11 a.m.
On 13 May 2016 the Administration of Voinskiy rural settlement of the Krasnoperekopskiy district in
accordance with the provisions of Article 12 of the Federal Law of 19 June 2004 No. 54-FZ “On assemblies,
rallies, demonstrations, marches and picketing” sent to the applicant letter No. 03-39/754 of 13 May 2016,
signed by the Head of the Administration of Voinskiy rural settlement of the Krasnoperekopskiy district,
where the Administration pointed out the impossibility of holding and moving forward the time of the rally,
since on the territory of the park, according to the Decision of the 29th Session of the 1st convocation of the
Voinskiy Rural Council dated 28 April 2016 No. 361, work is underway to improve the park territory
(installation of a fence, installation of a playground, mowing grass, repair of the outdoor performance stage)
and all events on this territory are prohibited: an exception was made for the event holding on 18 May 2016,
from 2 PM to 5 PM – laying flowers to the memorial sign to those who died during the deportation
(according to the Resolution of the Administration of Voinskiy rural settlement of the Krasnoperekopskiy
district of the Republic of Crimea dated 29 April 2016 No. 111).
The court finds no reason to consider the contested responses illegal, due to the inconsistency of the
notification on holding the rally with the requirements of Article 7 of the Federal Law “On assemblies,
rallies, demonstrations, marches and picketing”, namely in the purpose of the rally and the place of its
holding. The notification was reviewed and responses, which were signed by an authorized official, were
issued.
The claimant's arguments about the violation of Article 31 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation,
the Federal Law No. 54-FZ “On assemblies, rallies, demonstrations, marches and picketing”, the Law of the
Republic of Crimea of 22 August 2014 No. 56-ZRK “On providing conditions for the citizens of the Russian
Federation to exercise their right to hold assemblies, rallies, demonstrations and picketing in the Republic of
Crimea”, Resolution No. 15 of 12 January 2015 on the approval of the Regulations “On assemblies, rallies,
demonstrations, marches and picketing on the territory of Voinskiy rural settlement of the
Krasnoperekopskiy district of the Republic of Crimea” are not objectively confirmed, from the submitted
evidence a violation of the rights of the organizer of a public event is not suspected.
In according with Articles 218, 227 of the Administrative Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, -
DECIDED:
To dismiss the administrative claim of Sanie Isaevna Ametova against the Head of the Administration
of Voinskiy rural settlement – Ekaterina Vasiylevna Maksimova, on recognizing the actions of the Head of
the Administration illegal, on the approval of holding an event.
The decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea through the
Krasnoperekopsk District Court of the Republic of Crimea within 1 month from the date of adoption of the
full text of the decision.
The full text of the decision was prepared on 17 May 2016.
Judge: /Signature/ O.V. Shevchenko
Annex 274
Annex 275
Moscow City Court, Сase No. 3a-0836/2016, Decision, 20 May 2016
1
Translation
DECISION
in the name of the Russian Federation
Moscow 20 May 2016
Moscow City Court composed of the presiding judge M.Yu. Kazakov, the secretary A.A. Liskina,
having reviewed in private court an administrative case No. 3a-0836/2016 under an administrative statement
of claim brought by Mustafa Dzhemilev in order to challenge the actions and decision of the Federal Security
Service of the Russian Federation denying him entry into the territory of the Russian Federation,
ESTABLISHED:
Mustafa Dzhemilev brought an administrative statement of claim before the Moscow City Court in
order to challenge the actions and decision of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation denying
him entry into the territory of the Russian Federation, stating that he is a Ukrainian citizen. On 22 April 2014,
when leaving the territory of the Republic of Crimea in the direction of the Kherson Region of Ukraine, border
officers at the Armyansk checkpoint verbally notified him of the fact that he was banned from entering Russia
until 19 April 2019. Besides, an unsigned form of a “notice of denial of entry into the Russian Federation” was
handed over to him. No special marks were made in the claimant’s passport. On 2 May 2014, Mustafa
Dzhemilev flew from Kiev to the Sheremetyevo airport of Moscow where border officers did not allow him
to cross the Russian border. On 3 May 2014, the claimant arrived at the Armyansk checkpoint where he was
also verbally notified of the fact that he was not allowed to cross the Russian border. The claimant then learnt
that the decision to ban him from entering the territory of the Russian Federation had been made by the Federal
Security Service of the Russian Federation. The claimant believes that this decision is unlawful since as at 19
April 2014 he was in the territory of the Republic of Crimea and, according to Article 5 of the Treaty between
the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea on the admission of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian
Federation and the formation of new constituent entities within the Russian Federation of 18 March 2014,
Ukrainian citizens permanently residing in the territory of the Republic of Crimea as at 18 March 2014 were
recognised as Russian citizens except for persons who expressed their wish to retain the citizenship they had
within one month since that day. The administrative claimant failed to bring before the government bodies of
the Russian Federation any documents evidencing that he had retained his Ukrainian citizenship. Besides, the
contested decision was made by the administrative defendant in respect of Mustafa Dzhemilev as a foreign
citizen, however, the body that made that contested decision had no documents indicative of this status of the
administrative claimant (non-citizen).
In the administrative claimant’s view, the actions of the Federal Security Service of the Russian
Federation consisting in denying him entry into the territory of the Russian Federation and failing to explain
to him the reason behind such a ban, as well as the decision to restrict his right to enter the territory of the
Russian Federation, are not based on statutory provisions and violate his rights, in view of which Mustafa
Dzhemilev requests the court to invalidate them and to revoke the contested decision.
Mustafa Dzhemilev failed to attend this court session, though he was duly and timely notified of the
date thereof and instructed his representative M.Z. Feygin, an attorney, to attend the court session, and the
latter supported the stated claims in full and requested them to be satisfied.
A representative of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation petitioned the court to
dismiss the administrative statement of claim for being unfounded and to declare the contested actions and
decision to be conforming to law and to have been made within the scope of authority of the bodies of the
Federal State Service of the Russian Federation. The representative stated that Mustafa Dzhemilev had missed
the deadline for bringing such a statement of claim before the court.
Having heard the administrative claimant’s representative, the representative of the Federal Security
Service of the Russian Federation, having examined the case files, the court decides to dismiss Mustafa
Dzhemilev’s claims on the following grounds.
According to Part 1 of Article 218 of the Administrative Procedural Code of the Russian Federation,
a citizen, organisation, other persons may apply to court in order to contest decisions, actions (omission) of a
government body, local body, other body, organisation vested with certain governmental or other public
authority (including decisions, actions (omission) of qualified collegium of judges, examination commission),
an official, government employee or local government employee (the “body, organisation, person vested with
certain governmental or other public authority”), if they believe that their rights, freedoms, legitimate interests
Annex 275
2
are breached or contested, if there are any obstacles to the exercise of their rights and freedoms and the pursuit
of their legitimate interests, or if any duties are unlawfully imposed upon them. A citizen, organisation, other
persons may directly apply to court or contest decisions, actions (omission) of the body, organisation, person
vested with certain governmental or other public authority in a hierarchically higher body, organisation, before
a hierarchically higher person, or resort to other extrajudicial dispute settlements procedures.
According to Part 3 of Article 62 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, foreign citizens and
stateless persons enjoy in the Russian Federation the rights and perform the duties on an equal basis with
Russian citizens except as provided for by federal law or an international agreement of the Russian Federation.
According to Part 2 of Article 27 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, every person – a
Russian citizen, foreign citizen and stateless person – may freely leave the Russian Federation. Citizens of the
Russian Federation shall have the right to freely return to the Russian Federation.
Every person may therefore freely leave the Russian Federation, whereas only Russian citizens are
guaranteed to return to the Russian Federation unhindered.
According to Part 3 of Article 55 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the rights and freedoms
of person and citizen may be restricted by federal law only to the extent necessary to protect the fundamental
principles of the constitutional system, morals, health, the rights and legitimate interests of other people, to
ensure defence of the country and security of the state.
According to Article 4 of Federal Law of 25 July 2002 No. 115-FZ “On the legal status of foreign
citizens in the Russian Federation”, foreign citizens enjoy in the Russian Federation the rights and perform the
duties on an equal basis with Russian citizens except as provided for by federal law.
Consequently, foreign citizens and stateless persons may be restricted in entering the Russian
Federation under conditions established by federal law.
Foreign citizens enter the Russian Federation as regulated by Federal Law of 15 August 1996 No. 114-
FZ “On the procedure for leaving the Russian Federation and entering the Russian Federation”, Article 27 of
which contains a list of legal grounds on which a foreign citizen is denied entry into the Russian Federation.
According to para. 1 of Part 1 of Article 27 of the above Federal Law, one of such legal grounds –
consistent with tasks the security agencies are charged with – is a necessity to ensure defence or security of
the state, or public order, or public health protection.
In setting limits to the rights and freedoms – which, if ignored, entails violations of other persons’
rights and freedoms, including those of the state – the Constitution of the Russian Federation sets out that it is
not allowed to encroach upon the constitutional system, the fundamental principles of the constitutional
system, the defence of the country and the security of the state.
If these aspects of statehood are undermined, this endangers the conditions of freedom of person and
citizen. When the interests of a foreign citizen – in terms of freedom of movement, freedom of thought and
expression, the collection and dissemination of information by any legal means, the free use of abilities to
work and so forth – run counter to the interests of the citizen security and public order of the state, the security
agencies are obliged as a matter of priority to guarantee the security of the Russian Federation and its citizens.
The above right of government bodies set forth in Article 55 of the Constitution of the Russian
Federation is one of the basic attributes of the sovereignty of the state (Article 4 of the Constitution of the
Russian Federation) and is consistent with international agreements and treaties to which the Russian
Federation is a party, whereas the international agreements and treaties form part of the legal system of the
Russian Federation.
According to Part 2 of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms (4 November 1950), there shall be no interference by a public authority with the
exercise of this right to respect for one’s private and family life, one’s home and one’s correspondence except
such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of citizen security,
public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the
protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
According to Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms (1950), an alien lawfully resident in the territory of a state shall not be expelled
therefrom except in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall be allowed
(a) to submit reasons against his expulsion,
(b) to have his case reviewed, and
(c) to be represented for these purposes before the competent authority or a person or persons
designated by that authority.
Annex 275
3
An alien may be expelled before the exercise of his rights under paragraph 1 (a), (b) and (c) of this
Article, when such expulsion is necessary in the interests of public order or is grounded on reasons of citizen
security.
Further, Articles 12 and 13 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (16 December
1966) set out that:
- Everyone lawfully within the territory of a state shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty
of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
- Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
- The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided
by law, are necessary to protect citizen security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms
of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.
- An alien lawfully in the territory of a state party to the present Covenant may be expelled therefrom
only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall, except where compelling reasons of
citizen security otherwise require, be allowed to submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his case
reviewed by, and be represented for the purpose before, the competent authority or a person or persons
especially designated by the competent authority.
In view of the above provisions, international law and the Constitution of the Russian Federation
recognise that it is admissible and reasonable for a state to have a right to restrict certain rights and freedoms
of citizens, including those of foreign citizens, when so provided by law and necessary in the interests of public
order or is grounded on reasons of citizen security.
During the court proceedings, the court reviewed a proposal to deny Mustafa Dzhemilev entry into the
territory of the Russian Federation of 19 April 2014, wherein the activity of the latter is said to be threatening
the security of the Russian Federation, with specific circumstances and materials presented to this effect. The
court has no reason to distrust the above information since this information is neither refuted by anyone, nor
disputed on the merits by the administrative claimant’s representative in this court session.
Thus, the activity of Mustafa Dzhemilev is demonstrably proved in this court session to be threatening
the citizen security of the Russian Federation.
According to Article 1 of Federal Law of 3 April 1995 No. 40-FZ “On the Federal Security Service”,
the federal security service is a uniform centralised system of security bodies engaged in ensuring the citizen
security of the Russian Federation within its authority.
According to subparas. “b” and “q” of Article 12 of this Federal Law, the security bodies are tasked
with identifying, preventing, and deterring intelligence and other activities of special services and
organisations of foreign states, certain persons aimed at undermining the security of the Russian Federation,
and with engaging in addressing matters relating to foreign citizens entering and leaving the territory of
Russian Federation and their stay in the territory of Russian Federation.
In light of this, the Russian Federation statutorily set out a procedure for protecting the vital interests
of human, society, and the state in compliance with which the bodies of the federal security service are obliged
to identify, prevent, and deter – including by engaging in investigative activities under Article 13 of the Federal
Law “On investigative activities” – any activity of foreign citizens that may be threatening to the security of
the Russian Federation.
Officials of the security bodies have authority to decide on whether the activity of a certain citizen of
a foreign state, who is denied entry into the territory of the Russian Federation, constitutes a threat to the
security of the state or not.
The Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation issued Order of 9 December 2008 No. 0483,
thereby approving the Instruction on the organisation of work associated with preventing foreign citizens and
stateless persons, who are denied entry into the Russian Federation, from entering the Russian Federation, and
exercising control over foreign citizens and stateless persons entering the Russian Federation.
Para. 7 of the Instruction sets forth that, should there be identified any circumstances that fall within
the authority of the security bodies under Articles 26 and 27 of Federal Law of 15 August 1996 No. 114-FZ
“On the procedure for leaving the Russian Federation and entering the Russian Federation”, on the basis of
which a foreign citizen may be denied entry into the Russian Federation, the security bodies’ operational units
prepare materials that serve as documented proof of the above circumstances.
Having analysed this order and the above statutory requirements, the court concludes that the decision
to restrict Mustafa Dzhemilev’s entry into the Russian Federation was made by officials of the Federal Security
Service of the Russian Federation within their authority to protect citizen security and in compliance with
procedural guarantees provided for by law in respect of the administrative claimant.
Annex 275
4
The provisions of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, do not preclude a state from controlling
foreign citizens entering its territory in accordance with international law and its contractual obligations.
As regards the admissibility criteria for making a decision to ban a foreign citizen from entering the
territory of a state, in a democratic society, they are different and depend upon the circumstances of a specific
case. To a reasonable extent provided for by constitutional and international legal standards, the Russian
Federation may decide on whether the activity of a certain person constitutes a threat to its defence and security
under the circumstances. In the present case, the administrative claimant himself was deliberately conducting
an activity aimed at undermining the citizen security of the Russian Federation and, with that said, should have
been aware of and accepted those adverse consequences set out in the Federal Law that the state could apply
to him in view of that activity, including insofar as his private interests were concerned.
In view of the above, the court believes that the temporary restrictive measures adopted against
Mustafa Dzhemilev pursue a legitimate aim, are adequate and necessary in a demographic society, and are not
indicative of any violation of his rights.
In concluding that the contested decision is lawful, the court believes that the actions of the Federal
Security Service of the Russian Federation consisting in denying Mustafa Dzhemilev entry into the territory
of the Russian Federation are also lawful.
As concerns Mustafa Dzhemilev seeking the invalidation of the actions of the Federal Security Service
of the Russian Federation consisting in a failure to notify the administrative claimant of the grounds for denying
him entry into the territory of the Russian Federation, the said claims are dismissed since they are not true
because, as it is evident from this administrative statement of claim, on 22 April 2014, when leaving the
territory of the Republic of Crimea, Mustafa Dzhemilev was notified by border officers that he was denied
entry into the territory of the Russian Federation under para. 1 of Part 1 of Article 27 of Federal Law of 15
August No. 114-FZ 1996 “On the procedure for leaving the Russian Federation and entering the Russian
Federation”. Moreover, as it follows from a notice enclosed to the administrative statement of claim, Mustafa
Dzhemilev was notified of his ban on entering the territory of the Russian Federation until 19 April 2019.
The administrative claimant is a Ukrainian citizen, and his right to reside permanently in the territory
of that state is not impaired by the contested decision. Mustafa Dzhemilev has never been a Russian citizen,
and his invocation of Article 5 of the Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea
on the Admission of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation and the Formation of New Constituent
Entities of the Russian Federation of 18 March 2014, is unreasonable.
Besides, the administrative claimant failed to provide any evidence that he permanently resided in the
territory of the Republic of Crimea on the day of admission of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation
and formation of new constituent entities of the Russian Federation. As it appears from the administrative
statement of claim, Mustafa Dzhemilev did not reside in that territory but stayed there, which indicates that his
stay in the territory of the above republic was temporary in nature as at that day.
Moreover, the court agrees with the administrative defendant’s statement that Mustafa Dzhemilev
missed the deadline for bringing this administrative statement of claim before the court.
According to Parts 1, 5–8 of Article 219 of the Administrative Procedural Code of the Russian
Federation, unless this Code establishes other deadline for bringing an administrative statement of claim before
the court, the administrative statement of claim should be brought before the court within three months since
a citizen, organisation, other person became aware of the fact that their rights, freedoms, and legitimate
interests were violated. Failure to meet the deadline for applying to court does not constitute grounds for
refusing to accept the administrative statement of claim. The reasons behind such a failure to meet the deadline
for applying to court are reviewed in a preliminary court session or court session. If a higher body or higher
official untimely reviews or fails to review the complaint, this indicates that there was a valid reason behind a
failure to meet the deadline for applying to court. If the deadline for applying to court is not met for a reason
set out in Part 6 of this Article or for other valid reason, the deadline for bringing an administrative statement
of claim may be reinstated by the court unless no such reinstatement is provided for by this Code. Failure to
meet the deadline for applying to court without any valid reason and non-reinstatement of the missed deadline
for applying to court (including if there is a valid reason behind that) constitute grounds for refusing to satisfy
the administrative statement of claim.
As it follows from the case files, the administrative claimant became aware of the contested decision
on 22 April 2014 when he was leaving the territory of the Republic of Crimea through the Armyansk
checkpoint. He was notified of the details of the decision, its number and date, and the duration of his ban on
entering the territory of the Russian Federation, and the grounds for that decision. Thus, the deadline for
bringing a statement of claim before the court expired on 22 July 2014. However, Mustafa brought this
Annex 275
5
administrative statement of claim before the court only on 17 February 2016. The court finds no grounds for
reinstating the deadline since, judging by the case files, there appears to be no valid reasons to do so, and the
administrative claimant’s representative failed to state any.
The court dismisses the arguments of the administrative claimant’s representative to the effect that
Mustafa Dzhemilev did not read the contested decision because the contested decision contains information
classified as a state secret, in view of which the claimant cannot read it under the Law of the Russian Federation
“On state secret”. However, the court is mindful of the fact that, back on 22 April 2014, the administrative
claimant was notified of the grounds on which the contested decision was made, meaning that since that time
he was aware of the alleged violation of his right and could have brought a relevant administrative statement
of claim before the court.
In light of the above, the court finds no legal grounds for satisfying the administrative claimant’s
claims.
In view of the aforesaid and relying upon Articles 175–180, 218, 219, 227, 228 of the Administrative
Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the court
DECIDED:
To dismiss the administrative statement of claim brought by Mustafa Dzhemilev in order to contest
the actions and decision of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation denying him entry into the
territory of the Russian Federation.
The decision may be challenged to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation through the Moscow
City Court within a month since the court made its final decision.
Judge
Moscow City Court:
/Signature/
M.Yu. Kazakov
/Seal: Moscow City Court
Came into effect
on 14 December 2016
The original document is attached to case No.
3a-0836/16 kept at the Moscow City Court.
Judge (Signature)
Secretary (Signature)
20 March 2020/
/Stamp: TRUE COPY
Judge (Signature)
Secretary (Signature)
20 March 2020/
/Seal: MOSCOW CITY COURT, Main State
Registration Number 1037718041261, Russian
Citizen Classifier of Businesses and Organisations
02860586, Taxpayer Identification Number
7718123097/
/Seal: MOSCOW CITY COURT, Main State
Registration Number 1037718041261, Russian
Citizen Classifier of Businesses and Organisations
02860586, Taxpayer Identification Number
7718123097/
Annex 275
Annex 276
Explanation of U.O. Ibragimov on the circumstances of the
disappearance of his son E.U. Ibragimov, 25 May 2016
Translation
EXPLANATION
Bakhchisaray
25 May 2016
The examination started at 9:40 a.m.
The examination ended at 10:15 a.m.
I, Senior Lieutenant of Police M.A. Fitenko accepted
an explanation from: Umar Osmanovich Ibragimov, [date of birth]
Address of residence: […]
Place of work: Individual entrepreneur […], route taxi driver
Telephone […]
Passport identity checked.
Previous convictions: no.
Article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation has been explained, its meaning is clear (no one is
obliged to testify against themselves, their spouse and relatives defined in the federal law).
/Signature/
On the merits of the questions posed to me, I can explain that I live together with my family at the above
address, as well as my son Ervin Umarovich Ibragimov, born 17 July 1985. I also want to explain that my son
works in a cafe, located near the exit from Bakhchisaray, in the direction of Simferopol on the left side. On 24
May 2016, about 8 a.m., my son, in his car Ford Focus of white color, license plate number 868/01 left home
for work, where he was all day. Since I work as a route taxi driver due to what I drive throughout Bakhchisaray,
then on 24 May 2016 at about 5 p.m., I saw my son driving his car on Simferopolskaya St., in the direction of
Simferopol. Then, on 25 May 2016 around 11 p.m., my son called me on my cell phone and asked if I had
seen his documents for the car, I said that I had not seen them, and my son hung up, but calling back a few
minutes later, my son explained to me that he had found the documents, and he hung up again. After that, I
started calling my son back on his cell phone to ask how soon he would be home, but his phone had already
been disconnected. After this call and until now, my son’s phone has been disconnected, and I do not know
his whereabouts. Between midnight and 9 a.m., I periodically called my son’s cell phone, but it kept being
disconnected. In the morning, 25 May 2016, about 8 a.m., I was passing by the apartment building No. 9 on
the Mira St., Bakhchisaray, and saw my son’s car standing on the road, I was surprised and approached it, after
which I found that the car was opened, its’ keys were in the ignition, the glove compartment was open. When
I examined the car, I did not find any documents. After which, I drove my son’s car
/Signature/
home and left it there. Then, I learned from my friend named Mansur, who also works as a route taxi
driver, that on 25 April 2016 around 4 a.m., he also drove by the apartment building No. 9 on the Mira St.,
Bakhchisaray, and also saw my son’s car, but did not pay attention to it, and at that time he did not inform me
about it. I do not know where my son is now. I would like to add that my son was using mobile number
+79780042526 and had a passport of a citizen of the Russian Federation in his name, and documents for his
car, which is registered to my wife Lilya Izzetovna Alieva. Please take measures to find my son. I have nothing
more to add.
The above is an accurate record of my statement which I have read. /Signature/
Accepted by:
Senior Lieutenant of Police
M.A. Fitenko /Signature/
Annex 276
Annex 277
Investigative Department for the Bakhchisaray District of the Main
Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the
Russian Federation for the Republic of Crimea, Criminal Case No.
2016627042, Resolution on the initiation of a criminal case,
26 May 2016
Translation
RESOLUTION
on the initiation of a criminal case and commencement of the proceedings
No. 2016627042
Bakhchisaray 26 May 2016
(place of completion) 6:10 p.m.
Senior Investigator of the Investigative Department for the Bakhchisaray District of the Main
Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for the Republic of Crimea
Senior Lieutenant of Justice A.A. Bolotin, having considered the report of a crime — kidnapping of E.U.
Ibragimov, received on 26 May 2016 in the Investigative Department for Bakhchisaray District of the Main
Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for the Republic of Crimea
and inspection materials,
ESTABLISHED:
On 24 May 2016 during the period from 10:10 p.m. to 10:45 p.m., the exact time is not established,
unidentified persons, being on the plot of land located 30 meters in the south-west direction of the house No.
9 on Mira St., Bakhchisaray, the Republic of Crimea, having the intention to kidnap E.U. Ibragimov, stopped
the latter passing by in his private car “Ford Focus”, license plate number E868SKh, region 01. Implementing
the criminal intent to kidnap E. U. Ibragimov, the unidentified persons, acting as a group using violence, put
E. U. Ibragimov in the unidentified car with unidentified license plate number and against the will of the latter
drove him in unknown direction.
Taking into account that there are sufficient data indicating signs of the crime provided by Clauses “a,
c” of Part 2 of Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, guided by Articles 140, 145, 146
(147) and Part 1 of Article 156 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation,
RESOLVED:
1. To initiate a criminal case into a under Clauses “a, c” of Part 2 of Article 126 of the Criminal Code of
the Russian Federation.
2. To accept the criminal case for proceedings and to initiate the investigation.
3. To send a copy of this resolution to the prosecutor of the Bakhchisaray district of the Republic of
Crimea.
Senior Investigator of the Department /Signature/
The copy of this resolution was sent to the Prosecutor of the Bakhchisaray district of the Republic of
Crimea, Councilor of Justice R.A. Moiseenkov
26 May 2016 at 6:30 p.m.
The decision was reported to the applicant U.O. Ibragimov on 26 May 2016
Senior Investigator of the Department /Signature/
Annex 277
Annex 278
Investigative Department for the Bakhchisaray District of the Main
Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the
Russian Federation for the Republic of Crimea, Notification No.
16-2016627042/489, 26 May 2016
Translation
26 May 2016
16-2016627042/489
To U.O. Ibragimov
18 Mira St., Apt. 78,
Bakhchisaray,
the Republic of Crimea
NOTIFICATION
(in accordance with Article 146 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation)
In accordance with Part 4, Article 146 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation,
please be informed that on 26 May 2016 a criminal case was initiated into a crime under Clauses “a, c” of Part
2 of Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the fact of kidnapping of E.U. Ibragimov.
This resolution can be appealed to the Head of the Investigative Department for the Bakhchisaray
District of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for the
Republic of Crimea, to the prosecutor of the Bakhchisaray district, or to the Bakhchisaray District Court in the
manner prescribed by Chapter 16 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation.
Senior Investigator of the Department /Signature/ A.A. Bolotin
/In handwriting: I have received a copy of the resolution (Signed)/
Annex 278
Annex 279
Investigative Department for the Bakhchisaray District of the Main
Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the
Russian Federation for the Republic of Crimea, Resolutions on
satisfying motions, 30 May 2016
1
Translation
RESOLUTION
on satisfying motion
Bakhchisaray 30 May 2016
(place of issue)
A.A. Bolotin, Senior Lieutenant of Justice, the Senior Investigator of the Investigative Department for
the Bakhchisaray District of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian
Federation for the Republic of Crimea, having considered the motion of U.O. Ibragimov, the victim, regarding
criminal case No.2016627042,
ESTABLISHED:
This criminal case was initiated on 26 May 2016 by the Investigative Department for the Bakhchisaray
District of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation into a
crime under Clauses “a, c” of Part 2 of Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
During the preliminary investigation, it was found that on 24 May 2016 in the period from 10:10 p.m.
to 10:45 p.m., the exact time has not been determined, unidentified individuals being on a site located 30
meters south-west of house No.9 at Mira St., Bakhchisaray, the Republic of Crimea, with intention to kidnap
E.U. Ibragimov, stopped him driving his private Ford Focus car, state registration plate Е868SKh, region 01.
Implementing the criminal intent aimed to abduct E.U. Ibragimov, the unidentified persons, acting as a group,
made E.U. Ibragimov with force against his will to sit in an unidentified car with an unidentified state
registration plate.
On 27 May 2016, one of close relatives of E.U. Ibragimov was recognized as a victim in this criminal
case, i.e. O.U. Ibragimov.
On 29 May 2016, O.U. Ibragimov, the victim, filed a motion to find a black car that drove off the
unpaved road from the side of the reservoir. I believe it necessary to grant this motion, in accordance with Part
2 of Article 42 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation.
Based on the foregoing and according to Articles 122, 159 (219) of the Criminal Procedural Code of the
Russian Federation,
RESOLVED:
To grant the motion of O.U. Ibragimov, the victim, dated 29 May 2016.
To notify O.U. Ibragimov., the victim, on this decision and explain him that it can be appealed in the
manner prescribed by Chapter 16 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation.
Senior Investigator /Signature/
/Signature/
The resolution is disclosed to O.U. Ibragimov, the victim, by sending its copy by post and notification
by telephone.
Senior Investigator /Signature/
Annex 279
2
RESOLUTION
on satisfying motion
Bakhchisaray 30 May 2016
(place of completion)
A.A. Bolotin, Senior Lieutenant of Justice, the Senior Investigator of the Investigative Department for
the Bakhchisaray District of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian
Federation for the Republic of Crimea, having considered the motion of U.O. Ibragimov, the victim, in criminal
case No.2016627042,
ESTABLISHED:
This criminal case was initiated on 26 May 2016 by the Investigative Department for the Bakhchisaray
District of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation into a
crime under Clauses “a, c” of Part 2 of Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
During the preliminary investigation, it was found that on 24 May 2016 in the period from 10:10 a.m.
to 10:45 p.m., the exact time has not been determined, unidentified individuals being on a site located 30
meters south-west of house No. 9 at Mira St., Bakhchisaray, the Republic of Crimea, with intention to abduct
E.U. Ibragimov, stopped him driving his private Ford Focus car, state registration plate Е868SKh, region 01.
Implementing the criminal intent aimed to abduct E.U. Ibragimov, the unidentified persons, acting as a group,
made E.U. Ibragimov with force against his will to sit in an unidentified car with an unidentified state
registration plate.
On 27 May 2016, one of close relatives of E.U. Ibragimov was recognized as a victim in this criminal
case, i.e. O.U. Ibragimov.
On 29 May 2016, O.U. Ibragimov, the victim, filed a motion to interrogate a witness named Yana and
his girlfriend. I believe it necessary to grant this motion, in accordance with Part 2 of Article 42 of the Criminal
Procedural Code of the Russian Federation.
Based on the foregoing and according to Articles 122, 159 (219) of the Criminal Procedural Code of the
Russian Federation,
RESOLVED:
To grant the motion of O.U. Ibragimov, the victim, dated 29 May 2016.
To notify O.U. Ibragimov, the victim, on this decision and explain him that it can be appealed in the
manner prescribed by Chapter 16 of Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation.
Senior Investigator /Signature/
/Signature/
The resolution is disclosed to O.U. Ibragimov, the victim, by sending its copy by post and notification
by telephone.
Senior Investigator /Signature/
Annex 279
3
RESOLUTION
on satisfying motion
Bakhchisaray 30 May 2016
(place of completion)
A.A. Bolotin, Senior Lieutenant of Justice, the Senior Investigator of the Investigative Department for
the Bakhchisaray District of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian
Federation for the Republic of Crimea, having considered the motion of U.O. Ibragimov, the victim, in criminal
case No.2016627042,
ESTABLISHED:
This criminal case was initiated on 26 May 2016 by the Investigative Department for the Bakhchisaray
District of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation into a
crime under Clauses “a, c” of Part 2 of Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
During the preliminary investigation, it was found that on 24 May 2016 in the period from 10:10 p.m.
to 10:45 p.m., the exact time has not been determined, unidentified individuals being on a site located 30
meters south-west of house No. 9 at Mira St., Bakhchisaray, the Republic of Crimea, with intention to abduct
E.U. Ibragimov, stopped him driving his private Ford Focus car, state registration plate Е868SKh, region 01.
Implementing the criminal intent aimed to abduct E.U. Ibragimov, the unidentified persons, acting as a group,
made E.U. Ibragimov with force against his will to sit in an unidentified car with an unidentified state
registration plate.
On 27 May 2016, one of close relatives of E.U. Ibragimov was recognized as a victim in this criminal
case, i.e. O.U. Ibragimov.
On 29 May 2016, O.U. Ibragimov, the victim, filed a motion to check the involvement of the owner of
the Ford Transit car, state registration plate A886KM, region 92, in the commission of the above crime. I
believe it necessary to grant this motion, in accordance with Part 2 of Article 42 of the Criminal Procedural
Code of the Russian Federation.
Based on the foregoing and according to Articles 122, 159 (219) of the Criminal Procedural Code of the
Russian Federation.
RESOLVED:
To grant the motion of O.U. Ibragimov, the victim, dated 29 May 2016.
To notify O.U. Ibragimov, the victim, on this decision and explain him that it can be appealed in the
manner prescribed by Chapter 16 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation.
Senior Investigator /Signature/
/Signature/
The resolution is disclosed to O.U. Ibragimov, the victim, by sending its copy by post and notification
by telephone.
Senior Investigator /Signature/
Annex 279
4
RESOLUTION
on satisfying motion
Bakhchisaray 30 May 2016
(place of completion)
A.A. Bolotin, Senior Lieutenant of Justice, the Senior Investigator of the Investigative Department for
the Bakhchisaray District of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian
Federation for the Republic of Crimea, having considered the motion of U.O. Ibragimov, the victim, in criminal
case No.2016627042,
ESTABLISHED:
This criminal case was initiated on 26 May 2016 by the Investigative Department for the Bakhchisaray
District of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation into a
crime under Clauses “a, c” of Part 2 of Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
During the preliminary investigation, it was found that on 24 May 2016 in the period from 22:10 to
22:45, the exact time has not been determined, unidentified individuals being on a site located 30 meters southwest
of house No.9 at Mira St., Bakhchisaray, the Republic of Crimea, with intention to abduct E.U. Ibragimov,
stopped him driving his private Ford Focus car, state registration plate Е868SKh, region 01. Implementing the
criminal intent aimed to abduct E.U. Ibragimov, the unidentified persons, acting as a group, made E.U.
Ibragimov with force against his will to sit in an unidentified car with an unidentified state registration plate.
On 27 May 2016, one of close relatives of E.U. Ibragimov was recognized as a victim in this criminal
case, i.e. O.U. Ibragimov.
On 16 June 2016, O.U. Ibragimov, the victim, filed a motion to prove identity of the alleged witness,
with whom SMS correspondence is being conducted within 4 days. In addition, to receive call details of
numbers +7-978-075-47-12 and +7-978-757-61-60. I believe it necessary to grant this motion, in accordance
with Part 2 of Article 42 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation.
Based on the foregoing and according to Articles 122, 159 (219) of the Criminal Procedural Code of
the Russian Federation.
RESOLVED:
To grant the motion of O.U. Ibragimov, the victim, dated 16 June 2016.
To notify O.U. Ibragimov, the victim, on this decision and explain him that it can be appealed in the
manner prescribed by Chapter 16 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation.
Senior Investigator /Signature/
/Signature/
The resolution is disclosed to O.U. Ibragimov, the victim, by sending its copy by post and notification
by telephone.
Senior Investigator /Signature/
Annex 279
Annex 280
Moscow Circuit Arbitrazh Court, Case No. A40-124221/2015,
Decision, 9 June 2016
1
Translation
MOSCOW CIRCUIT ARBITRAZH COURT
9 Seleznevskaya St., Moscow, GSP-4, 127994
official website: http://www.fasmo.arbitr.ru e-mail: [email protected]
DECISION
Moscow
9 June 2016
Case No. А40-124221/2015
The operative part of the decision was announced on 2 June 2016
The full text of the decision was delivered on 9 June 2016
The Moscow Circuit Arbitrazh Court
consisting of:
presiding judge S.V. Krasnova,
judges E.A. Ananyina, V.A. Dolgasheva,
involving:
on behalf of the applicant – “Television Company ‘Atlant-SV’” Limited Liability Company – A.S. Titov under
the power of attorney of 24 August 2015,
on behalf of the interested party – the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information
Technology, and Mass Media – A.A. Kulikov under power of attorney No. 129-D of 30 July 2015,
having considered a cassation appeal of Atlant-SV Television Company LLC at the court hearing on 2 June
2016,
against the decision of 13 October 2015
of the Moscow Arbitrazh Court
adopted by judge T.I. Makhlaeva,
against the decision of 20 January 2016
of the Ninth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal
adopted by judges L.G. Yakovleva, S.M. Mukhin, M.V. Kocheshkova,
in case No. А40-124221/2015
in relation to the application of Atlant-SV Television Company LLC (Main State Registration Number:
1149102062317)
against the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media
(Main State Registration Number: 1097746174976)
on challenging the actions
ESTABLISHED:
‘Television Company ‘Atlant-SV’” Limited Liability Company (hereinafter – the applicant, the
company, Atlant-SV Television Company LLC) filed with the Moscow Arbitrazh Court an application against
the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media
(hereinafter – the interested party, Roskomnadzor) seeking the invalidation of the actions related to the return
of the application of the company dated 24 March 2015 (incoming reference No. 30330-smi) on the registration
of the mass media outlet – the “ATR T” TV channel (ATR T TV channel) by sending letter No. 04-37088 of
24 April 2015.
The stated claims were dismissed by the decision of the Moscow Arbitrazh Court dated 13 October
2015, which was upheld by the decision of the Ninth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal dated 20 January 2016.
The Arbitrazh Courts dismissed the above claims as no complete information was submitted to
Roskomnadzor pursuant to the provisions of Law of the Russian Federation of 27 December 1991 No. 2124-
1 “On mass media” (hereinafter – the Mass Media Law).
Disagreeing with the decisions of the courts, Atlant-SV Television Company LLC filed a cassation
appeal to the Moscow Circuit Arbitrazh Court, in which it seeks the cancellation of the challenged judicial acts
as illegal and ungrounded, and rendered in violation of the law.
Annex 280
2
In support of the stated claims, the company indicates that the above-mentioned requirement of
Roskomnadzor to provide additional information is illegal, and the courts’ conclusions regarding the
applicant’s submission of an incomplete list of information do not correspond to the circumstances of the case.
In addition, the company believes that the courts’ references to the letters of the Prosecutor General’s Office
of the Russian Federation and the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Crimea are untenable since they do
not evidence that the organisation’s activities were banned.
At the hearing, the applicant’s representative supported the arguments of the cassation appeal on the
grounds set out therein. The representative of the interested party objected to the satisfaction of the cassation
appeal and asked to leave the court decision and ruling unchanged; before the court hearing began, he
submitted a statement of defence in accordance with Article 279 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the
Russian Federation against the cassation appeal to be attached to the case records.
No challenges to the composition of the court were received.
Having heard the representatives of the parties, discussed the arguments of the cassation appeal and
the statement of defence to the cassation appeal, having checked (in accordance with Article 286 of the
Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation) the legality of the challenged judicial acts, establishing
that substantive and procedural laws were correctly applied when considering the case and making the
decisions as well as that the conclusions contained in the challenged judicial acts were compliant with the
factual circumstances established by them in the case and the evidence available in the case, and on the basis
of the arguments contained in the cassation appeal, the court of cassation concluded that the challenged judicial
acts should be left unchanged, and the cassation appeal should be dismissed.
In accordance with Part 1 of Article 198 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation,
citizens, organisations and other persons have the right to apply to the arbitrazh court with an application for
the invalidation of non-normative legal acts and invalidating the decisions and actions (omissions) of the
authorities exercising public powers and officials, if they believe that the challenged non-normative legal act,
decision and action (omission) do not comply with the law or other normative legal act and violate their rights
and legitimate interests in the field of entrepreneurial and other economic activities, illegally impose any
obligations on them and create other obstacles for implementing entrepreneurial and other economic activities.
Given the above, in order to recognise a non-normative legal act as invalid, two conditions must be
met: non-compliance of the challenged non-normative act with the requirements of the law and other normative
legal acts and violation of the rights and legitimate interests of the applicant in the field of entrepreneurial and
other economic activities.
According to Part 4 of Article 200 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, when
considering cases on challenging non-normative legal acts, decisions and actions (omissions) of the state
bodies, local authorities and other authorities and officials, the arbitrazh court, at a court session, examines the
challenged act or its separate provisions and the challenged decisions and actions (omissions), and establishes
whether they comply with the law or other normative legal act, establishes the powers of the authority or person
who adopted the challenged act, decision or committed the challenged actions (omissions), as well as
establishes whether the challenged act, decision and actions (omissions) violate the rights and legitimate
interests of the applicant in the field of entrepreneurial and other economic activities.
On 5 November 2014, the applicant submitted to the Roskomnadzor Directorate for the Republic of
Crimea and Sevastopol with an application for the registration of a mass media outlet – ATR T TV channel.
Notification No. 720-05/91 of 14 November 2014 on the return of the application and the documents
attached thereto, filed for the registration of ATR T TV channel, was sent to the applicant by the Roskomnadzor
Directorate for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol and was not considered.
On 24 December 2014, Roskomnadzor received the application from the company for the registration
of the mass media outlet – ATR T TV channel.
As the document that was submitted to confirm the payment of the state duty contained incorrect
details, the application was returned by notification No. 04-6235 of 26 January 2015.
On 9 February 2015, the company reapplied to Roskomnadzor with the corresponding application.
By the letter dated 24 April 2015, Roskomnadzor suggested to Atlant-SV Television Company LLC
that it provide confirmation in relation to the founder of ATR T TV channel in compliance with the
requirements of Part 2 of Article 10 of the Mass Media Law.
Thus, in accordance with Part 2 of Article 10 of the Mass Media Law, if the application for the
registration of the mass media outlet is submitted in violation of the requirements of Part 2 of Article 8 or Part
1 of Article 10 of the Mass Media Law, the application shall be returned to the applicant without consideration
and with the indication of grounds for such return.
Annex 280
3
Pursuant to clause 60.1.3. of the Administrative Regulations of Roskomnadzor, approved by Order of
the Ministry of Communications and Mass Media of Russia of 29 December 2011 No. 362, the application for
the registration of the mass media outlet shall be returned to the applicant without consideration, if the
application contains incomplete information.
Article 10 of the Mass Media Law obliges the applicant to submit documents confirming his
compliance with the requirements of the law, including information about the founders of the mass media
outlet.
In accordance with Article 7 of the Mass Media Law, an association of citizens, enterprise, institution
or organisation whose activities are prohibited by law cannot be a founder of a mass media outlet.
Taking into account that the applicant indicated an incomplete scope of information required by the
Mass Media Law, the cassation collegium supports the conclusions of the court of first instance and the appeal
court on the legality and validity of the decision of Roskomnadzor, adopted in light of the letters of the
Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation and the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Crimea.
Thus, according to the letters of the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation and the
Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Crimea received by the interested party, Atlant-SV Television Company
LLC is the founder of ATR TV channel, which carried out public broadcasting of appeals leading to incitement
of social, racial, ethnic and religious hatred, which are prohibited by Article 1 of Federal Law of 25 July 2002
No. 114-FZ “On countering extremist activity”. The letter also indicates that the Prosecutor of the Republic of
Crimea issued a warning on 16 May 2014 to L.E. Islyamov, who is the founder of Atlant-SV Television
Company LLC, about the inadmissibility of extremist activities and violations of Federal Law of 25 July 2002
No. 114-FZ “On countering extremist activity”, as well as the Mass Media Law. In addition, in the course of
the prosecutor’s inspection, other facts of violation of the legislation of the Russian Federation were revealed.
Taking into account the above, it was concluded that the broadcast of the TV programs of ATR TV channel,
the founder of which is Atlant-SV Television Company LLC, contains signs of extremist activity, namely the
incitement of social, racial, ethnic or religious hatred.
In this regard, the interested party, by offering the applicant to confirm the compliance of the TV
channel’s founder with the requirements of Part 2 of Article 7 of the Mass Media Law, acted within the
framework of the applicable legislation. Article 4 of the Mass Media Law contains an exhaustive list of
inappropriate uses of mass media outlets. Taking into account the information available to Roskomnadzor
about the activities of the persons who are the founders of the TV channel and doubts arisen in connection
with this, the interested party acted lawfully in order to prevent the use of the mass media outlets for the
dissemination of extremist materials.
The courts, having examined and evaluated the evidence, in light of the scope and grounds of the stated
claims, as well as the sufficiency and interconnection of all the evidence in their entirety, having established
all the circumstances that constitute facts in issue and are essential for the correct resolution of the dispute, and
taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, correctly indicated that an extract from the unified
state register of legal entities and a certificate of registration of the organisation with the tax authority at its
location in the Russian Federation are not, by themselves, information that is requested.
At the same time, the arguments made in the cassation appeal about the obligation of the registering
authority to request independently the necessary information from the relevant state authorities were properly
assessed during the consideration of the case.
The arguments of the complaint about the violation of the uniformity of the application of the law by
the court of first instance and the appeal court when passing the challenged judicial acts are rejected by the
cassation court. In the case indicated by the applicant, the circumstances that served as a basis for the
company’s appeal to the arbitrazh court do not coincide with those considered in the present case.
The arguments of the cassation appeal, indicated in substantiation of the stated requirements for the
cancellation of the challenged judicial acts – repeating in essence the arguments of the application and the
appeal – were discussed and rejected by the courts on grounds of unreasonableness since they were not
confirmed when the case materials were inspected.
That the applicant that filed the cassation appeal treated the factual circumstances of the case
established by the court and interpreted the law in a different manner does not mean that there was a
miscarriage of justice as the case was considered.
Since the factual circumstances relevant to the case were established by the court of the first instance
and the appeal court on the basis of a full, comprehensive and objective examination of the evidence in the
case, taking into account all the arguments and objections of the persons involved in the case, and the final
conclusions of the courts are based on the correct application of substantive and procedural laws, the court of
Annex 280
4
cassation has no grounds for cancelling or changing the challenged judicial acts pursuant to Article 288 of the
Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation.
No violations of procedural law entailing the unconditional cancellation of the judicial acts have been
established.
Pursuant to Articles 284–289 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the court
DECIDED:
To uphold the decision of the Moscow Arbitrazh Court of 13 October 2015 and the decision of the
Ninth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal of 20 January 2016 in case No. А40-124221/2015 and to dismiss the cassation
appeal.
Presiding judge S.V. Krasnova
Judge E.A. Ananyina
Judge V.A. Dolgasheva
Annex 280
Annex 281
Investigative Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security
Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, Case
No. 2016427026, Ruling, 16 June 2016
1
Translation
RULING
on an outpatient forensic psychiatric examination
Simferopol 16 June 2016
Senior Lieutenant of Justice [Initials, surname], an Investigator of the Investigative Department of
the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, having
reviewed case files of criminal case No. 2016427026,
ESTABLISHED:
This criminal case was initiated on 12 May 2016 by the Investigative Department of the Directorate
of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol against Ilmi
Rustemovich Umerov, a Russian national, born on 3 August 1957, into a crime under Part 2 of Article 280.1
of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The preliminary investigation established that on 19 March 2016, while in the territory of Ukraine
(Kiev), in furtherance of his intention to take action to violate the territorial integrity of the Russian
Federation, under circumstances unknown to the investigation, when taking part in a live television
programme named after Noman Çelebicihan on the Ukrainian television channel “ATR”, while giving an
interview to a presenter of the above television channel, I.R. Umerov intentionally and publicly addressed an
unlimited number of people calling them to take action to return the Republic of Crimea to the jurisdiction of
Ukraine.
Afterwards, under circumstances unknown to the investigation, the video of that television address
of I.R. Umerov was made public on the Internet, namely on YouTube at the address:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyTuPNPkTUI titled “Ilmi Umerov, Live, 19 March 2016” that may be
accessed by an unlimited number of people.
According to Report No. 77 dated 21 April 2016 prepared by a specialist of the Directorate of the
Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, insofar as linguistics is
concerned, the verbatim transcript of “Ilmi Umerov, Live, 19 March 2016” contains a call for actions to
violate the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation.
Further, on 9 June 2016, the Investigative Department of the Federal Security Service Directorate of
Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol received a written motion from the defence counsel D.M.
Temishev (certificate No. 1289 of 24 December 2015, warrant No. 27 of 12 May 2016) who is allowed to be
involved in the criminal proceedings and acts in the interests of the accused I.R. Umerov; D.M. Temishev
requested to have a copy of an extract from I.R. Umerov’s outpatient medical record dated 23 May 2016 (on
one page) enclosed to the case files of criminal case No. 2016427026. After that, on 9 June 2016, the above
motion was granted.
According to the copy of the extract from I.R. Umerov’s outpatient medical record of 23 May 2016,
he is diagnosed with Stage 3 of Parkinson’s disease; Stage 2 of high blood pressure; a state after the excision
of a left atrium myxoma (a heart surgery in 2011); Stage 2 of diabetes; cerebral atherosclerosis.
The above circumstances make it necessary to assess the mental state of I.R. Umerov, which requires
special knowledge in psychiatry.
In view of the above, relying upon Articles 195 and 199 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the
Russian Federation,
RULED:
1. To commission an outpatient forensic psychiatric examination under criminal case No.
2016427026, with it to be conducted by expert physicians of the State Public Healthcare Institution of the
Republic of Crimea “Crimean Republican Psychiatric Clinical Hospital No. 1” of the City of Simferopol.
2. The experts are to address the questions below:
- was I.R. Umerov suffering from any mental disorder while committing the incriminated acts, if yes,
what mental disorder exactly, and did that mental disorder prevent him from understanding what actions he
was committing or controlling them at the time of crime commission?
Annex 281
- was I.R. Umerov in a state of temporary mental impairment while committing the incriminated
acts, if yes, did that state prevent him from understanding what actions he was committing or controlling
them at the time of crime commission?
- is I.R. Umerov currently suffering from any mental disorder, if yes, what mental disorder exactly,
and does this mental disorder prevent him from understanding what actions he is committing and controlling
them; is he mentally ill?
- if I.R. Umerov is suffering from any mental disorder, does he require compulsory treatment, and
are there any contraindications thereto?
3. The expert committee is to examine I.R. Umerov and be provided with copies of the case files in
criminal case No. 2016427026 relating to the subject-matter of this examination.
4. If required, the experts may be provided with other criminal case files as necessary for this
examination.
5. To instruct the Head Physician of the State Public Healthcare Institution of the Republic of
Crimea “Crimean Republican Psychiatric Clinical Hospital No. 1” of the City of Simferopol, to explain to
the expert physicians their rights and obligations under Article 57 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the
Russian Federation and to warn them of criminal liability under Article 307 of the Criminal Code of the
Russian Federation for giving a knowingly false opinion.
6. To send this ruling for execution by the State Public Healthcare Institution of the Republic of
Crimea “Crimean Republican Psychiatric Clinical Hospital No. 1” of the City Simferopol.
Investigator of the Investigative Department
of the Directorate of the Federal Security
Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea
and Sevastopol
Senior Lieutenant of Justice
/Signature/ [Initials, surname]
/STAMP: TRUE COPY
Investigator of the Investigative Department
(Signature) 2016/
Annex 281
Annex 282
Moscow Circuit Arbitrazh Court, Case No. A40-119488/2015,
Decision, 28 June 2016
1
Translation
106652_868563
MOSCOW CIRCUIT ARBITRAZH COURT
GSP-4, 9 Seleznevskaya Street, Moscow, 127994,
official website: http://www.fasmo.arbitr.ru e-mail: [email protected]
DECISION
Moscow
28 June 2016
Case No. А40-119488/2015
The operative part of the decision was announced on 21 June 2016
The full text of the decision was delivered on 28 June 2016
Moscow Circuit Arbitrazh Court
consisting of:
presiding judge S.V. Krasnova,
judges V.V. Kuznetsova, R.R. Latypova,
with the participation in the hearing:
from the applicant – “Television company ‘Atlant-SV’” Limited Liability Company (Atlant-SV Television
Company LLC) – A.S. Titov under the power of attorney of 24 August 2015,
from the interested party – the Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Telecom, Information
Technologies and Mass Communications – A.A. Kulikov under the power of attorney of 30 July 2015 No.
129-D,
having considered the cassation appeal of Atlant-SV Television Company LLC at the court hearing on 21 June
2016,
on the decision of 16 October 2015
of the Moscow Arbitrazh Court
adopted by judge S.O. Laskina,
on the decision of 25 January 2016
of the Ninth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal
adopted by judges L.G. Yakovleva, S.M. Mukhin, M.V. Kocheshkova,
in case No. А40-119488/2015
at the application of Atlant-SV Television Company LLC (MSRN: 1149102062317)
to the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media on
challenging the actions (omissions) of the state body
ESTABLISHED:
‘Television Company ‘Atlant-SV’” Limited Liability Company (hereinafter – the applicant, the
company, Atlant-SV Television Company LLC) applied to the Moscow Arbitrazh Court with an application
against the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media
(hereinafter – the interested party, Roskomnadzor) seeking the invalidation of the actions related to the return
of the application of the company registered on 27 March 2015 (incoming reference No. 33248-smi) on the
registration of the mass media outlet – the online outlet “15 minutes” (returned by the letter of 24 April 2015),
as well as recognition of the omission of Roskomnadzor being illegal; on the obligation to consider the
application for registration, subsequently registering the mass media outlet – the online outlet “15 minutes”.
The stated claims were dismissed by the decision of the Moscow Arbitrazh Court of 16 October 2015,
upheld by the decision of the Ninth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal of 25 January 2016.
The Arbitrazh Courts dismissed the above claims as no complete information was submitted to
Roskomnadzor pursuant to the provisions of Law of the Russian Federation of 27 December 1991 No. 2124-
1 “On mass media” (hereinafter – the Mass Media Law), namely: the founder's compliance with the
requirements of Part 2 of Article 7 of the Mass Media Law has not been confirmed.
Annex 282
2
Disagreeing with the decisions of the courts, Atlant-SV Television Company LLC filed a cassation
appeal to the Moscow Circuit Arbitrazh Court, in which it asks to cancel the challenged judicial acts as illegal
and ungrounded, and rendered in violation of the law.
In support of the stated claims, the company indicates that the above-mentioned requirement of
Roskomnadzor to provide additional information is illegal, and the courts’ conclusions on the applicant’s
submission of an incomplete list of information does not correspond to the circumstances of the case. In
addition, the company believes that the courts’ references to the letters of the Prosecutor General’s Office of
the Russian Federation and the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Crimea are untenable, since they do not
not evidence that the organisation’s activities were banned.
The representative of Atlant-SV Television Company LLC at the court session declared a challenge to
the presiding judge in the case S.V. Krasnova, based on the results of the consideration of which a
determination was made on 21 June 2016.
At the hearing, the applicant’s representative supported the arguments of the cassation appeal on the
grounds set out therein.
The representative of the interested party objected to the satisfaction of the cassation appeal and asked
to leave the court decision and ruling unchanged; before the court hearing began, he submitted a statement of
defence in accordance with Article 279 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation against the
cassation appeal to be attached to the case records.
Having listened to the representatives of the parties, discussed the arguments of the cassation appeal
and the statement of defence to the cassation appeal, having checked (in accordance with Article 286 of the
Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation) the legality of the challenged judicial acts, establishing
that substantive and procedural laws were correctly applied when considering the case and making the
decisions as well as that the conclusions contained in the challenged judicial acts were compliant with the
factual circumstances established by them in the case and the evidence available in the case, and on the basis
of the arguments contained in the cassation appeal, the court of cassation concluded that the challenged judicial
acts should be left unchanged, and the cassation appeal should be dismissed.
In accordance with Part 1 of Article 198 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation,
citizens, organisations and other persons have the right to apply to the arbitrazh court with an application for
the invalidation of non-normative legal acts and invalidating the decisions and actions (omissions) of the
authorities exercising public powers and officials, if they believe that the challenged non-normative legal act,
decision and action (omission) do not comply with the law or other normative legal act and violate their rights
and legitimate interests in the field of entrepreneurial and other economic activities, illegally impose any
obligations on them and create other obstacles for implementing entrepreneurial and other economic activities.
Given the above, in order to recognise a non-normative legal act as invalid, two conditions must be
met: non-compliance of the challenged non-normative act with the requirements of the law and other normative
legal acts and violation of the rights and legitimate interests of the applicant in the field of entrepreneurial and
other economic activities.
According to Part 4 of Article 200 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, when
considering cases on challenging non-normative legal acts, decisions and actions (omissions) of the state
bodies, local authorities and other authorities and officials, the arbitrazh court, at a court session, examines the
challenged act or its separate provisions and the challenged decisions and actions (omissions), and establishes
whether they comply with the law or other normative legal act, establishes the powers of the authority or person
who adopted the challenged act, decision or committed the challenged actions (omissions), as well as
establishes whether the challenged act, decision and actions (omissions) violate the rights and legitimate
interests of the applicant in the field of entrepreneurial and other economic activities.
On 24 March 2015, the applicant submitted to Roskomnadzor with an application for registration of a
mass media outlet – online outlet “15 Minutes”.
By letter dated 24 April 2015 No. 04-37090, the company received the application and the documents
attached to it, submitted for the purpose of registering the online outlet “15 minutes” back without
consideration, in which the interested party suggested that the company confirm the founder’s compliance with
the requirements of Part 2 of Article 7 of the Mass Media Law.
Believing that the actions of Roskomnadzor, as well as the factual omission and evasion of the
authorized body from registering the specified mass media outlet were illegal and violating the rights and
legitimate interests of the company in the field of entrepreneurial activity, the applicant appealed to the
arbitrazh court with the specified requirements.
Thus, in accordance with Part 2 of Article 10 of the Mass Media Law, if the application for the
registration of the mass media outlet is submitted in violation of the requirements of Part 2 of Article 8 or Part
Annex 282
3
1 of Article 10 of the Mass Media Law, the application shall be returned to the applicant without consideration
and with the indication of grounds for such return.
Pursuant to clause 60.1.3. of the Administrative Regulations of Roskomnadzor, approved by Order of
the Ministry of Communications and Mass Media of Russia of 29 December 2011 No. 362, the application for
the registration of the mass media outlet shall be returned to the applicant without consideration, if the
application contains incomplete information.
Article 10 of the Mass Media Law obliges the applicant to submit documents confirming his
compliance with the requirements of the law, including information about the founders of the mass media
outlet.
In accordance with Article 7 of the Mass Media Law, an association of citizens, enterprise, institution
or organisation whose activities are prohibited by law cannot be a founder of a mass media outlet.
Taking into account that the applicant indicated an incomplete scope of information required by the
Mass Media Law, the cassation collegium supports the conclusions of the court of first instance and the appeal
court on the legality and validity of the decision of Roskomnadzor, adopted in light of the letters of the
Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation and the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Crimea.
Thus, according to the letters of the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation and the
Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Crimea received by the interested party, Atlant-SV Television Company
LLC is the founder of ATR TV channel, which carried out public broadcasting of appeals leading to incitement
of social, racial, ethnic and religious hatred, which are prohibited by Article 1 of Federal Law of 25 July 2002
No. 114-FZ “On countering extremist activity”. The letter also indicates that the Prosecutor of the Republic of
Crimea issued a warning on 16 May 2014 to L.E. Islyamov, who is the founder of Atlant-SV Television
Company LLC, about the inadmissibility of extremist activities and violations of Federal Law of 25 July 2002
No. 114-FZ “On countering extremist activity”, as well as the Mass Media Law. In addition, in the course of
the prosecutor’s inspection, other facts of violation of the legislation of the Russian Federation were revealed.
Taking into account the above, it was concluded that the broadcast of the TV programs of ATR TV channel,
the founder of which is Atlant-SV Television Company LLC, contains signs of extremist activity, namely the
incitement of social, racial, ethnic or religious hatred.
In addition, in the course of the prosecutor’s inspection, other violations of the legislation of the
Russian Federation were revealed.
In this regard, the interested party, by offering the applicant to confirm the compliance of the TV
channel’s founder with the requirements of Part 2 of Article 7 of the Mass Media Law, acted within the
framework of the applicable legislation. Article 4 of the Mass Media Law contains an exhaustive list of
inappropriate uses of mass media outlets. Taking into account the information available to Roskomnadzor
about the activities of the persons who are the founders of the TV channel and doubts arisen in connection
with this, the interested party acted lawfully in order to prevent the use of the mass media outlets for the
dissemination of extremist materials.
The courts, having examined and evaluated the evidence, in light of the scope and grounds of the stated
claims, as well as the sufficiency and interconnection of all the evidence in their entirety, having established
all the circumstances that constitute facts in issue and are essential for the correct resolution of the dispute, and
taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, correctly indicated that an extract from the unified
state register of legal entities and a certificate of registration of the organisation with the tax authority at its
location in the Russian Federation are not, by themselves, information that is requested.
At the same time, the arguments of the cassation appeal about the obligation of the registering authority
to independently request the necessary information from the relevant state bodies received their proper
assessment when considering this dispute.
The arguments of the complaint about the violation of the uniformity of the application of the law by
the court of first instance and the appeal court when passing the challenged judicial acts are rejected by the
cassation court. In the case indicated by the applicant, the circumstances that served as a basis for the
company’s appeal to the arbitrazh court do not coincide with those considered in the present case.
The arguments of the cassation appeal, indicated in substantiation of the stated requirements for the
cancellation of the challenged judicial acts – repeating in essence the arguments of the application and the
appeal – were discussed and rejected by the courts on grounds of unreasonableness since they were not
confirmed when the case materials were inspected.
That the applicant that filed the cassation appeal treated the factual circumstances of the case
established by the court and interpreted the law in a different manner does not mean that there was a
miscarriage of justice as the case was considered.
Annex 282
4
Since the factual circumstances relevant to the case were established by the court of the first instance
and the appeal court on the basis of a full, comprehensive and objective examination of the evidence in the
case, taking into account all the arguments and objections of the persons involved in the case, and the final
conclusions of the courts are based on the correct application of substantive and procedural laws, the court of
cassation has no grounds for cancelling or changing the challenged judicial acts pursuant to Article 288 of the
Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation.
No violations of procedural law entailing the unconditional cancellation of the judicial acts have been
established.
Pursuant to Articles 284–289 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the court
DECIDED:
To uphold the decision of the Moscow Arbitrazh Court of 16 October 2015 and the decision of the
Ninth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal of 22 January 2016 in case No. А40-119488/15 and to dismiss the cassation
appeal.
Presiding judge S.V. Krasnova
Judge V.V. Kuznetsov
Judge R.P. Latypova
Annex 282
Annex 283
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, No. 1428-O, Ruling,
7 July 2016 (excerpts)
Translation
Excerpts
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
RULING
of 7 July 2016 No. 1428-O
FOLLOWING THE APPLICATION OF THE CITIZENS ANASTASIYA VLADIMIROVNA
ANOKHINA, DENIS VLADIMIROVICH BADOV AND OTHERS
REGARDING VIOLATION OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY PROVISIONS OF
PARAGRAPH 1 OF PART 4 OF ARTICLE 6, PART 1 OF ARTICLE 7 AND PARTS 1.1 OF
ARTICLE 8 OF THE FEDERAL LAW “ON ASSEMBLIES, RALLIES, DEMONSTRATIONS,
MARCHES AND PICKETING”, AS WELL AS PART 5 OF ARTICLE 20.2 OF THE CODE ON
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENCES OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
[…]
Page 5
[…]
3.
[…]
Page 6
The procedure for prior notification of the executive authority of the constituent entity of the Russian
Federation or a local authority about holding a public event is aimed at providing the relevant public authorities
with the necessary information about the form, place (route), commencement and end times of the public event,
the expected number of its participants, means (methods) of ensuring public order and organization of medical
care, as well as about the organizers and persons authorized to perform administrative functions for organizing
and holding a public event; otherwise, without proper understanding of the planned public event, its nature and
scale, the public authorities are not able to fulfill the obligation, imposed on them by Article 2 of the
Constitution of the Russian Federation, to observe and protect the rights and freedoms of people and citizens
and take the necessary measures, including preventive and organizational measures, aimed at ensuring safe
conditions for holding a public event both for the public event participants and for other people.
[…]
Annex 283
Annex 284
Explanation of D.Ya. Selyametov,
13 July 2016
1
Translation
EXPLANATION
Simferopol district 13 July 2016
(place of issue)
Senior Operative at the Internal Affairs Department /illegible/ for the Republic of
Crimea, Police Major /illegible/
Relying on Part 1 of Article 86 and Part 1 of Article 144 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian
Federation, I received an explanation from:
1. Surname, name, patronymic /illegible/ Yakubovich Selyametov
2. Date of birth […]
3. Place of birth the city of Simferopol
4. Residential and (or) registered address […]
5. Citizenship Russian
6. Education secondary
7. Matrimonial status unmarried
8. Place of work or education unemployed
9. Association with military duty no
10. Previous convictions verbal assurances of no previous convictions
11. Passport or another identity document Passport [series] No. […] issued on […]
/illegible/: [phone No.] /Signature/
(signature of the individual that provided the
explanation)
Before the interrogation is started, it is explained to me that I have the following rights:
1) in accordance with Article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, [I have the right] not to
testify against myself, my spouse (my wife) and other close relatives defined by Clause 4 of Article 5 of
the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation;
2) to provide testimony and explanations in native language or a language I speak;
3) to use an assistance of an interpreter free of charge;
4) to apply for disqualification of individuals that participate in the interrogation;
5) to submit motions and provide complaints on actions (inaction) and decisions of the inquiry body,
inquiry officer, investigator, head of the investigative authority, prosecutor;
6) to arrive for interrogation being accompanied by an attorney;
7) to apply for security measures.
/Signature/
(signature of the individual that provided the
explanation)
Article 306 “Knowingly false denunciation” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was
explained to me before the interrogation started,
/Signature/
(signature of the individual that provided the
explanation)
Where an oral report of a crime is provided during the interrogation, the applicant is warned of criminal
liability for knowingly false denunciation under Article 306 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,
a corresponding note is made in the explanation, which is certified by the signature of the applicant.
On the merits of the case I can give the following explanation:
Since birth, I have lived at the above address with my parents.
On 1 April 2016 at about 10:30 p.m., I arrived at cafe “Bagdad” with a purpose to have a look at the
current situation in cafe “Bagdad”, since my acquaintances called me and said that in this cafe the police
Annex 284
2
officers detained a group of people, which included my acquaintances. Having approached cafe “Bagdad”,
located in village Pionerskoe, I saw that police officers wearing uniform had detained a group of people,
which included my acquaintances, Ismet Mukhterem and Osman Seitmemetov. Having approached the said
individuals and asked what had happened, I was also detained and taken to the police administrative
building, located on 19 Dekabristov St. In this building the police officers verified my identity then
voluntarily, with my consent, fingerprinted and took buccal epithelia and subsequently interrogated me on
the involvement in illegal armed groups and extremist activities. After the said procedures I was released.
The next day me and my acquaintances, Ismet Mukhterem and Osman Seitmemetov, applied to human
rights activist Emil Kurbedinov who prepared statements on our behalf to various law enforcement bodies
and sent them himself. I am not aware where exactly Emil Kurbedinov sent these statements. In total, he
wrote, and I signed, about 7-8 applications and complaints.
The purpose of me applying to human rights activist Emil Kurbedinov and writing the statements was to
draw the attention of law enforcement bodies to the situation in cafe “Baghdad”. Since attention has been
drawn to my statement at the present time I have no complaints against the police officers and I do not desire
to have further review to be performed, I apply for termination of the review. I have no complaints. On this
fact I have no further explanations.
The above is an accurate record of my statement which I have read. /Signature/
Senior Operative at the Internal Affairs Department /illegible/
of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Republic of Crimea
Annex 284
Annex 285
Explanation of I.S. Mukhterem,
14 July 2016
1
Translation
EXPLANATION
Dobroe village, Simferopol district 14 July 2016
(place of issue)
Senior /illegible/ at the Internal Affairs Department /illegible/ of the Ministry of Internal
Affairs for the Republic of Crimea, /illegible/ Police
Relying on Part 1 of Article 86 and Part 1 of Article 144 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian
Federation, I received an explanation from:
1. Surname, name, patronymic Mukhterem Ismet /illegible/
2. Date of birth […]
3. Place of birth Simferopol district, Dobroe village
4. Residential and (or) registered address […]
5. Citizenship Russian
6. Education vocational secondary
7. Matrimonial status unmarried
8. Place of work or education State Enterprise /illegible/
9. Association with military duty yes
10. Previous convictions verbal assurances of no previous convictions
11. Passport or another identity document Passport series […] No. […] issued on […] by
[…]
/Signature/
(signature of the individual that provided the
explanation)
Before the interrogation is started, it is explained to me that I have the following rights:
1) in accordance with Article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, [I have the right] not to
testify against myself, my spouse (my wife) and other close relatives defined by Clause 4 of Article 5 of
the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation;
2) to provide testimony and explanations in native language or a language I speak;
3) to use an assistance of an interpreter free of charge;
4) to apply for disqualification of individuals that participate in the interrogation;
5) to submit motions and provide complaints on actions (inaction) and decisions of the inquiry body,
inquiry officer, investigator, head of the investigative body, prosecutor;
6) to arrive for interrogation being accompanied by an attorney;
7) to apply for security measures.
/Signature/
(signature of the individual that provided the
explanation)
Article 306 “Knowingly false denunciation” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was
explained to me before the interrogation started,
/Signature/
(signature of the individual that provided the
explanation)
Where an oral report of a crime is provided during the interrogation, the applicant is warned of criminal
liability for knowingly false denunciation under Article 306 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,
a corresponding note is made in the explanation, which is certified by the signature of the applicant.
On the merits of the case I can give the following explanation:
On 1 April 2016, me and my acquaintance named Osman Seitmemetov arrived at cafe “Bagdad”,
located in village Pionerskoe of the Simferopol district of the Republic of Crimea, for the purpose of
Annex 285
2
recreation. While staying in cafe “Bagdad”, I did not consume alcoholic beverages and drugs.
About half an hour after my arrival at this cafe, around 10 p.m., the police officers wearing civilian
clothing and uniforms arrived at the said cafe and frisked me, some of the cafe visitors were tested for drug
use. They took urine, and the analysis was performed by a woman using a special tester. After these
procedures I was offered to go to the administrative building of the Ministry of Internal Affairs located on 19
Dekabristov St. Upon arrival at the building I provided voluntary explanations on the fact of participation in
illegal armed formations, extremist organizations. I was also voluntarily photographed, fingerprinted and
taken the samples of buccal epithelia. After the said procedures I was released. The next day I and two my
acquaintances, Osman and Demirelya, applied to human rights activist Emil Kurbedinov, who made
statements on our behalf and sent them to various law enforcement bodies.
The purpose of this statement was to draw the attention of law enforcement bodies to the current
situation, and, in my opinion, rude behavior of the police officers during the said actions. But none of the
police officers used physical violence against me personally, none of the police officers insulted me
personally. At the moment I have no complaints, and I apply for termination of the review.
The above is an accurate record of my statement which I have read /signed/
Senior /illegible/ at the Internal Affairs Department /illegible/
of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Republic of Crimea
Major of Police /signed/ /illegible/
Annex 285
Annex 286
Explanation of O.N. Seitmemetov,
14 July 2016
1
Translation
EXPLANATION
Simferopol district 14 July 2016
(place of issue)
Senior /illegible/ at the Internal Affairs Department /illegible/ of the Ministry of Internal
Affairs for the Republic of Crimea Police /illegible/
(class ranking or military rank, surname, initials)
In accordance with Part 1 of Article 86 and Part 1 of Article 144 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the
Russian Federation, in the premise
/illegible/
(specify exact premise)
From 7 30 a.m. to 8 00 a.m. I received the explanations from citizen:
1. Surname, name, patronymic Osman /illegible/ Seitmemetov
2. Date of birth […]
3. Place of birth Simferopol
4. Residential and (or) registered address […]
telephone […]
5. Nationality Russia
6. Education higher
7. Matrimonial status unmarried
8. Place of work or education unemployed
9. Association with military duty liable for call-up
(place of military registration)
10. Previous convictions verbal assurances of no previous convictions
(time and court of conviction, article of the Criminal
Code of the Russian Federation, type and amount of
punishment, time of release)
11. Passport or another identity document Passport [series] No. […] issued on […] by […]
/Signature/
(signature of the individual that provided the
explanation)
Before the interrogation is started, it is explained to me that I have the following rights:
1) in accordance with Article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, [I have the right] not to
testify against myself, my spouse (my wife) and other close relatives defined by Clause 4 of Article 5 of
the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation;
2) to provide testimony and explanations in native language or a language I speak;
3) to use an assistance of an interpreter free of charge;
4) to apply for disqualification of individuals that participate in the interrogation;
5) to submit motions and provide complaints on actions (inaction) and resolutions of the inquiry body,
inquiry officer, investigator, head of the investigative body, prosecutor;
6) to arrive for interrogation being accompanied by an attorney;
7) to apply for security measures.
/Signature/
(signature of the individual that provided the
explanation)
On the merits of the case I can give the following explanation:
On 1 April 2016 at about 9 p.m. me and my acquaintance, Mukhterem Ismet, arrived at the cafe
“Bagdad”, located in village Pionerskoe, Simferopol district, for the purpose of recreation. While staying in
Annex 286
2
this cafe I did not consume alcoholic beverages and drugs.
At about 10 p.m. police officers who were wearing uniform and civilian clothes arrived at the cafe
“Bagdad”. Entering the cafe the police officers conducted an external inspection of the individuals who
were present in the cafe. After the inspection I was asked to go to the toilet where I provided my urine, which
was tested by a woman who arrived with the police officers using a tester in my presence for drugs in my
body. No drugs were found in my body. After that the police officers said that I have to go with them to the
administrative building of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Republic of Crimea located on 19
Dekabristov St. for identification and interrogation as to the fact of being present in this cafe, on employment
and also on participation in any illegal armed groups and extremist organizations. Arriving at the
administrative building of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Crimea located on 19
Dekabristov St. I gave explanations on the above issues voluntarily and I was also voluntarily fingerprinted
and buccal epithelium were taken from me. I was released after the said procedures.
During my stay in the specified building located on 19 Dekabristov St., none of the police officers
exerted any physical or moral influence on me.
The next day my acquaintances and I applied to human rights activist Emil Kurbedinov, who made
statements on our behalf and sent them to various law enforcement bodies. I am not aware where exactly he
sent these statements.
The purpose of my application to Emil Kurbedinov and the law enforcement bodies was to draw the
attention of law enforcement bodies to the situation in cafe “Bagdad”. Since attention has been drawn to my
statement I currently have no complaints against the police officers and I do not want a pre-investigation
review on this fact, and I apply for termination of the review. I have no complaints. I have no further
explanation on this fact.
The above is an accurate record of my statement which I have read. /signed/
Senior /illegible/ at the Internal Affairs Department /illegible/
of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Republic of Crimea,
/illegible/ Police /Signature/ R.M. /illegible/
Annex 286
Annex 287
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Case No. 1707-О,
Ruling, 19 July 2016
1
Translation
RULING
OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
on refusal to accept for consideration the complaint of the citizen of Ukraine Dmitry
Fedorovich Papenko, regarding the violation of his constitutional rights by Article 2, by
Part 2, Article 6 and by Article 7 of the Federal Law “On Application of the Provisions
of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Procedural Code of
the Russian Federation on the Territory of the Republic of Crimea and the Federal City
of Sevastopol”
Saint Petersburg 19 July 2016
The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation composed of Presiding Judge V.D. Zorkin, judges
K.V. Aranovsky, A.I. Boitsov, N.S. Bondar, G.A. Gadzhiev, Yu.M. Danilov, L.M. Zharkova, G.A. Zhilin,
S.M. Kazantsev, M.I. Kleandrov, S.D. Knyazev, A.N. Kokotov, L.O. Krasavchikova, S.P. Mavrin,
N.V. Melnikov, Yu.D. Rudkin, O.S. Khokhryakova, V.G. Yaroslavtsev,
having reviewed the possibility of acceptance for consideration of the complaint of the citizen of Ukraine
D.F. Papenko at the session of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation
has established as follows:
1. In his complaint submitted to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation the citizen of Ukraine
D.F. Papenko, convicted by the decision of the Balaklavskiy District Court of Sevastopol of 8 December 2014
(as amended by the Decision of the Cassation Court on 3 February 2016) for commission of crimes against
sexual inviolability of a minor in 2007–2009, including crimes qualified under Clause b, Part Four, Article 131
“Rape” and Clause b, Part Four, Article 132 “Sexual Assault” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,
appeals against the constitutionality of the following provisions of Federal Law of 5 May 2014 No. 91-FZ “On
Application of Provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Procedural Code
of the Russian Federation on the Territory of the Republic of Crimea and the Federal City of Sevastopol”:
Article 2 according to which the criminal nature and punishability of acts committed on the territory of
the Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol prior to 18 March 2014 shall be established in accordance
with the criminal laws of the Russian Federation; however, no change for the worse is permitted;
Part 2, Article 6, which provides that if criminal proceedings were initiated prior to 18 March 2014, they
shall be continued in accordance with the procedure established by the Criminal Procedural Code of the
Russian Federation, provided that there are no grounds for returning the criminal case to the prosecutor in
accordance with Article 237 of the aforementioned Code; upon a motion of the prosecutor, the acts committed
by the accused shall be requalified by the court in accordance with the Criminal Code of the Russian
Federation, provided that such requalification does not aggravate the position of the accused; the penalty shall
be imposed taking into account the requirements of Article 10 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation;
proceedings in courts of trial and courts of appeal with regard to a criminal case falling within the competence
of the court specified in Part 3, Article 31 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation shall be
continued by the court considering such case;
Article 7, according to which the provision of Clause 2, Part Two, Article 30 of the Criminal Procedural
Code of the Russian Federation shall be applied on the territory of the Republic of Crimea and the Federal City
of Sevastopol from 1 January 2018.
According to the claimant, the contested provisions create a conflict with the provisions of Part Two,
Annex 287
2
Article 1(2), Article 9 and Part Three, Article 12 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Parts One
and Two, Article 1, Parts One and Two, Article 7, Part Three, Article 8 of the Criminal Procedural Code of
the Russian Federation and contradict Articles 18, 47, 49 (Part 1), 50(Part 1), 56(Part 3) and 64 of the
Constitution of the Russian Federation, as they allow:
holding persons liable in criminal proceedings under the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for
the acts committed on the territory the City of Sevastopol prior to 18 March 2014 against a minor not being a
citizen of the Russian Federation, which also violates the actual and universal principles of criminal law;
continuing the court proceedings commenced prior to 18 March 2014 the same judges of district court
(a panel of three professional judges), without bringing charges under the Russian criminal law, without the
explanation of the rights envisaged by Part Five, Article 217 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian
Federation, without due regard being had to jurisdiction and without granting the accused the right to a trial
by jury;
reconvicting a person for the acts for which such person has already been found guilty in accordance
with the procedure provided for by the criminal procedure laws of Ukraine and with regard to which conviction
was reversed as per the appeal procedure;
cumulative sentencing by applying partial cumulative sentence provisions of Part Three, Article 69 of
the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, while Article 70 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine provides for a
possibility of absorption of less severe punishment by more severe punishment in addition to a cumulative
sentence rule.
Moreover, the claimant requests that the correctness of the qualification of the criminal acts he is charged
with be verified.
2. Having studied the materials submitted, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation finds no
grounds to accept the given complaint for consideration.
The constitutional principles of justice provide for strict compliance with the criminal prosecution
procedure and the correct application of criminal law provisions as the guarantee of criminal proceeding
participants’ rights (Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 24-P dated
19 November 2013).
2.1. The nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege generally acknowledged legal principle (no crime or
penalty without law) envisaged in Article 54 (Part two) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation is
implemented through the interrelated provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation under which
the criminal laws of the Russian Federation consist of this Code and the new laws providing for criminal
liability shall be included in the said Code (Part One, Article 1); the criminality, punishability and other penal
consequences of an act shall be determined solely on the basis of the Code (Part One, Article 3); the criminality
and punishability of an act shall be determined by the criminal law effective as at the date of commission of
such act, which shall be understood as the time at which the respective socially dangerous act (act of omission)
is committed, regardless of the time when the consequences occur (Article 9). Moreover, in case the criminal
law regulation system changes, the said provisions shall operate in conjunction with Article 10 of the Criminal
Code of the Russian Federation which establishes the rules for the retroactive effect of criminal law. Articles 11
and 12 of the Code specify the rules for the operation of criminal law with regard to persons who committed
crimes both within the Russian Federation and abroad.
In its Resolution of 19 March 2014 No. 6-P, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation
acknowledges the existence of a transition period per se as an essential consequence of the formation of new
constituent entities of the Russian Federation — the Republic of Crimea and the Federal City of Sevastopol
— but concludes that the constitutional requirements of the supremacy on the entire territory of the Russian
Federation of not only the Constitution, but also the federal laws of the Russian Federation (Article 4, Part 2),
as well as of the obligation for state and local authorities, officials, citizens and associations thereof to comply
with the Constitution and laws of the Russian Federation (Article 15, Part 2) shall be applicable as a general
rule in any case due to the direct effect of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
Therefore, the related provisions of Article 2 and Part 2, Article 6 of the Federal Law “On Application
of the Provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Procedural Code of the
Annex 287
3
Russian Federation on the Territory of the Republic of Crimea and the Federal City of Sevastopol” that do not
per se determine the penal consequences of crimes committed within the said territories and that stipulate the
requirements for the prohibition of change for the worse and for the application of general rules regarding the
retroactive effect of criminal law in conformity with Article 54 (Part 2) of the Constitution of the Russian
Federation, are aimed at ensuring legal certainty of status of the participants of criminal law relations arising
as a result of the commission of crimes prior to 18 March 2014.
2.2. Under Parts One and Two, Article 1 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation,
this Code establishes the procedure for holding criminal proceedings within the Russian Federation on the
basis of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and such procedure shall be mandatory for courts,
prosecution bodies, pre-trial investigation authorities, bodies of inquiry and other participants of criminal
proceedings.
As the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation noted in its Decision of 14 May 2015 No. 9-P,
under Articles 46 (Part 1) and 47 (Part 1) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation in conjunction with
Articles 19 (Part 1), 121 and 128 (Part 2 and 3) thereof and the provisions of the international legal instruments,
which by virtue of Article 15 (Part 4) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation form an integral part of the
legal system of the Russian Federation, the right to legal protection granted to each person, including the right
to a lawful trial, on the one hand, implies free access to justice for individuals and resolution of the case by a
court assessing evidence on the basis of its judges’ beliefs built upon the comprehensive, complete, impartial
and direct study of all evidence available in the case, without undue delays and within a reasonable time, and,
on the other hand, the immutability of the composition of the court during the consideration of a specific case
and impermissibility of arbitrary change thereof. The instruction regarding the immutability of the composition
of the court is additionally based on the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which provide
that, in the Russian Federation, justice may only be administered by a court (Article 118, Part 1) and which
establish the independence of courts and judges as repositories of judicial power under the system of separation
of powers (Article 10; Article 120, Part 1; Article 124), as well as based on the requirements of formal certainty
of a legal regulation arising out of the constitutional principles of the rule of law (Article 1, Part1; Article 2;
Article 17, Part3; Articles 18 and 19).
In furtherance of the constitutional provisions above, the federal legislator has established in the
Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation the rules for determining the composition of the court
and criminal jurisdiction (Articles 30–32), the issue of which is subject to clarification in a criminal case
submitted to the court (Article 228) and shall be resolved when scheduling a court hearing (Article 231). Upon
its scheduling, a court hearing shall be held taking into account the general conditions of the court proceedings,
including the rule of the immutability of composition of the court, according to which a criminal case shall be
considered by the same judge or the same court panel (in case a judge is unable to continue participating in the
court hearing, such judge shall be substituted by another judge and the criminal proceedings shall be started
over (Article 242 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation).
The issue regarding criminal jurisdiction shall be resolved on the basis of assessment of the facts and
circumstances existing in the course of rendering the respective procedural decision, as the specific legal
relation also arises, exists and is terminated within a specific time. The legislator refers the resolution of this
issue to the stage of preparation for the trial and pre-trial hearing (Article 34, Clause 1, Part One, Article 227
and Clause 1, Part One, Article 236 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation), as apposed
to the trial stage, during which, given the requirement of immutability of the composition of the court, no
change of jurisdiction is allowed, for the purpose of ensuring the stability of legal relations in criminal
proceedings (Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 17 July 2014 No. 1810-O).
The provision of Part 2, Article 6 of the Federal Law “On application of the Provisions of the Criminal
Code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation on the Territory
of the Republic of Crimea and the Federal City of Sevastopol” regarding the continuation after 18 March 2014
of previously initiated criminal proceedings, including the proceedings in cases within the jurisdiction of the
court specified in Article 31 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, is aimed at ensuring
compliance with the principle of the immutability of the composition of the court. The continuation of court
Annex 287
4
proceedings in accordance with the procedure envisaged by the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian
Federation, as a part of the application of the Code to unfinished criminal procedural relations, creates
guarantees of legal certainty for the participants of such relations and is consistent with Article 4 of the said
Code specifying the general principle of law operation in time.
Consequently, Part 2, Article 6 of the Federal Law “On Application of the Provisions of the Criminal
Code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation on the Territory
of the Republic of Crimea and the Federal City of Sevastopol” appealed against by the claimant does not
contradict the constitutional principles of criminal proceedings, does not create any conflict with the provisions
of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation (including with Parts One and Two, Article 7 and
Part Three of Article 8 thereof) and cannot be deemed to violate the claimant’s constitutional rights in the
context specified by the latter.
2.3. Within the meaning of Articles 20 (Part 2), 47 (Part 2) and 123 (Part 4) of the Constitution of the
Russian Federation, the right to a lawful trial granted to a person accused of a crime includes the right to a trial
by jury in cases envisaged by federal law. As follows from the aforementioned Articles of the Constitution of
the Russian Federation, the regulation of this right in conjunction with Articles 71 (Clauses c, d and n), 118
(Part 3) and 128 (Part 3) thereof shall be carried out at the discretion of the federal legislator authorised to
determine in which cases, besides the case stipulated by Article 20 (Part 2) of the Constitution of the Russian
Federation, a jury trial may act as a lawful court in criminal cases placed into the respective category by a
federal law (Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 25 February 2016 No. 6-P).
However, although the jury trial as a form of criminal case consideration does not fundamentally rule
out the confidentiality of a criminal case, the conditions for maintaining confidentiality are properly ensured
if the case is considered by a more narrow panel of decision makers whose professional status implies a more
scrupulous attitude towards the respective information, which not only the accused but also the injured parties
are predictably keen to not disseminate (e.g. in case of sexual crimes) (Decision of the Constitutional Court of
the Russian Federation of 20 May 2014 No. 16-P).
Thus, Federal Law of 28 December 2013 No. 432-FZ “On the Amendment of Certain Legislative Acts
of the Russian Federation for the Purposes of Improving the Rights of the Injured Parties in Criminal
Proceedings” added criminal cases provided for in Parts Four and Five, Article 131, Parts Four and Five of
Article 132 and Part Six, Article 134 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to the list of criminal
cases excluded from the jurisdiction of a judge of a federal court of general jurisdiction and a 12-juror panel
(Clause 2, Part Two, Article 30 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation).
Therefore, Article 7 of the Federal Law “On Application of the Provisions of the Criminal Code of the
Russian Federation and the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation on the Territory of the
Republic of Crimea and the Federal City of Sevastopol” establishing the peculiarities of the effect of Clause 2,
Part Two, Article 30 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation cannot be considered as a
provision violating the claimant’s right to a jury trial.
2.4. The legislative imposition of liability and punishment without taking into account the personality
of the guilty person and other circumstances having objective and reasonable substantiation and contributing
to the adequate legal assessment of the public danger of both the crime and of the person who committed it, as
well as the imposition of penalties without taking into account the circumstances describing the personality of
the accused, would violate the constitutional prohibition of discrimination and the principles of justice and
humanity (Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 19 March 2003 No. 3-P).
Having ratified the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual
Exploitation and Sexual Abuse of 25 October 2007, the Russian Federation undertook the obligation to take
all necessary legislative or other measures ensuring the imposition of criminal liability, among other things,
for performing sexual activities to a child who, under the respective provisions of the national law, has not
reached the permissible age established by law with respect to such activity (Subclause a, Clause 1, Article 18),
as well as to legally establish the age before which it is prohibited to have sexual intercourse with a child
(Clause 2, Article 18).
Despite the claimant’s reasoning, the provisions of the Federal Law “On Application of the Provisions
Annex 287
5
of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation
on the Territory of the Republic of Crimea and the Federal City of Sevastopol” appealed against do not rule
out liability for the crimes against the sexual inviolability of a minor committed prior to 18 March 2014 and
are therefore consistent both with the requirements of Articles 131 and 132 of the Criminal Code of the Russian
Federation and with the international obligations of the Russian Federation.
Moreover, in the case of cumulative offences penalty is imposed on a person taking into account the
nature and the level of public danger of the crimes committed, the circumstances of their commission and the
personality of the guilty person, solely for the publicly dangerous acts (acts of omission) and the actual publicly
dangerous consequences thereof of which the accused is found guilty; when imposing a penalty, mitigating
and aggravating circumstances are taken into account, as well as the impact of the punishment on the correction
of the convicted person and on the living conditions of their family (Part One, Article 5, Part One, Article 6
and Part Three, Article 60 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
The rule of partial or full consolidation of penalties contained in Part Three, Article 69 of the Criminal
Code of the Russian Federation, which is applied if at least one of the cumulative crimes is grave and especially
grave and which provides that in such case the final custodial sentence may not exceed the maximum sentence
for the gravest of the crimes committed by more than a half, is aimed at the implementation of the principles
of justice, humanity and at prevention of excessive punishments.
Therefore, the rules of imposing penalty for cumulative crimes do not go beyond the measures of
criminal law that the federal legislator may take in order to achieve the constitutionally justified goals of
differentiating criminal liability and punishment, enhancement of its correctional impact on the convicted
person, prevention of further crimes and thus the protection of an individual, society and state from criminal
infringements, and, given their interconnection with other provisions of criminal law, prevent the excessive
restriction of rights and freedoms when implementing measures of criminal law enforcement (Decision
of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 21 March 2013 No. 478-O, 24 December 2013
No. 2100-O, 17 February 2015 No. 397-O and of 16 July 2015 No. 1598-O).
2.5. According to the generally recognised non bis in idem principle, it is established in the Constitution
of the Russian Federation that no person may be reconvicted of the same crime (Article 50, Part1); the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits reconviction of any person of the crime of which
such person has previously been finally convicted or of which they have been acquitted in accordance with the
legislation and the criminal procedure law of each country (Clause 7, Article 14), while the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms stipulates that no one shall be liable to be tried or
punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same state for an offence for which he has
already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that state (Clause
1, Article 4, Minutes No. 7).
no person shall be reconvicted or repeatedly imposed criminal punishment on for having committed a
crime of which such person have been finally acquitted or for which it has been convicted in accordance with
the laws and the criminal procedure provisions of the respective country (Clause 1, Article 4, Minutes No. 7).
In Clause 4, Part One, Article 27 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation expressly
establishes that the criminal prosecution of a person suspected or accused shall be terminated upon the entering
into legal force of a conviction on the same charge or of a court or judge’s ruling to terminate the case with
regard to the same charge, and contains no exceptions from this rule due to the qualification of the act
committed. Contrary to the claimant’s allegation, the existence of a conviction that has been overturned by a
court of appeal and thus has not entered into legal force may not be considered a condition for the application
of Clause 4, Part One, Article 27 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation.
Therefore, the complaint of D.F. Papenko may not be accepted for consideration by the Constitutional
Court of the Russian Federation, as it does not meet the admissibility criterion established in the Federal
Constitutional Law “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation”.
Based on the above and pursuant to Clause 2, Article 43, Part One, Article 79, as well as Articles 96 and
97 of the Federal Constitutional Law of the Russian Federation “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian
Federation”, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation
Annex 287
6
has ruled as follows:
1. To deny acceptance for consideration of the complaint of the citizen of Ukraine Dmitry Fedorovich
Papenko, as it does not meet the requirements of the Federal Constitutional Law “On the Constitutional Court
of the Russian Federation” whereunder a complaint submitted to the Constitutional Court of the Russian
Federation is recognized to be acceptable.
2. The Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation regarding the complaint above shall
be final and not subject to appeal.
Chair
of the Constitutional Court
of the Russian Federation V.D. Zorkin
No. 1707-O
Annex 287
Annex 288
Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Crimea, Reply No.
27-259-2016/Оn3727-2016, 22 July 2016
Translation
To D.Ya. Selyametov
[address]
/Handwritten: 22 July 2016
27-259-2016/Оn3727-2016
/Handwritten: to the supervisory proceeding on the application
(Signed)
Your applications, particularly those received from the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of
Russia for the Republic of Crimea and City of Sevastopol on the legality of the actions of law enforcement
officers of the Republic of Crimea, have been considered.
It has been found that on 1 April 2016, in the premises of cafe “Bagdad” located in village Dobroe, the
Simferopol district, the employees of the District Directorate of the Federal Service for Drug Control of
Russia and Centre for Countering Extremism of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Republic of Crimea
conducted a joint preventive operation to suppress illegal drug trafficking, identify individuals involved in
trafficking thereof and active followers of extremist ideology in the Simferopol district.
The identified individuals that belong to this category, and also individuals who did not carry identity
documents during the inspection, subject to Clauses 2, 13, 19 of Part 1 of Article 13 of Federal Law of 7
February 2011 No. 3-FZ “On the Police” were invited to the premises of the Centre for Countering
Extremism of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Republic of Crimea located on 19 Dekabristov Str. in
Simferopol, where their identification was carried out. Also, during the inspection, the individuals whose
appearance resembled the wanted persons, were invited to the premises of the Centre for Countering
Extremism of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Republic of Crimea. After identification, outreach and
preventive discussions were conducted with them, which does not contradict the applicable legislation. No
physical or psychological measures were applied.
Also, the performed inspection found that the above citizens were not forcibly brought or detained
and, accordingly, no documents were drawn up pursuant to the Code of Administrative Offences of the
Russian Federation for bringing or administratively detaining them.
No applications for voluntary registration (provision of biomaterial) were collected from citizens by
the officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Republic of Crimea as there was no need for a written
confirmation of such intentions expressed verbally.
Taking into account the above and also the fact that only those individuals were invited to the office
premises of Centre for Countering Extremism of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Republic of Crimea
who were unable to present identity documents during the performed actions, and, given that these
individuals could have been wanted for committing a crime, the stated actions of the law enforcement
officials were justified.
/Stamp:
Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Crimea
No. 27-259-2016/Оn3727-2016/
Therefore, the inspection revealed no violations of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Federal
Law of 7 February 2011 No. 3-FZ “On the Police”, Federal Law of 25 July 1998 No. 128-FZ “On the State
Fingerprint Registration in the Russian Federation” and the Code on Administrative Offenses of the Russian
Federation by the actions of the law enforcement officers of the Republic of Crimea.
Taking into account the above, there are currently no grounds for taking measures of the prosecutor’s
response.
Annex 288
The answer can be appealed against before a senior official of the prosecutor’s office and (or) the
court.
Head of the Prosecutor’s Office Department
of the Republic (Signed) A.V. Alexeev
Annex 288
Annex 289
Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Crimea, Reply No.
27-257-2016/Оn3725-2016, 22 July 2016
1
Translation
To I.S. Mukhterem
[address]
/Handwritten: to the supervisory proceeding
on the application
Signed/
27-257-2016/Оn3725-2016 Signed/
/Handwritten: 22 July 2016/
Your applications, including those received from the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of
Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol on the legality of the actions of law enforcement officers
of the Republic of Crimea, have been considered.
It has been found that on 1 April 2016, in the premises of cafe “Bagdad” located in village Dobroe,
the Simferopol district, the employees of the District Directorate of the Federal Service for Drug Control of
Russia and Centre for Countering Extremism of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Republic of Crimea
conducted a joint preventive operation to suppress illegal drug trafficking, identify individuals involved in
trafficking thereof and active followers of extremist ideology in the Simferopol district.
The identified individuals that belong to this category, and also individuals who did not carry
identity documents during the inspection, according to Clauses 2, 13, 19 of Part 1 of Article 13 of Federal
Law of 7 February 2011 No. 3-FZ “On the Police” were invited to the premises of the Centre for Countering
Extremism of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Republic of Crimea located at 19 Dekabristov Str. in
Simferopol, where their identification was carried out. Also, during the inspection, the individuals whose
appearance resembled the wanted persons were invited to the premises of the Centre for Countering
Extremism of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Republic of Crimea. After identification, outreach and
preventive discussions were conducted with them, which does not contradict the applicable legislation. No
physical or psychological measures were applied.
Also, the performed inspection found that the above citizens were not forcibly brought or detained
and, accordingly, no documents were drawn up pursuant to the Code of Administrative Offences of the
Russian Federation for bringing or administratively detaining them.
No applications for voluntary registration (provision of biomaterial) were collected from citizens by
the officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Republic of Crimea as there was no need for a written
confirmation of such intentions expressed verbally.
Taking into account the above and also the fact that only those individuals were invited to the office
premises of the Centre for Countering Extremism of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Republic of
Crimea who were unable to present identity documents during the performed actions, and, given that these
individuals could have been wanted for committing a crime, the stated actions of the law enforcement
officials were justified.
/Stamp:
Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Crimea
No. 27-257-2016/Оn3725-2016/
Therefore, the inspection revealed no violations of the Constitution of the Russian Federation,
Federal Law of 7 February 2011 No. 3-FZ “On the Police”, Federal Law of 25 July 1998 No. 128-FZ “On
the State Fingerprint Registration in the Russian Federation” and the Code on Administrative Offenses of the
Russian Federation by the actions of the law enforcement officers of the Republic of Crimea.
Taking into account the above, there are currently no grounds for taking measures of the
prosecutor’s response.
Annex 289
2
The answer can be appealed against before a senior official of the prosecutor’s office and (or) the
court.
Head of the Department of the Prosecutor’s Office of
the Republic
(Signed) A.V. Alekseev
Annex 289
Annex 290
Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Crimea, Reply to No.
27-258-2016/Оn3726-2016, 22 July 2016
1
Translation
To O.N. Seitmemetov
[address]
/Handwritten: 22 July 2016
27-258-2016/Оn3726-2016
/Handwritten: to the supervisory proceeding on the
application
/Signed/
Your applications, including those received from the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of
Russia for the Republic of Crimea and City of Sevastopol on the legality of the actions of law enforcement
officers of the Republic of Crimea, have been considered.
It has been found that on 1 April 2016, in the premises of cafe “Bagdad” located in village Dobroe,
the Simferopol district, the employees of the District Directorate of the Federal Service for Drug Control of
Russia and Centre for Countering Extremism of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Republic of Crimea
conducted a joint preventive operation to suppress illegal drug trafficking, identify individuals involved in
trafficking thereof and active followers of extremist ideology in the Simferopol district.
The identified individuals that belong to this category, and also individuals who did not carry
identity documents during the inspection, according to Clauses 2, 13, 19 of Part 1 of Article 13 of Federal
Law of 7 February 2011 No. 3-FZ “On the Police” were invited to the premises of the Centre for Countering
Extremism of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Republic of Crimea located at 19 Dekabristov Str. in
Simferopol, where their identification was carried out. Also, during the inspection, the individuals whose
appearance resembled the wanted persons were invited to the premises of the Centre for Countering
Extremism of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Republic of Crimea. After identification, outreach and
preventive discussions were conducted with them, which does not contradict the applicable legislation. No
physical or psychological measures were applied.
Also, the performed inspection found that the above citizens were not forcibly brought or detained
and, accordingly, no documents were drawn up pursuant to the Code of Administrative Offences of the
Russian Federation for bringing or administratively detaining them.
No applications for voluntary registration (provision of biomaterial) were collected from citizens by
the officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Republic of Crimea as there was no need for a written
confirmation of such intentions expressed verbally.
Taking into account the above and also the fact that only those individuals were invited to the office
premises of the Centre for Countering Extremism of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Republic of
Crimea who were unable to present identity documents during the performed actions, and, given that these
individuals could have been wanted for committing a crime, the stated actions of the law enforcement
officials were justified.
/Stamp:
Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Crimea
No. 27-258-2016/Оn3726-2016/
Therefore, the inspection revealed no violations of the Constitution of the Russian Federation,
Federal Law of 7 February 2011 No. 3-FZ “On the Police”, Federal Law of 25 July 1998 No. 128-FZ “On
the State Fingerprint Registration in the Russian Federation” and the Code on Administrative Offences of the
Russian Federation by the actions of the law enforcement officers of the Republic of Crimea.
Taking into account the above, there are currently no grounds for taking measures of the
Annex 290
2
prosecutor’s response.
The answer can be appealed against before a senior official of the prosecutor’s office and (or) the
court.
Head of the Department of the Prosecutor’s Office of
the Republic
(Signed) A.V. Alekseev
Annex 290
Annex 291
Investigative Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security
Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, Case
No. 2016427026, Record of interrogation of G.M. Kushnir as a
specialist, 5 August 2016
1
Translation
RECORD
of Interrogation of a Specialist
Simferopol 5 August 2016
The interrogation began at 1:15 p.m.
The interrogation ended at 2:00 p.m.
Investigator of the Investigative Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of
Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol Senior Lieutenant of Justice [full name], in office No. 109
of the Investigative Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic
of Crimea and Sevastopol in accordance with Article 58, Part 4 of Article 80, Articles 164, 168, 189, and 190
of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, has interrogated the following individual as a
specialist in criminal case No. 2016427026:
1. Last name, first name, patronymic Grigory Matveevich Kushnir
2. Date of birth 7 July 1947
3. Place of birth Uralsk of the North Kazakhstan Region
4. Place of registration registered at: [address]
5. Telephone […]
6. Citizenship Russian Federation
7. Education higher
8. Specialty Neurology
9. Work experience in the speciality since September 1975
10. Marital status, family members married, no minor children
11. Place of work Georgievsky Medical Academy situated at: Republic
of Crimea, Simferopol, 5/7 Lenin Boulevard
12. Position Professor of the Department of Neurology and
Neurosurgery at Georgievsky Medical Academy
13. Work experience in the position He has held this position since September 2011
14. Military status not liable for military service
15. Criminal background none according to him
16. Passport (or other identity document of the
specialist)
Russian passport [passport details]
17. Other information about the specialist’s
identity
none
/Signature/
Specialist /Signature/
(signature)
G.M. Kushnir
(initials, last name)
Other parties involved – none.
Parties involved in the interrogation were warned in advance that technical equipment (an office
computer and a printer) were to be used during the investigative activity; no other technical equipment were
used in the course of the interrogation.
Annex 291
2
Specialist /Signature/
(signature)
G.M. Kushnir
(initials, last name)
Prior to the interrogation, the investigator acting under Part 1 of Article 189 of the Criminal Procedural
Code of the Russian Federation complied with the requirements of Part 5 of Article 164 of the Criminal
Procedural Code of the Russian Federation and explained to the parties involved their rights, obligations,
liability, and the interrogation procedure.
Specialist /Signature/
(signature)
G.M. Kushnir
(initials, last name)
/Signature/
Prior to the interrogation, the rights of a specialist under Part 3 of Article 58 of the Criminal Procedural
Code of the Russian Federation were explained to me:
1) To refuse to take part in the criminal proceedings if he or she has no relevant special knowledge;
2) To address questions to the parties involved in the investigative activity with the consent of the
inquirer, investigator, and court;
3) To read a record of the investigative activity in which he or she was involved and to make
statements and comments to be entered into the record.
4) To make complaints against actions (omission) and decisions of the inquirer, investigator,
prosecutor, and court that restrict his or her rights.
The provisions of Part 4 of Article 58 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation were
also explained to me, under which
a specialist may not ignore the summons of the inquirer, investigator, or court and disclose preliminary
investigation information that he became aware of in view of his or her involvement in the criminal
proceedings as a specialist provided that he or she was warned of it in advance as provided for by Article 161
of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation. A specialist is held liable for the disclosure of
preliminary investigation information under Article 310 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
I am warned of criminal liability for giving knowingly false testimony under Article 307 of the
Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Specialist /Signature/
(signature)
G.M. Kushnir
(initials, last name)
Besides, it was explained to me that under Article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation I
am not obliged to incriminate myself, to testify against my spouse and other close relatives listed in para. 4 of
Article 5 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation.
Specialist /Signature/
(signature)
G.M. Kushnir
(initials, last name)
I can say the following in respect of the subject-matter of the criminal case:
Investigator’s question: Ilmi Rustemovich Umerov, born on 3 August 1957, is accused in criminal
case No. 2016427026 of public calls for actions violating the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation
committed with the use of information and telecommunications networks (including Internet), i.e. in doing so
I.R. Umerov committed a crime under Part 2 of Article 280.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
You are given a copy of an extract from I.R. Umerov’s outpatient medical record of 23 May 2016
issued by the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Crimea, the State Public Healthcare Institution of the
Republic of Crimea, Bakhchisaray Central District Hospital, according to which he is diagnosed with the
following:
Annex 291
3
- Stage 3 of Parkinson’s disease, a bilateral akinetic-rigid syndrome impairing static balance, gait,
functions of the left hand, entailing tremor;
- Stage 2 of high blood pressure;
- a state after the excision of a left atrium myxoma (a heart surgery in 2011);
- Stage 2 of diabetes;
- cerebral atherosclerosis;
What do these diseases with the above diagnoses mean? Do the above diseases of Ilmi Rustemovich Umerov
affect his mental state, and do these diseases affect his capacity to understand what actions he was taking in
March 2016 and to regulate them in the relevant period of time?
Specialist’s reply: Having carefully examined the copy of the extract from the outpatient medical
record of 23 May 2016 of I.R. Umerov, born on 3 August 1957, issued by the Ministry of Health of the
Republic of Crimea, the State Public Healthcare Institution of the Republic of Crimea, Bakhchisaray Central
District Hospital, I can say the following.
I would like to explain that Parkinson’s disease is a neurological disorder.
Besides, Parkinson’s disease falls within the competence of a neurologist, and I would therefore like
to explain that, according to the copy of the extract from the outpatient medical record of 23 May 2016 of I.R.
Umerov, born on 3 August 1957, issued by the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Crimea, the State Public
Healthcare Institution of the Republic of Crimea, Bakhchisaray Central District Hospital, he is diagnosed with
Stage 3 of Parkinson’s disease, a bilateral akinetic-rigid syndrome impairing static balance, gait, functions of
the left hand, entailing tremor, meaning that this diagnosis – at end stages and under the influence of specific
treatment – may cause psychotic changes falling within the competence of a psychiatrist.
/Signature/
In view of the above, given this diagnosis, I think it advisable to conduct a forensic psychiatric
examination in respect of the accused person Ilmi Rustemovich Umerov in order to assess whether the patient
has any mental deviation, whether the above disease affects his mental state, and whether the above disease
affected his capacity to control and understand his (I.R. Umerov’s) actions in March 2016 and to regulate his
(I.R. Umerov’s) actions in the relevant period of time.
However the diagnoses: Stage 2 of high blood pressure, a state after the excision of a left atrium
myxoma (a heart surgery in 2011), and cerebral atherosclerosis fall within the competence of a general
practitioner, meaning that I have nothing to say regarding these diseases for I have no special knowledge in
general practice.
Moreover, the diagnosis: Stage 2 of diabetes falls within the competence of an endocrinologist,
meaning that that I have nothing to say regarding this disease for I have no special knowledge in endocrinology.
Specialist /Signature/
(signature)
G.M. Kushnir
(initials, last name)
Question: Do you want to add something to your testimony?
Reply: No, I do not.
Specialist /Signature/
(signature)
G.M. Kushnir
(initials, last name)
No photo, audio and (or) video was taken or made during the interrogation.
Specialist /Signature/
(signature)
G.M. Kushnir
(initials, last name)
Annex 291
4
The following statements were made prior to, during or upon completion of the interrogation by the
following participants: the specialist G.M. Kushnir: none
Content of the statements: none
Specialist /Signature/
(signature)
G.M. Kushnir
(initials, last name)
Upon completion of the interrogation, the record was shown to the specialist G.M. Kushnir for
examination. It was also explained to the above person that he was entitled to have his additional and clarifying
comments – as agreed and signed by him – entered into the record. Having personally read the record in its
entirety, he gave no additional and clarifying comments.
Specialist /Signature/
(signature)
G.M. Kushnir
(initials, last name)
/Signature/
This record is drawn up in compliance with Articles 166 and 190 of the Criminal Procedural Code of
the Russian Federation.
Investigator of the Investigative Department of the Directorate of the
Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and
Sevastopol
Senior Lieutenant of Justice
/Signature/ [Name]
Stamp: TRUE COPY
Investigator of the Investigative
Department
/Signature/ 2016
Annex 291
Annex 292
Investigative Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security
Service of Russia in the Republic of Crimea and City of Sevastopol,
Case No. 2016427026, Resolution, 8 August 2016
Translation
AGREED
Head of the Investigative Body – Head of the
Investigative Department of the Directorate of
the Federal Security Service of Russia for the
Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol
Colonel of Justice
/Signature/ [Full name]
8 August 2016
(illegible seal)
RESOLUTION
on filing of a motion to put an accused person (not in custody) in an inpatient psychiatric hospital
for a forensic psychiatric examination
Simferopol 8 August 2016
Senior Lieutenant of Justice [full name], an investigator of the Investigative Department of
the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and
Sevastopol, having reviewed case files in criminal case No. 2016427026,
ESTABLISHED THAT:
This criminal case was initiated on 12 May 2016 by the Investigative Department of the
Directorate of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol
against Ilmi Rustemovich Umerov, a Russian national, born on 3 August 1957, into a crime under
Part 2 of Article 280.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The preliminary investigation established that on 19 March 2016, while in the territory of
Ukraine (Kiev), in furtherance of his intention to take action to violate the territorial integrity of the
Russian Federation, under circumstances unknown to the investigation, when taking part in a live
television programme named after Noman Çelebicihan on the Ukrainian television channel ATR,
while giving an interview to a presenter of the above television channel, I.R. Umerov intentionally
and publicly addressed an unlimited number of people calling them to take action to return the
Republic of Crimea to the jurisdiction of Ukraine.
Afterwards, under circumstances unknown to the investigation, the video of that television
address of I.R. Umerov was made public on the Internet, namely on YouTube at the address:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyTuPNPkTUI titled “Ilmi Umerov Live, 19 March 2016” that
may be accessed by an unlimited number of people.
According to Report of 21 April 2016 No. 77 prepared by a specialist of the Directorate of
the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, insofar as
linguistics is concerned, the verbatim transcript of “Ilmi Umerov Live, 19 March 2016” contains a
call for actions to violate the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation.
As it is evident from the criminal case files, I.R. Umerov is diagnosed with III grade of
Parkinson’s disease, a bilateral akinetic-rigid syndrome impairing static balance, gait, functions of
the left hand, entailing tremor.
The above circumstances made it necessary to assess the mental state of I.R. Umerov, which
required special knowledge in psychiatry.
On 16 June 2016 a decision on an outpatient forensic psychiatric examination in respect of
I.R. Umerov was issued in the present criminal case, and the accused person I.R. Umerov and his
defence counsels D.M. Temishev and E.M. Kurbedinov read it.
The resolution instructed experts to address the questions below:
Annex 292
2
- was I.R. Umerov suffering from any mental disorder at the time of the acts imputed to him,
if yes, what mental disorder exactly, and did that mental disorder prevent him from understanding
what actions he was committing or controlling them at the time of such commission?
- was I.R. Umerov, at the time of the acts imputed to him, in a state of temporary mental
impairment, if yes, did that state prevent him from understanding what actions he was committing
or controlling them at the time of such commission?
- is I.R. Umerov currently suffering from any mental disorder, if yes, what mental disorder
exactly, and does this mental disorder prevent him from understanding what actions he is
committing and controlling them; is he mentally unsound?
- if I.R. Umerov is suffering from any mental disorder, does he require compulsory
treatment, and are there any contraindications thereto?
On 17 June 2016, the above resolution on an outpatient forensic psychiatric examination
was sent to be executed by the State Public Healthcare Institution of the Republic of Crimea,
Crimean Republican Psychiatric Clinical Hospital No. 1 of Simferopol, and experts of the above
institution were to conduct it involving the accused person I.R. Umerov on 12 July 2016.
The accused person I.R. Umerov, being notified of the date of his outpatient forensic
psychiatric examination in advance, failed to appear in the State Public Healthcare Institution of the
Republic of Crimea, Crimean Republican Psychiatric Clinical Hospital No. 1 of Simferopol at the
appointed time (12 July 2016).
Besides, on 14 July 2016, the investigation department received a motion from the accused
person I.R. Umerov seeking the cancellation of an outpatient forensic psychiatric examination since
he does not wish to undergo it because he treats it as an attempt to discredit him and to damage his
business reputation.
On 15 July 2016, the investigator issued a resolution on the dismissal of the motion in full.
During the interrogation of 5 August 2016, G.M. Kushnir, a specialist neurologist, testified
that the accused person I.R. Umerov is diagnosed with III grade of Parkinson’s disease, a bilateral
akinetic-rigid syndrome impairing static balance, gait, functions of the left hand, entailing tremor,
meaning that this diagnosis – at end stages and under the influence of specific treatment – may
cause psychotic changes falling within the competence of a psychiatrist. In light of the above, it is
advisable to conduct a forensic psychiatric examination in respect of the accused person I.R.
Umerov in order to assess whether the patient has any mental deviation, whether the above disease
affects his mental state, and whether the above disease affected his capacity to control and
understand his actions in March 2016 and to regulate his actions in the relevant period of time.
In view of the above, relying upon para. 3 of Part 2 of Article 29, para. 3 of Part 2 of Article
38, Part 1 of Article 195 and Article 203 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian
Federation,
HAS RESOLVED:
to file a motion before the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol to put the accused person
Ilmi Rustemovich Umerov, born on 3 August 1957, in the village of Akhunbabaeva of the Tashlak
District of the Fergana Region of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic, a Russian national, a
pensioner, registered at the address: […], actually residing at the address: […], no criminal
background, not in custody, in an inpatient psychiatric hospital (Department No. 9 of the State
Public Healthcare Institution of the Republic of Crimea, Crimean Republican Psychiatric Clinical
Hospital No. 1 of Simferopol, situated at the address: Republic of Crimea, Simferopol, 27
Alexander Nevsky Street) for an inpatient forensic psychiatric examination.
Investigator of the Investigative Department of the Directorate of
the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea
and Sevastopol
Senior Lieutenant of Justice
/Signature/ [Full name]
Annex 292
Annex 293
Investigative Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security
Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, Case
No. 2016427026, Record of interrogation of S.A. Krasnovskiy as a
specialist, 10 August 2016
1
Translation
RECORD
of Specialist Interrogation
Simferopol 10 August 2016
The interrogation began at 2:30 p.m.
The interrogation ended at 3:25 p.m.
Senior Lieutenant of Justice [full name], an investigator of the Investigative Department of
the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and
Sevastopol, in office No. 109 of the Investigative Department of the Directorate of the Federal
Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol in accordance with Article
58, Part 4 of Article 80, Articles 164, 168, 189, and 190 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the
Russian Federation, has interrogated the following individual as a specialist in criminal case
No. 2016427026:
1. Last name, first name, patronymic Stanislav Alexandrovich Krasnovskiy
2. Date of birth 23 November 1970
3. Place of birth Simferopol of the Crimean Region
4. Place of registration registered at the address: […]
5. Telephone […]
6. Citizenship Russian Federation
7. Education higher
8. Specialty Psychiatry, Forensic Psychiatric Examination
9. Work experience in the speciality since May 2007
10. Marital status, family members single, no minor children
11. Place of work State Public Healthcare Institution of the
Republic of Crimea, Crimean Republican
Psychiatric Clinical Hospital No. 1 of
Simferopol, situated at the address: Republic of
Crimea, Simferopol, 27 Alexander Nevsky Street
12. Position physician, forensic psychiatric expert of the
Department of Outpatient Forensic Psychiatric
Examinations
13. Work experience in the position since November 2015
14. Military status eligible for military duty, registered with the
military enlistment office of Simferopol of the
Republic of Crimea
15. Criminal background none according to him
16. Passport (or other identity document of
the specialist)
Russian passport [passport details]
17. Other information about the specialist’s
identity
None
/Signature/
Specialist /Signature/
(signature)
S.A. Krasnovskiy
(initials, last name)
Other parties involved – none.
Annex 293
2
Parties involved in the interrogation were warned in advance that technical equipment (an
office computer and a printer) was to be used during the investigative activity; no other technical
equipment was used in the course of the interrogation.
Specialist /Signature/
(signature)
S.A. Krasnovskiy
(initials, last name)
Prior to the interrogation, the investigator acting under Part 1 of Article 189 of the Criminal
Procedural Code of the Russian Federation complied with the requirements of Part 5 of Article 164
of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation and explained to the parties involved
their rights, obligations, liability, and the interrogation procedure.
Specialist /Signature/
(signature)
S.A. Krasnovskiy
(initials, last name)
Prior to the interrogation, the rights of a specialist under Part 3 of Article 58 of the Criminal
Procedure Code of the Russian Federation were explained to me:
1) To refuse to take part in the criminal proceedings if he or she has no relevant special
knowledge;
2) To address questions to the parties involved in the investigative activity with the consent
of the inquirer, investigator, and court;
3) To read a record of the investigative activity in which he or she was involved and to
make statements and comments to be entered into the record.
4) To make complaints against actions (omission) and decisions of the inquirer,
investigator, prosecutor, and court that restrict his or her rights.
The provisions of Part 4 of Article 58 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian
Federation were also explained to me, under which
a specialist may not ignore the summons of the inquirer, investigator, or court and disclose
preliminary investigation information that he became aware of in view of his or her involvement in
the criminal proceedings as a specialist provided that he or she was warned of it in advance as
provided for by Article 161 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation. A specialist
is held liable for the disclosure of preliminary investigation information under Article 310 of the
Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
I am warned of criminal liability for giving knowingly false testimony under Article
307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Specialist /Signature/
(signature)
S.A. Krasnovskiy
(initials, last name)
Besides, it was explained to me that under Article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian
Federation I am not obliged to incriminate myself, to testify against my spouse and other close
relatives listed in para. 4 of Article 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.
Specialist /Signature/
(signature)
S.A. Krasnovskiy
(initials, last name)
I can say the following in respect of the subject-matter of the criminal case:
Investigator’s question: Ilmi Rustemovich Umerov, born on 3 August 1957, is accused
under criminal case No. 2016427026 of public calls for actions violating the territorial integrity of
the Russian Federation committed with the use of information and telecommunications networks
(including the Internet), i.e. in doing so I.R. Umerov committed a crime under Part 2 of Article
280.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Annex 293
3
You are given a copy of an extract from I.R. Umerov’s outpatient medical record of 23 May
2016 issued by the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Crimea, the State Public Healthcare
Institution of the Republic of Crimea, Bakhchisaray Central District Hospital, according to which
he is diagnosed with the following:
- Stage 3 of Parkinson’s disease, a bilateral akinetic-rigid syndrome impairing static balance,
gait, functions of the left hand, entailing tremor;
- Stage 2 of high blood pressure;
- a state after the excision of a left atrium myxoma (a heart surgery in 2011);
- Stage 2 of diabetes;
- cerebral atherosclerosis;
What do these diseases with the above diagnoses mean? Do the above diseases of Ilmi Rustemovich
Umerov affect his mental state, and do these diseases affect his capacity to understand what actions
he was taking in March 2016 and to regulate them in the relevant period of time?
Specialist’s reply: having carefully examined the copy of the extract from the outpatient
medical record of 23 May 2016 of I.R. Umerov, born on 3 August 1957, issued by the Ministry of
Health of the Republic of Crimea, the State Public Healthcare Institution of the Republic of Crimea,
Bakhchisaray Central District Hospital, I can say the following.
Parkinson’s disease is a neurological disorder.
However, when it comes to the diagnosis specified in the copy of the extract from the
outpatient medical record of 23 May 2016 of I.R. Umerov, born on 3 August 1957, issued by the
Ministry of Health of the Republic of Crimea, the State Public Healthcare Institution of the
Republic of Crimea, Bakhchisaray Central District Hospital, he is diagnosed with Stage 3 of
Parkinson’s disease, a bilateral akinetic-rigid syndrome impairing static balance, gait, functions of
the left hand, entailing tremor, I would like to explain that this diagnosis may cause mental
disorders in the form of memory impairment, emotional-volitional disorders, thinking impairment.
In severe cases, a patient may experience dementia (organic dementia). Besides, a patient with this
disease may experience a psychotic disorder (psychosis) that requires psychiatric care in a
psychiatric hospital as an inpatient.
/Signature/
In view of the above, given this diagnosis, I think it advisable to conduct a forensic
psychiatric examination (as an inpatient in a psychiatric hospital) in respect of the accused person
Ilmi Rustemovich Umerov in order to conduct a comprehensive examination, to address expert
questions, and to assess whether the patient has any mental deviation, whether the above disease
affects his mental state, and whether the above disease affected his capacity to control and
understand his (I.R. Umerov’s) actions in March 2016 and to regulate his (I.R. Umerov’s) actions in
the relevant period of time.
A neurologist may address the matter of Parkinson’s disease in more detail since it directly
falls within his or her competence.
However the diagnoses: Stage 2 of high blood pressure, a state after the excision of a left
atrium myxoma (a heart surgery in 2011), and cerebral atherosclerosis fall within the competence of
a general practitioner, meaning that I have nothing to say regarding these diseases for I have no
special knowledge in general practice.
Moreover, the diagnosis: Stage 2 of diabetes falls within the competence of an
endocrinologist, meaning that that I have nothing to say regarding this disease for I have no special
knowledge in endocrinology.
Specialist /Signature/
(signature)
S.A. Krasnovskiy
(initials, last name)
Question: Do you want to add something to your testimony?
Reply: No, I do not.
Annex 293
4
Specialist /Signature/
(signature)
S.A. Krasnovskiy
(initials, last name)
No photo, audio and (or) video was taken or made during the interrogation.
Specialist /Signature/
(signature)
S.A. Krasnovskiy
(initials, last name)
The following statements were made prior to, during or upon completion of the interrogation
by the following participants: the specialist S.A. Krasnovskiy: none
Content of the statements: none
Specialist /Signature/
(signature)
S.A. Krasnovskiy
(initials, last name)
Upon completion of the interrogation, the record was shown to the specialist S.A.
Krasnovskiy for examination. It was also explained to the above person that he was entitled to have
his additional and clarifying comments – as agreed and signed by him – entered into the record.
Having personally read the record in its entirety, he gave no additional and clarifying comments.
Specialist /Signature/
(signature)
S.A. Krasnovskiy
(initials, last name)
This record is drawn up in compliance with Articles 166 and 190 of the Criminal Procedural
Code of the Russian Federation.
Investigator of the Investigative Department of the Directorate of
the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea
and Sevastopol
Senior Lieutenant of Justice
/Signature/ [Full name]
TRUE COPY
Investigator of the
Investigative Department
/Signature/ 2016
Annex 293
Annex 294
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, Case No. 3/5-4/2016, Ruling,
11 August 2016
1
Translation
Case No. 3/5-4/2016
RULING
To put a person in an inpatient psychiatric hospital
for a forensic psychiatric examination
11 August 2016 Simferopol
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea composed of T.A. Ruba, the
presiding judge,
G.R. Velilyaeva, the secretary of the court session,
E.A. Kovalev, a senior assistant to the prosecutor of the Kievskiy District of Simferopol,
[Full name], an investigator of the Investigative Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security
Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol,
I.R. Umerov, the accused person,
the defence counsel – N.N. Polozov, an attorney, who presented certificate No. […] and order No. 16-1092
of 11 August 2016, E.S. Semedlyaev, an attorney, who presented certificate No. […] and order No. AK-0014
of 22 July 2016, E.M. Kurbedinov, an attorney, who presented certificate No. […] and order No. AS-0099 of
12 May 2016,
having reviewed in public hearing a resolution of [full name], an investigator of the Investigative Department
of the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol,
concerning a motion filed before the court to put the following individual in an inpatient psychiatric hospital
for a forensic psychiatric examination in respect of:
Ilmi Rustemovich Umerov, born on 3 August 1957, in the village of Akhunbabaeva of the Tashlak
District of the Fergana Region of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic, a Russian national and a Ukrainian
national, a pensioner, registered at the address: […], actually residing at the address: […], no criminal
background,
who is accused of committing a crime under Part 2 of Article 280.1 of the Criminal Code of the
Russian Federation,
established that:
The preliminary investigative body accuses I.R. Umerov of the following: on 19 March 2016, while
in the territory of Ukraine (Kiev), in furtherance of his intention to take action to violate the territorial
integrity of the Russian Federation, under circumstances unknown to the investigation, when taking part in a
live television programme named after Noman Çelebicihan on the Ukrainian television channel ATR, while
giving an interview to a presenter of the above television channel, I.R. Umerov intentionally and publicly
addressed an unlimited number of people calling them to take action to return the Republic of Crimea to the
jurisdiction of Ukraine.
Afterwards, under circumstances unknown to the investigation, the video of that television address
of I.R. Umerov was made public on the Internet, namely on YouTube at the address:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyTuPNPkTUI titled “Ilmi Umerov Live, 19 March 2016” that may be
accessed by an unlimited number of people.
According to Report of 21 April 2016 No. 77 prepared by a specialist of the Directorate of the
Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, insofar as linguistics is
concerned, the verbatim transcript of “Ilmi Umerov Live, 19 March 2016” contains a call for actions to
violate the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation.
On 12 May 2016, I.R. Umerov was questioned as a suspect. That same day, a measure of restraint in
the form of recognizance not to leave and proper conduct was adopted in respect of I.R. Umerov.
On 19 May 2016, I.R. Umerov was accused of committing a crime under Part 2 of Article 280.1 of
the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Annex 294
2
As it is evident from the criminal case files, I.R. Umerov is diagnosed with Stage 3 of Parkinson’s
disease, a bilateral akinetic-rigid syndrome impairing static balance, gait, functions of the left hand, entailing
tremor.
The above circumstances made it necessary to assess the mental state of I.R. Umerov, which
required special knowledge in psychiatry.
A ruling on an outpatient forensic psychiatric examination in respect of I.R. Umerov was issued on
16 June 2016, and the accused person I.R. Umerov and his defence counsel D.M. Temishev and E.M.
Kurbedinov read it.
On 17 June 2016, the above ruling on an outpatient forensic psychiatric examination was sent to be
executed by the State Public Healthcare Institution of the Republic of Crimea, Crimean Republican
Psychiatric Clinical Hospital No. 1 of Simferopol, and experts of the above institution were to conduct it
involving the accused person I.R. Umerov at 09:00 a.m. on 12 July 2016.
The accused person I.R. Umerov, being notified of the date of his outpatient forensic psychiatric
examination in advance, failed to appear in the State Public Healthcare Institution of the Republic of Crimea,
Crimean Republican Psychiatric Clinical Hospital No. 1 of Simferopol at the appointed time (12 July 2016).
On 9 July 2016, the investigation department received a motion from the accused person I.R.
Umerov seeking the cancellation of an outpatient forensic psychiatric examination since he does not wish to
undergo it because he treats it as an attempt to discredit him and to damage his business reputation.
On 15 July 2016, the investigator issued a resolution on the dismissal of the motion in full.
On 8 August 2016, [full name], the investigator of the Investigative Department of the Directorate of
the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol filed a motion before the
court to put the accused person I.R. Umerov in an inpatient psychiatric hospital for a forensic psychiatric
examination.
The reason behind this motion is that the accused person I.R. Umerov is diagnosed with Stage 3 of
Parkinson’s disease, a bilateral akinetic-rigid syndrome impairing static balance, gait, functions of the left
hand, entailing tremor, meaning that this diagnosis – at end stages and under the influence of specific
treatment – may cause psychotic changes falling within the competence of a psychiatrist. In light of the
above, it is advisable to conduct a forensic psychiatric examination in respect of the accused person I.R.
Umerov in order to assess whether I.R. Umerov’s disease is linked to his diseased mental state and whether
the above disease affected his capacity to control and understand his actions in March 2016 and to regulate
his actions in the relevant period of time.
In the court session, the investigator and the prosecutor supported the motion and arguments therein
and requested the court to grant it.
The accused person I.R. Umerov and his defence counsel objected to the motion, believing it to be
premature. Materials available to the court do not include any documents serving as a basis for a psychiatric
examination in respect of the accused person. They presume that the criminal case against I.R. Umerov was a
politically motivated frame-up.
Having listened to the above parties, examined the available materials, the court finds the motion to
be well-grounded and resolves to grant it for the reasons below.
According to Part 1 of Article 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, after
finding it necessary to conduct a forensic examination, an investigator issues a resolution to this effect, and,
as provided for by para. 3 of Part 2 of Article 29 of this Code, files a motion before the court, specifying:
1) the basis for the forensic examination;
2) last name, first name, and patronymic of an expert or expert institution in which the forensic
examination will be conducted;
3) questions for the expert to address;
4) materials provided to the expert.
According to Article 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, when a forensic
medical or forensic psychiatric examination is commissioned or conducted, if it is necessary to conduct an
Annex 294
3
inpatient study of a suspect or accused person, he or she may be put in a medical organisation providing
inpatient medical care or a medical organisation providing inpatient psychiatric care.
A suspect or accused person, who is not in custody, is put in a medical organisation providing
inpatient medical care or a medical organisation providing inpatient psychiatric care for a forensic medical or
forensic psychiatric examination based on a court decision made under Article 165 of the Criminal
Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.
As it follows from the available materials, I.R. Umerov is accused of committing a premeditated
crime against the constitutional system and state security, which is punishable by up to five years in prison.
According to the record of specialist interrogation of 5 August 2016 involving G.M. Kushnir, a
neurologist, who examined an extract from I.R. Umerov’s outpatient medical record, the patient is diagnosed
with Stage 3 of Parkinson’s disease, a bilateral akinetic-rigid syndrome impairing static balance, gait,
functions of the left hand, entailing tremor, meaning that this diagnosis – at end stages and under the
influence of specific treatment – may cause psychotic changes falling within the competence of a
psychiatrist.
After being interrogated as a specialist on 10 August 2016, S.A. Krasnovsky, a psychiatrist, who
examined the extract from I.R. Umerov’s outpatient medical record, the patient is diagnosed with Stage 3 of
Parkinson’s disease, a bilateral akinetic-rigid syndrome impairing static balance, gait, functions of the left
hand, entailing tremor, meaning that this diagnosis may cause mental disorders in the form of memory
impairment, emotional-volitional disorders, thinking impairment. In severe cases, a patient may experience
dementia (organic dementia) and a psychotic disorder (psychosis). He thinks it advisable to conduct a
forensic psychiatric examination (as an inpatient in a psychiatric hospital) in respect of the accused person
I.R. Umerov.
The accused person I.R. Umerov refused to undergo voluntarily the outpatient examination
commissioned by the investigator, filing an application to that effect on 9 July 2016. He failed to appear in
the State Public Healthcare Institution of the Republic of Crimea, Crimean Republican Psychiatric Clinical
Hospital No. 1 of Simferopol to undergo the examination at the appointed time.
Having assessed the available evidence, the court believes that there are sufficient grounds for
putting the accused person I.R. Umerov in an inpatient psychiatric hospital of the State Public Healthcare
Institution of the Republic of Crimea, Crimean Republican Psychiatric Clinical Hospital No. 1 for an
inpatient survey and an inpatient forensic psychiatric examination.
In view of the above, relying upon Articles 195, 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian
Federation, the court
ruled:
to put Ilmi Rustemovich Umerov, born on 3 August 1957, accused of committing a crime under Part
2 of Article 280.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in an inpatient hospital of the State Public
Healthcare Institution of the Republic of Crimea, Crimean Republican Psychiatric Clinical Hospital No. 1,
situated at the address: Republic of Crimea, Simferopol, 27 Rozy Luxembourg (A. Nevsky) Street for an
inpatient survey and an inpatient forensic psychiatric examination.
This ruling may be appealed before the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea within three days
from its delivery.
Judge T.A. Rube
Annex 294
Annex 295
Sovetskiy District Court of Ulan-Ude, Case No. 2-3635/16, Decision,
22 August 2016
1
Translation
Civil case No. 2-3635/16
DECISION
In the name of the Russian Federation
22 August 2016 Ulan-Ude
Sovetskiy District Court of Ulan-Ude composed of the Presiding Judge A.V. Naumova, Secretary of
the Hearing S.V. Tsydenova,
having heard in open hearing a civil case on an application submitted by the First Deputy Prosecutor
of the Republic of Buryatia on the recognition of a print book as extremist material,
ESTABLISHED:
The First Deputy Prosecutor of the Republic of Buryatia acting in the interests of an indefinite number
of people and the Russian Federation filed with the Court an application to recognize the print material
(book) “The Fortress of the Muslim. Prayers to Allah. Treatment with spells, found in the Quran and
Sunnah” by Said Bin Ali Bin Wahf Al-Qahtani (translated from Arabic by A. Nirsh, reference by
K. Kuznetsov, 3rd edition, stereotype, M. Ummah, 2011, 416 pages, Izdatel Ezhaev A.K. LLC) as extremist
material.
In support of the application, the Prosecutor stated that on 6 February 2016, the convicted person Said-
Khussein Zakaryaevich Evloyev, born on 2 August 1970, was brought to the Federal State Institution Pre-
Trial Detention Facility No. 1 of the Directorate of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia in the Republic
of Buryatia, and the personal search of the said person resulted in finding and seizure of the book “The
Fortress of the Muslim. Prayers to Allah. Treatment with spells, found in the Quran and Sunnah” by Said Bin
Ali Bin Wahf Al-Qahtani (translated from Arabic by A. Nirsh, reference by K. Kuznetsov, 3rd edition,
stereotype, M. Ummah, 2011, 416 pages, Izdatel Ezhaev A.K. LLC), which contains information aimed at
promoting the exclusiveness and supremacy of Islam over other religions and inciting religious hatred and
strife towards people who do not profess Islam, including Christians, Jews, and a hidden urge to violent
actions.
The print material contains excerpts from the “The Fortress of the Muslim. Prayers to Allah.
Treatment with spells, found in the Quran and Sunnah” by Said Bin Ali Bin Wahf Al-Qahtani (2009, 2010),
recognized by the decision of the Kurgan City Court of the Kurgan Region as extremist materials.
At the court hearing, the Prosecutor Yu.S. Badmatsyrenova maintained the claims on the arguments
set out in the application.
The representative of the person concerned, the Office of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian
Federation in the Republic of Buryatia, L.A. Safonova had no objections to the Prosecutor’s application.
The representative of the party concerned, Izdatel Ezhaev A.K. LLC did not appear at the hearing,
although he was duly notified of the date and time of the hearings in accordance with the rules provided for
under Article 113 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation.
Taking into account that there was no evidence of valid reasons for non-appearance of the party
concerned and guided by provisions of Article 165.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the hearing
was conducted in the absence of a representative of Izdatel Edaev (sic.) A.K. LLC in accordance with
Article 167 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation.
Having heard the parties of the proceeding and having considered the case files, the Court came to the
following conclusions.
The Constitution of the Russian Federation, while guaranteeing freedom of thought and speech to
everyone, at the same time prohibits the abuse of freedom of speech if it violates the rights of other citizens.
In accordance with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, propaganda or agitation
instigating social, racial, national or religious hatred and strife shall not be allowed. The propaganda of
social, racial, national, religious or linguistic supremacy shall be prohibited.
Annex 295
2
In accordance with Clause 1 of Article 1 of the Federal Law “On Countering Extremist Activities”, the
extremist activity (extremism) shall be understood as propaganda of the exceptional nature, supremacy or
deficiency of persons on the basis of their social, racial, ethnic, religious or linguistic affiliation or attitude to
religion.
In accordance with Clause 3 of the same Article, extremist materials constitute documents intended for
publication or information on other media calling for the extremist activity to be carried out or substantiating
or justifying the necessity to carry out such activity, including works by leaders of the National Socialist
Workers Party of Germany, the National Fascist Party of Italy, publications substantiating or justifying
ethnic and/or racial supremacy or justifying the practice of committing war crimes or other crimes aimed at
full or partial destruction of any ethnic, social, racial, national or religious group.
According to Article 13 of the said Federal Law, the distribution of extremist materials, their
production or storage for the purpose of distribution is prohibited in the Russian Federation.
According to paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Federal Law, information materials shall be recognized
as extremist by the federal court at the place of their detection, distribution or location of the organization
which manufactured such materials, pursuant to an application of the prosecutor or within the relevant
proceedings in relation to an administrative offence, in a civil or criminal case.
According to the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, expressed in its
Ruling of 2 July 2013 No. 1053-O “On dismissal of the complaint of the citizen Vladislav Sergeevich
Kochemarov on violation of his constitutional rights by provisions of Clauses 1 and 3 of Article 1 and Part 3
of Article 13 of the Federal Law “On Countering Extremist Activities” as inadmissible”, applying the
provisions of Clauses 1 and 3 of Article 1 of the Federal Law “On Countering Extremist Activities”,
contested by the applicant, the Courts are requried to proceed on the basis that an explicit or implied
contradiction of existing actions (documents) to constitutional prohibitions on inciting hatred and strife,
inciting hatred and promoting social, racial, national, religious or linguistic supremacy, the presence of which
should be determined taking into account all the significant circumstances of each particular case (the form
and content of activities and whether information, their addressees and focus, the social and political context,
the presence of a real threat caused, among other things, by calls for unlawful encroachments upon
constitutionally protected values, substantiation or justification of their commission, etc.) is an obligatory
feature of the specified variety of extremism (extremist materials).
At the same time, restrictions on freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of speech and the right
to disseminate information provided for under anti-extremist legislation should not take place in relation to
any activity or information on the sole reason that they do not fit into generally accepted ideas, are
inconsistent with the well-established traditional views and opinions, contradict moral and/or religious
preferences. Otherwise, it would mean a departure from the constitutional requirement of necessity,
proportionality and fairness of restrictions on the rights and freedoms of a person and a citizen, which, in the
sense of the legal position expressed by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in a variety of
decisions that remain in force, is addressed, according to Part 1 of Articles 18, 19 and Part 3 of Article 55 of
the Constitution of the Russian Federation, to both the legislator and law enforcement authorities, including
the courts (Decision of 14 February 2013 No. 4-P; Decisions of 2 April 2009 No. 484-О-P, of 5 March 2013
No. 323-O etc.).
The European Court of Human Rights in its case-law adheres to similar views on the limits on
freedom of expression, which, without excluding the existence of the state’s ample opportunities – especially
in the field of religious beliefs – establishes such requirements that are dictated by importance of protection
of democratic values and, above all, the rights of others, nevertheless believes that this freedom, which is one
of the supporting pillars of a democratic society, a fundamental condition for its progress and self-realization
of each of its members, applies even to cases of unpopular, shocking and provocative statements (Handyside
v. United Kingdom, Judgment, 7 December 1976 etc.)
Recognition of certain information materials as extremist means stating a fact that they violate the
prohibitions established by anti-extremist laws, and by virtue of this already pose a real threat to the human
Annex 295
3
rights and freedoms, the foundations of the constitutional order, and ensuring the integrity and security of the
Russian Federation.
It has been found, that by the decision of the Kurgan City Court of the Kurgan Region, which entered
into force on 16 February 2015, the following print materials were recognized as extremist:
“The Fortress of the Muslim. Prayers to Allah. Treatment with spells, found in the Quran and Sunnah”
by Said Bin Ali Bin Wahf Al-Qahtani /translated from Arabic by A. Nirsh, reference by K. Kuznetsov, 3rd
edition, stereotype, M. Ummah, 2009, 416 pages;
“The Fortress of the Muslim. Prayers to Allah. Treatment with spells, found in the Quran and Sunnah”
by Said Bin Ali Bin Wahf Al-Qahtani /translated from Arabic by A. Nirsh, reference by K. Kuznetsov, 3rd
edition, stereotype, M. Ummah, 2010, 416 pages;
By the decision of the Kurgan City Court of the Kurgan Region of 6 April 2015, which entered into
force, the book “The Fortress of the Muslim. Prayers to Allah. Treatment with spells, found in the Quran and
Sunnah” by Said Bin Ali Bin Wahf Al-Qahtani (translated from Arabic by Vladimir Abdulla Nirsh, Nalchik,
2004, 241 pages) was recognized as extremist.
The Court established, that on 6 February 2016, in Federal State Institution Pre-Trial Detention
Facility No. 1 of the Directorate of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia in the Republic of Buryatia the
book “The Fortress of the Muslim. Prayers to Allah. Treatment with spells, found in the Quran and Sunnah”
by Said Bin Ali Bin Wahf Al-Qahtani (translated from Arabic by A. Nirsh, reference by K. Kuznetsov, 3rd
edition, stereotype, M. Ummah, 2011, 416 pages was discovered and seized from the convicted person S.-
kh. Z. Evloyev.
According to expert analysis report of 15 April 2016 No. 601/10-6-26.1 conducted by the Federal
Budgetary Institution “Trans-Baikal Forensic Science Laboratory” (Zabaykalskaya Laboratoria Sudebnoy
Expertizy) the text extracts from the book “The Fortress of the Muslim. Prayers to Allah. Treatment with
spells, found in the Quran and Sunnah” by Said Bin Ali Bin Wahf Al-Qahtani (translated from Arabic by
A. Nirsh, reference by K. Kuznetsov, 3rd edition, stereotype, M. Ummah, 2010) are also contained in the
book “The Fortress of the Muslim. Prayers to Allah. Treatment with spells, found in the Quran and Sunnah”
by Said Bin Ali Bin Wahf Al-Qahtani (translated from Arabic by A. Nirsh, reference by K. Kuznetsov, 3rd
edition, stereotype, M. Ummah, 2011, 416 pages) on pages with the same numbers (on pages 26, 42, 122–
123, 41, 55, 118, 131, 135, 125, 38, 47–48, 104, 81, 203–204, 34).
According to expert analysis report of the Directorate of the Federal Security Service in the
Sverdlovsk Region of 18 September 2014 No. 399, the book “The Fortress of the Muslim. Prayers to Allah.
Treatment with spells, found in the Quran and Sunnah” by Said Bin Ali Bin Wahf Al-Qahtani (translated
from Arabic by A. Nirsh, reference by K. Kuznetsov, 3rd edition, stereotype, M. Ummah, 2010) contains
information aimed at promoting the religious exclusiveness and supremacy of Islam over other religions, and
inciting religious hatred and strife towards people who do not profess Islam and a hidden incitement to
violent actions against people who do not profess Islam.
Having considered the evidence presented in their totality and interrelation, the Court concludes that
the claims are well-founded and shall be satisfied, since the content of the print publication is aimed at
inciting hatred and strife towards people who do not profess Islam, which may lead to conflicts on religious
grounds, violation of the rights and legitimate interests of an indefinite number of people, thus, shall be
recognized as extremist.
According to Article 13 of Federal Law of 25 July 2002 No. 114-FZ “On Countering Extremist
Activities”, the Court shall serve a copy of the final and binding decision on the recognition of the
information materials as extremist to a federal state registration authority within three days.
According to Clause 3 of the Procedure of 11 December 2015 No. 289 on Maintaining the Federal List
of Extremist Materials approved by Order of the Ministry of Justice of Russia, the federal list is maintained
by the Ministry of Justice of Russia.
Given the above and relying upon Articles 194–199 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian
Federation, the Court
Annex 295
4
DECIDED:
To satisfy the claims of the Prosecutor.
To recognize the print material (book) “The Fortress of the Muslim. Prayers to Allah. Treatment with
spells, found in the Quran and Sunnah” by Said Bin Ali Bin Wahf Al-Qahtani (Translated from Arabic by
A. Nirsh, reference by K. Kuznetsov, 3rd edition, stereotype, M. Ummah, 2011, 416 pages, Izdatel
Ezhaev A.K. LLC) as extremist materials.
A copy of the decision is to be sent to the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation for the
inclusion of these books in the federal list of extremist materials.
The decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Buryatia within one month
from the date of the final decision through the Sovetskiy District Court of Ulan-Ude.
Final decision issued on 26 August 2016.
Judge (Signed) A.V. Naumova
/Stamp: DECISION ENTERED INTO FORCE ON 27 SEPTEMBER 2016/
/Seal (two impressions): SOVETSKIY DISTRICT COURT OF ULAN-UDE/
/Stamp: TRUE COPY
Judge (Signed) illegible
Secretary (Signed) /
/Seal: SOVETSKIY DISTRICT COURT OF ULAN-UDE/
/Stamp: Sovetskiy District Court of Ulan-Ude
Numbered, bound and sealed ___ sheets.
Signature/
Annex 295
Annex 296
Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 33a-5959/2016,
Appellate Decision, 5 September 2016
1
Translation
Judge O.V. Shevchenko Case No. 33а-5959/2016
APPELLATE DECISION
5 September 2016 Simferopol
The Judicial Chamber on Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea
composed of:
Presiding Judge S.A. Vorobieva,
Judges S.V. Yakovlev, N.A. Terentieva,
With Secretary O.V. Voronova,
Heard in an open court hearing the appeal submitted by Saniye Isaevna Ametova against the Decision
of the Krasnoperekopskiy District Court of the Republic of Crimea of 17 May 2016 on the administrative claim
of Saniye Isaevna Ametova against Ekaterina Vasilievna Maximova, the head of the administration of the
Voinskiy rural settlement, declaring the actions of the head of the administration as unlawful, to approve the
activities.
Having heard the report of Judge N.A. Terentyeva, explanations from the parties to the proceedings,
having examined the case files, the Judicial Chamber
found:
S.I. Ametova filed an administrative claim with the Krasnoperekopskiy District Court of the Republic
of Crimea against the Administration of the Voinskiy rural settlement, head of the administration of the
Voinskiy rural settlement Ekaterina Vasilievna Maximova, requesting to recognize the actions of the head of
the administration of the Voinskiy rural settlement to be unlawful and, violating the fundamental rights and
freedoms of citizens provided for in the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
By its Decision of 17 May 2016 the Krasnoperekopskiy District Court of the Republic of Crimea
dismissed the administrative claim of Saniye Isaevna Ametova against head of the administration of the
Voinskiy rural settlement Ekaterina Vasilievna Maximova, requesting to recognize the actions of the head of
the administration to be unlawful.
Having disagreed with the Decision of the judge of the Krasnoperekopskiy District Court of the
Republic of Crimea of 17 May 2016, Saniye Isaevna Ametova filed an appeal where she requests to reverse
the Decision on the grounds that the court violated the rules of substantive law when adopting the Decision.
At the appeal hearing, S.I. Ametova and her representative M.M. Nebiev maintained the arguments of
the appeal.
Head of the Administration of the Voinskiy Rural Settlement E.V. Maximova did not attend the court
hearing, she was notified of the time and venue of the court hearing in due time and manner.
According to Paragraph 6 of Article 226 of the Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure of the Russian
Federation, non-appearance of individuals participating in the proceedings, their representatives, which are
duly notified of the time and place of the court hearing, fail to attend the court hearing, it is not an obstacle to
the consideration and resolution of an administrative case, if the court does not consider their appearance
mandatory.
Guided by the specified provisions of Article 226 of the Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure of
the Russian Federation, the judicial panel considers it possible to hear the case in the absence of individuals
who failed to appear.
Having reviewed the lawfulness and validity of the decision of the court of first instance (Part 1 of
Article 308 of the Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure of the Russian Federation), the Judicial Chamber
concluded as follows.
According to Clause 3 of Part 3 of Article 135 of the Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure of the
Annex 296
2
Russian Federation, when preparing the case for proceedings, the court resolves the issue of engaging other
administrative claimants, administrative defendants and interested parties in the administrative case, and also
the issue of replacing an improper administrative defendant.
According to Part 2 of Article 37 of the Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure of the Russian
Federation, the individuals participating in the case are: the parties; individuals concerned; a prosecutor;
bodies, organizations and individuals applying to the court in order to protect the interests of other individuals
or the public.
According to Part 4 of Article 38 of the Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure of the Russian
Federation, an administrative defendant is an individual, against whom a claim is brought in a dispute arising
out of administrative or other public legal relations, or in relation to whom an administrative claimant
exercising a supervisory or other public function, applies to the court.
According to Article 221 of the Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure of the Russian Federation,
the composition of individuals participating in a case on challenging a resolution, action (inaction) of a body,
organization, individual vested with state or other public powers shall be determined in accordance with the
rules of Chapter 4 of this Code taking into account the specifics provided for in Part 2 of this Article. In an
administrative case on challenging the resolution, action (inaction) of an official, state or municipal employee,
the relevant body where the official, state or municipal employee performs their duties shall be involved as the
second administrative defendant.
Therefore, when considering the case on the merits the court of first instance, is obliged to determine
correctly the composition of individuals participating in the case, namely by defining those whose rights are
affected by the decision in the case, or whose position is directly affected.
As can be seen from the case files, Saniye Isaevna Ametova applied to the Krasnoperekopskiy District
Court of the Republic of Crimea with an administrative statement of claim against the Administration of
Voinskiy rural settlement, head of the administration of the Voinskiy rural settlement Ekaterina Vasilievna
Maximova.
The court took over the case based on S.I. Ametova’s administrative statement of claim against head
of the administration of the Voinskiy rural settlement Ekaterina Vasilievna Maximova.
In violation of Part 2 of Article 221 of the Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure of the Russian
Federation, the administrative statement of claim submitted by Saniye Isaevna Ametova was considered in the
absence of the Administration of the Voinskiy rural settlement, which was not involved in and notified of the
hearing of the case.
According to Article 310 of the Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure of the Russian Federation,
the grounds for unconditional reversal of the decision of the court of first instance are:
1) consideration of an administrative case by an illegally composed court; 2) consideration of an administrative
case in the absence of any individual participating in the case and not notified properly of the time and venue
of the court hearing; 3) a failure to ensure the right of individuals participating in the case and not speaking
the language of the proceedings to give explanations, speak, file motions, complaints in their native language
or in any freely chosen language of communication, and also to use the services of an interpreter; 4) adoption
of the court decision regarding the rights and obligations of individuals not involved in the administrative case;
5) the court decision is not signed by the judge or any of the judges, or the court decision is signed by the
wrong judge or by the judges who did not participate in the judicial panel that considered the administrative
case; 6) absence of the minutes of the court session in the case; 7) violation of the rule of secrecy of
deliberations during adoption of the decision.
According to Part 1 of Article 176 of the Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure of the Russian
Federation, the decision of the court must be lawful and substantiated.
According to the explanations provided in Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the
Russian Federation of 19 December 2003 No. 23 (as amended by Resolution of 23 June 2015 No. 25) “On
judicial decision”, a decision is lawful when it is made in strict compliance with the rules of procedural law
and in full conformity with the substantive law applicable to the legal relationship in question, or if it is based
Annex 296
3
on the application of the analogy of law or analogy of law where appropriate, and a decision is well-reasoned
when the facts relevant to the case are corroborated by evidence examined by the court that meets the legal
requirements of relevance and admissibility, or circumstances that do not need to be proved, and when it
contains the court’s exhaustive findings of fact.
At the same time, according to Clause 3 of Article 309 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of
the Russian Federation, the administrative case shall be remanded to the court of first instance since the
administrative case was considered by the court in the absence of the Administration of the Voinskiy rural
settlement not involved in the case as an administrative defendant.
In such circumstances, the Decision of the Krasnoperekopskiy District Court of the Republic of
Crimea of 17 May 2016 shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Krasnoperekopskiy District
Court of the Republic of Crimea.
At the same time, the court of appeal does not review other arguments of the appeal since they shall
be assessed when the case is reconsidered.
Relying on the above and being guided by Articles 309, 311 of Code of Administrative Judicial
Procedure of the Russian Federation, the Judicial Chamber,
decided:
To reverse the Decision of the Krasnoperekopskiy District Court of the Republic of Crimea of 17 May
2016 on the administrative claim of Saniye Isaevna Ametova against head of the administration of the Voinskiy
rural settlement Ekaterina Vasilievna Maximova recognizing the actions of the head of the administration
unlawful and approving holding an event, to remand the case to the Krasnoperekopskiy District Court of the
Republic of Crimea for reconsideration.
The Appellate Decision enters into force from the date of its adoption.
The Appellate Decision may be appealed against before the court of cassation within 6 months.
Presiding Judge: (Signed) S.A. Vorobieva
Judge: (Signed) N.A. Terentieva
Judge: (Signed) S.V. Yakovlev
Annex 296
Annex 297
Centre for Countering Extremism of the Ministry of
Internal Affairs for the Republic of Crimea, Explanation of
I.R. Umerov, 27 September 2016
Translation
EXPLANATION
Simferopol
27 September 2016
Lieutenant Colonel of Police K.V. Urazov, Deputy Head of the Second Department of the Centre for
Countering Extremism of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Republic of Crimea, received an explanation
of the following individual:
1. Last name, first name, patronymic: Ilmi Rustemovich Umerov
2. Year and place of birth: 3 August 1957, Fergana Region, Uzbekistan
3. Ethnicity: Crimean Tatar
4. Citizenship: Russian Federation
5. Education: higher
6. Place of work, occupation, position: unemployed
7. Passport or other identity documents: passport [passport details]
8. Criminal background none
9. Permanent place of residence [address]
Article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation was explained to him.
/Signature/
(signature)
I agree to give an explanation
(agree, do not agree)
/Signature/
(signature)
He explained the following in respect of questions addressed to him:
I have been a member of the Mejlis since 1991. I have been Deputy Chairman of the Mejlis from 2011
(I cannot name a more precise date) up to the present.
A meeting of members of the Mejlis was initiated by Refat Abdurakhmanovich Chubarov, Chairman
of the Mejlis. It took place on 22 September 2016 at the place of my actual residence at the address: [...].
There was only one item on the agenda – suspension of powers of three members of the Mejlis – A.
Adzhimambetov, Yakubov, and E.S. Ablaev. The meeting was attended by M.T. Maushev, D.Z. Aliev, L.U.
Khashchin, E. Kurtaev, E. Avamilova, B. Mamutov, Sh. Kaybullayev, A. Egiz, S.U. Tabakh, Z.F. Yakubov and
me, 11 people in total. Later on (illegible) joined us. Finally, when there were 12 people, we began our meeting
on Skype with members of the Mejlis who are currently in Ukraine. These include N.E. Dzhelyalov, L. Yunusov
who at that time were in Kiev and R.A. Chubarov, A. Suleymanov, G. Bekirova, G. Yuksel, E. Bariev,
R. Shevkiev. Now there were 20 members of the Mejlis, which constitutes a quorum for decision-making. The
following decisions were made at the meeting:
1) to remove A. Adzhimambetov from his office of Deputy Chairman of the Mejlis;
2) to suspend the powers of A. Adzhimambetov, R. Yakubov, and E. Ablaev as members of the Mejlis.
The meeting lasted for about two hours, from 6 p.m. until 8 p.m. on 22 September 2016, after which
the attendees dispersed.
I would also like to add that the order of the Chairman of the Mejlis of 26 April 2016 is not currently
in force and will become effective once the court decision on recognition of the Mejlis as an extremist
organisation has entered into force.
The above is an accurate record of my statement. I have read it and have no comments or additions.
/Signature/ I.R. Umerov
27 September 2016
Annex 297
Annex 298
Krasnoperekopsk District Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No.
2a-1578/16, Decision, 4 October 2016
1
Translation
Case No. 2-a-1578/16
DECISION
In the name of the Russian Federation
4 October 2016 Krasnoperekopsk
Krasnoperekopsk District Court of the Republic of Crimea composed of: the presiding judge - A.S.
Savchenko, in the presence of secretary of the court hearing - N.V. Poshivai, with the participation of the
administrative claimant - S.I. Ametova, the representative of the administrative claimant - M.M. Nebiev, the
representative of the administrative defendant - the Head of the Administration of Voinskiy rural settlement
and the Administration of Voinskiy rural settlement E.V. Maksimova, having considered in open court the
case on an administrative claim of Sanir Isaeva Ametova against the Head of the Administration of Voinskiy
rural settlement and the Administration of Voinskiy rural settlement of the Krasnoperekopsk District of the
Republic of Crimea on recognition of the actions of the Head of the Administration to be unlawful,
FOUND:
S.I. Ametova filed an administrative claim with the court against E.V. Maksimova, the Head of the
Administration of Voinskiy rural settlement of the Krasnoperekopsk District of the Republic of Crimea on
recognition of the actions of the Head of the Administration in relation to the refusal to grant permission to
hold the rally on 18 May 2016 from 3 p.m. till 5 p.m. in the center of Voinka village, Krasnoperekopsk District,
the Republic of Crimea near the memorial complex, as unlawful.
By virtue of the Ruling of Krasnoperekopsk District Court of the Republic of Crimea of 19 September
2016, the Administration of Voinskiy rural settlement of Krasnoperekopsk District of the Republic of Crimea
was joined as a co-defendant in this case.
The claimant’s claims are based on the fact that the refusal to consider holding a rally dedicated to
“commemorating the victims of the ethnocide of the Crimean Tatar people as a result of the deportation of 18
May 1944 from their historical homeland” on 18 May 2016 from 3 p.m. till 5 p.m., involving 110 persons,
with the use of sound-amplifying technical equipment and Crimean Tatar national symbols, is discriminatory
and was issued in violation of Article 31 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, [Federal Law No.] 54-
FZ “On assemblies, rallies, demonstrations, marches and picketing”, [Law] of 2 August 2014 [No.] 56-ZRK,
Resolution of 12 January 2015 No. 15 “On the approval of the Regulation ‘On assemblies, rallies,
demonstrations, marches and picketing on the territory of Voinskiy rural settlement of the Krasnoperekopsk
District of the Republic of Crimea’”. The response of the Head of the Administration on holding the flowerlaying
ceremony by the memorial sign on 18 May 2016 from 3 p.m. is considered by the claimant as unlawful,
since the claimant as the organizer of this event does not want to lay flowers together with the Head of the
Administration, and also because a prayer service was planned. On 12 May 2016, the claimant sent to the
Administration of Voinskiy rural settlement of Krasnoperekopsk District the information on approval of the
time of holding the rally, namely change of timing thereof from 3 p.m. till 4 p.m. to 11 a.m. till 12.30 p.m. On
12 May 2016, a response was given, however the claimant as the organizer does not agree with the response,
since it violates the rights of the Tatar population.
At the hearing, the claimant S.I. Ametova and her representative M.M. Nebiev maintained the claims
in full and asked to satisfy them on the grounds set forth in the claim.
Defendant E.V. Maksimova – the Head of the Administration of Voinskiy rural settlement of
Krasnoperekopsk District of the Republic of Crimea – asked to dismiss the claims and believes that she acted
in compliance with the law.
E.V. Maksimova, the representative of the defendant – Administration of Voinskiy rural settlement of
Krasnoperekopsk District of the Republic of Crimea – asked to dismiss the claims.
Annex 298
2
Having heard the parties, having examined the written materials of the case, the court considers it
necessary to dismiss the claim based on the following.
In accordance with Article 31 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, citizens of the Russian
Federation have the right to gather peacefully, without weapons, to hold assemblies, rallies, demonstrations,
marches and picketing.
As indicated by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in the Decision
of 14 February 2013 No. 4-P, this right, guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, is not
absolute and may be limited by federal law in order to protect constitutionally significant values with the
obligatory observance of the principles of necessity, proportionality and commensurability, so that the
limitations imposed by it do not encroach on the very essence of this constitutional right and do not interfere
with the open and free expression of citizens’ views, opinions and demands through the organization and
conduct of peaceful public actions.
According to this Federal Law, the executive bodies of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation
determine unified specially designated or adapted places for collective discussion of socially significant issues
and expression of public sentiments, as well as for the mass presence of citizens for open expression of public
opinion on topical issues of predominantly social and political nature (Part 1.1 of Article 8), and after the
executive body of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation determines such places, public events are
held, as a rule, in such determined places (Part 2.1 of Article 8). At the same time, the Federal Law “On
assemblies, rallies, demonstrations, marches and picketing” defines the list of places where it is prohibited to
hold a public event (Part 2 of Article 8), and in order to protect the rights and freedoms of a person and citizen,
to ensure the rule of law, order and public safety, the said Federal Law provides for establishment by the law
of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation of additional places where it is prohibited to hold meetings,
rallies, marches, demonstrations, including if the holding of public events in the determined places may result
in disruption of the functioning of vital, transport or social infrastructure, communications, interfere with the
movement of pedestrians and (or) vehicles or access of individuals to residential premises or facilities of
transport or social infrastructure (Part 2.2 of Article 8). At the same time, as a basis for refusal to approve the
holding of a public event, this Federal Law provides for indication in the notification as a place of holding a
public event a place where, in accordance with this Federal Law or the law of a constituent entity of the Russian
Federation, holding a public event is prohibited (Part 3 of Article 12).
In accordance with Clause 1 of Part 4 of Article 5 of the Federal Law of 19 June 2004 No. 54-FZ “On
assemblies, rallies, demonstrations, marches and picketing”, as subsequently amended, the organizer of a
public event is obliged to submit a notice of holding a public event to the executive body of a constituent entity
of the Russian Federation or to the local government body in the manner prescribed by Article 7 of this Federal
Law.
According to Part 1 of Article 7 of the Federal Law No. 54-FZ, a notification of holding a public event
(with the exception of holding an assembly and picketing held by one participant without using a prefabricated
demountable structure) is submitted by its organizer in writing to the executive body of the constituent entity
of the Russian Federation or to the local government body not earlier than 15 days and not later than 10 days
before the day of holding a public event.
In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Federal Law “On assemblies,
rallies, demonstrations, marches and picketing”, a law was adopted - the Law of the Republic of Crimea of 21
August 2014 No. 56-ZRK “On providing conditions for the citizens of the Russian Federation to exercise their
right to hold assemblies, rallies, demonstrations and picketing in the Republic of Crimea” and the Regulation
was developed, according to which a public event is an open, peaceful action that is accessible to everyone
and that is held in the form of an assembly, rally, demonstration, march or picketing, or in various combinations
of these forms on the initiative of citizens of the Russian Federation, political parties, other public associations
and religious associations, including with the use of vehicles. The purpose of a public event is free expression
and formation of opinions, as well as making of demands on various issues of political and economic life.
The court established that the date of holding the mass event is 18 May 2016.
Annex 298
3
On 4 May 2016, the Administration of Voinskiy rural settlement of Krasnoperekopsk District of the
Republic of Crimea received a notification from S.I. Ametova on holding of a public mass event in the form
of a rally on 18 May 2016 from 3 p.m. till 5 p.m. in the center of Voinka village (memorial complex), without
specifying the address, with the purpose to commemorate the victims of the ethnocide of the Crimean Tatar
people as a result of the deportation of 18 May 1944 from their historical homeland, with the estimated number
of participants being 110 persons (case record sheet 3).
In the notification of 4 May 2016 the organizer also indicated the date of holding the event (rally) on
18 May 2016 from 3 p.m. till 5 p.m. (case record sheet 3).
On 10 May 2016, the Administration of Voinskiy rural settlement of Krasnoperekopsk District, in
accordance with the provisions of Article 12 of the Federal Law of 19 June 2004 No. 54-FZ “On assemblies,
rallies, demonstrations, marches and picketing”, taking into the account the weekend and public holidays, sent
to the applicant a letter of 10 May 2016 No. 03-39/735, signed by the Head of the Administration of Voinskiy
rural settlement of Krasnoperekopsk District, where the Administration documented the receipt of the
notification on holding the public event, at the same time informing the organizer on the impossibility of
holding the rally, proposing to hold a joint laying of flowers to the memorial sign on 18 May 2016 at 3 p.m.
(case record sheet 4).
On 12 May 2016, the Administration of Voinskiy rural settlement of Krasnoperekopsk District of the
Republic of Crimea received from S.I. Ametova the confirmation of the time of holding of the mass event,
namely on rescheduling of the rally from 3 p.m. to 11 a.m. (case record sheet 5).
On 13 May 2016 the Administration of Voinskiy rural settlement of Krasnoperekopsk District, in
accordance with the provisions of Article 12 of the Federal Law of 19 June 2004 No. 54-FZ “On assemblies,
rallies, demonstrations, marches and picketing” sent to the applicant the letter of 13 May 2016 No. 03-39/754,
signed by the Head of the Administration of Voinskiy rural settlement of Krasnoperekopsk District, where the
Administration pointed out the impossibility of holding and moving forward the time of the rally, since
according to the Resolution of the 29th Session of the 1st convocation of Voinskiy Rural Council of 28 April
2016 No. 361, improvement works were to be carried out on the territory of the park (installation of a fence,
installation of a playground, mowing of grass, repair of the outdoor performance stage) and all events on this
territory were prohibited: an exception was made for the period from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. on 18 May 2016 for
holding the flower-laying event at the memorial sign to those who died during the deportation (according to
the Resolution of the Administration of Voinskiy rural settlement of Krasnoperekopsk District of the Republic
of Crimea of 29 April 2016 No. 111) (case record sheet 6).
The court finds no reason to consider the contested responses unlawful, due to non-compliance of the
notification on holding of the rally with the requirements of Article 7 of the Federal Law “On assemblies,
rallies, demonstrations, marches and picketing”, namely in relation to the purpose of the rally and the place of
its holding. The notification was reviewed and responses, which were signed by an authorized official, were
issued.
The claimant’s arguments about the violation of Article 31 of the Constitution of the Russian
Federation, the Federal Law No. 54-FZ “On assemblies, rallies, demonstrations, marches and picketing”, the
Law of the Republic of Crimea of 22 August 2014 No. 56-ZRK “On providing conditions for the citizens of
the Russian Federation to exercise their right to hold assemblies, rallies, demonstrations and picketing in the
Republic of Crimea”, Resolution of 12 January 2015 No. 15 on the approval of the Regulations “On
assemblies, rallies, demonstrations, marches and picketing on the territory of Voinskiy rural settlement of
Krasnoperekopsk District of the Republic of Crimea” are not objectively confirmed and no violation of the
rights of the organizer of a public event can be inferred from the evidence submitted.
Thus, the court considers it necessary to dismiss the stated demands of the claimant.
Based on the foregoing, pursuant to Articles 174-177, 219, 227 of the Code of Administrative Judicial
Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court
Annex 298
4
DECIDED:
To dismiss the administrative claim of S.I. Ametova against the Head of the Administration of
Voinskiy rural settlement and the Administration of Voinskiy rural settlement of the Krasnoperekopsk District
of the Republic of Crimea on recognizing the actions of the Head of the Administration as unlawful.
Judicial costs are to be borne by the parties.
The Decision of the court may be appealed to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea through
Krasnoperekopsk District Court of the Republic of Crimea within one month from the date of adoption of the
final Decision of the court.
The full text of the Decision was prepared on 7 October 2016.
Judge: /Signature/ A.S. Savchenko
Annex 298
Annex 299
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Case of the
constitutional review of Part 1 of Article 4 of the Federal Constitutional
Law “On the admission of the Republic of Crimea into the Russian
Federation and the formation of new constituent entities within the
Russian Federation - the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of
Sevastopol” in connection with the appeal of A.G. Olenev, Decision
No. 18-P, 4 October 2016 (excerpts)
1
Translation
Excerpts
In the Name of the Russian Federation
DECISION
of the CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
in the case of the constitutional review of Part 1 of Article 4 of the Federal Constitutional Law “On the
admission of the Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation and the formation of new constituent
entities within the Russian Federation – the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol” in
connection with the appeal of A.G. OLENEV
Saint Petersburg 4 October 2016
[…]
Page 4
[…]
The statutory provision contested by A.G. Olenev duplicates the provisions of Article 5 of the Treaty
between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea on the Accession of the Republic of Crimea to
the Russian Federation and the Formation of New Constituent Entities within the Russian Federation, which
prior to its effective date was examined by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation as requested by
the President of the Russian Federation. In its review of the constitutionality of the Treaty within the scope
admissible for such type of acts pursuant to the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Federal
Constitutional Law “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation”, the Constitutional Court of the
Russian Federation in its Decision of 19 March 2014 No. 6-P concluded that Article 5 thereof does not compel
any person to renounce his/her citizenship held as at the date of admission of the Republic of Crimea to the
Russian Federation and guarantees the acquisition of citizenship of the Russian Federation, if wished, without
the need to take any steps for that and does not contradict with the Constitution of the Russian Federation as
such.
[…]
Pages 12-14
[…]
Therefore, the person’s permanent residence in the Russian Federation as a legal status and a
prerequisite to the exercise of his constitutional rights and freedoms, including the right to acquire citizenship
pursuant to federal law, is not necessarily conditional on the registration at the place of residence or that the
place of registration and the actual place of permanent residence match, with the latter not always being a place
that meets the statutory requirements of residential premises. As for relations regulated by Part 1 of Article 4
of the Federal Constitutional Law “On the admission of the Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation
and the formation of new constituent entities within the Russian Federation - the Republic of Crimea and the
federal city of Sevastopol”, due to the special aspects of its temporal, territorial and personal scope, permanent
residence not confirmed by registration, including from the standpoint of distinguishing it from the place of
actual stay, shall be established on the basis of the totality of evidence within the scope of housing, labour,
interpersonal and other relations showing that as at the relevant date the person opted for the territory in which
he/she actually permanently resides as the location of his/her priority interests in everyday life and through
his/her actions expressed a clear intention to establish a real connection with it.
Annex 299
2
At the same time, by virtue of Article 2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the state
authorities, including courts, are encouraged to minimise the excessive formalities in their approach to the
establishment of the existence of such connection of the person with the relevant territory, taking into account
the situation in which shortly before 18 March 2014 the person could have opted for Crimea as the place of
permanent residence. The fact that Law of Ukraine of 11 December 2003 No. 1382-IV “On the freedom of
movement and free choice of the place of residence in Ukraine” (in force as at 18 March 2014) defines the
place of stay of an individual as an administrative territorial unit in the territory of which the individual resides
for less than six months in a year, thus distinguishing such categories as “place of stay” and “place of
residence”, does not provide any grounds for considering the confirmation of residence of a Ukrainian national
in the Republic of Crimea or the federal city of Sevastopol for six calendar months or more as at 18 March
2014 as a prerequisite for the acquisition of citizenship of the Russian Federation.
3.2. Thus, Part 1 of Article 4 of the Federal Constitutional Law “On the admission of the Republic of
Crimea into the Russian Federation and the formation of new constituent entities within the Russian Federation
- the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol”, within its constitutional and legal meaning in the
system of the applicable statutory regulation, by virtue of the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian
Federation, the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation based thereon and set out
herein, and with regard to international legal acts, implies that in order to address the issue of recognition as a
citizen of the Russian Federation of a Ukrainian national who as at the date of admission of the Republic of
Crimea to the Russian Federation and the formation of new constituent entities of the Russian Federation – the
Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol (that is, as at 18 March 2014) had no registration at the
place of residence in the Republic of Crimea or the federal city of Sevastopol:
the permanent residence of a Ukrainian national in the Republic of Crimea or the federal city of
Sevastopol as at 18 March 2014 is understood to mean his/her actual permanent residence in the said territory
as at the mentioned date;
the permanent residence of a Ukrainian national in the Republic of Crimea or the federal city of
Sevastopol as at 18 March 2014 shall be established on the basis of the totality of evidence within the scope
of housing, labour, interpersonal and other relations showing that as at the relevant date the person opted for
the territory in which he/she actually permanently resides as the location of his/her priority interests in
everyday life or through his/her actions expressed a clear intention to establish a real connection with it.
[…]
Pages 19-20
[…] the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation
decided:
1. To declare that Part 1 of Article 4 of the Federal Constitutional Law “On the admission of the
Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation and the formation of new constituent entities within the
Russian Federation - the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol” is consistent with the
Constitution of the Russian Federation since, within its constitutional and legal meaning in the system of the
applicable statutory regulation, by virtue of provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the legal
positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation based thereon and set out herein, implies that
in order to address the issue of recognition as a citizen of the Russian Federation of a Ukrainian national who
as at the date of admission of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation and the formation of new
constituent entities of the Russian Federation – the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol (that
is, as at 18 March 2014) had no registration at the place of residence in the Republic of Crimea or the federal
city of Sevastopol:
Annex 299
3
the permanent residence of a Ukrainian national in the Republic of Crimea or the federal city of
Sevastopol as at 18 March 2014 is understood to mean his/her actual permanent residence in the said territory
as at the mentioned date;
the permanent residence of a Ukrainian national in the Republic of Crimea or the federal city of
Sevastopol as at 18 March 2014 shall be established on the basis of the totality of evidence within the scope
of housing, labour, interpersonal and other relations showing that as at the relevant date the person opted for
the territory in which he/she actually permanently resides as the location of his/her priority interests in
everyday life or through his/her actions expressed a clear intention to establish a real connection with it.
an effective court decision establishing the permanent residence of a Ukrainian national in the
Republic of Crimea or the federal city of Sevastopol as at 18 March 2014 constitutes a good and sufficient
reason for the recognition of the latter as a citizen of the Russian Federation by a competent authority in
accordance with the established procedure.
[…]
Page 21
[…]
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation
No. 18-P /Seal: Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation/ Hearing Support Division /
Annex 299
Annex 300
Investigative Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security
Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol,
Resolution on the initiation of criminal case No. 2016427051,
11 October 2016
1
Translation
RESOLUTION
on the initiation of a criminal case and commencement of proceedings
Simferopol 11 October 2016
12:00 p.m.
Senior Investigator of the Investigative Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security Service
of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, Major of Justice [name], having examined a crime
report — the report on the signs of crimes under Part 1, Article 205.5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian
Federation and Part 2, Article 205.5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation received from the
Service for Combating Terrorism and Maintaining the Constitutional Order of the Directorate of the Federal
Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol and registered in Crime Records
Registration Book No. 1 under No. 420 on 11 October 2016, with materials of operative search activities
attached,
ESTABLISHED:
In 2015 (the exact date has not been determined), a citizen of the Russian Federation, Teymur Rzaogly
Abdullaev, as a member of the Islamic Liberation Party (Hizbut ut-Tahrir al-Islami), recognised as a
terrorist organisation and banned in the Russian Federation by the effective decision of the Supreme Court of
the Russian Federation of 14 February 2003, organised a local cell of this organisation in Simferopol,
Republic of Crimea and manages its activities.
Since 2015 (the exact date has not been determined) citizens of the Russian Federation Uzeir Rza
ogly Abdullaev, Rustem Yakubovich Ismailov, Emil Enverovich Dzhemadenov and Aider Dilyarevovich
Saledinov have been engaged in the activities of the said local cell of the terrorist organisation Islamic
Liberation Party (Hizbut ut-Tahrir al-Islami) operating in Simferopol, Republic of Crimea under the
leadership of T.R.o. Abdullaev.
From 2015 (the exact date has not been determined) to date, T.R.o. Abdullaev, as head of the local
cell of the terrorist organisation Islamic Liberation Party (Hizbut ut-Tahrir al-Islami), using the acquired
special knowledge and agitation skills, has deliberately carried out covert anti-Russian, anti-constitutional
activities in the form of propaganda activities among the population, inciting local residents to participate in
the terrorist organisation by influencing their religious feelings. In addition, he has directed the activities of
this cell, organised and held secret meetings of members of this terrorist organisation U.R.o. Abdullaev,
R.Ya. Ismailov, E.E. Dzhemadenov and A.D. Saledinov, during which he has taught these persons the
ideology of Hizbut ut-Tahrir al-Islami, organised the recruiting new members by them, developed and
adjusted the plans, goals and objectives of the said cell in the region.
/Seal: Directorate of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation
for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol/
/Stamp: INVESTIGATIVE DEPARTMENT. TRUE COPY/
As members of the said local cell of the terrorist organisation Islamic Liberation Party (Hizbut ut-
Tahrir al-Islami), U.R.o. Abdullaev, R.Ya. Ismailov, E.E. Dzhemadenov and A.D. Saledinov, from 2015 (the
exact date has not been determined) to date, have deliberately participated in secret meetings of members of
this cell, during which they have studied the ideology of this terrorist organisation, developed and adjusted
further plans, goals and objectives of the cell activity in the region and also carried out covert anti-Russian,
anti-constitutional activities in the form of propaganda activities among the population, inciting local
residents to participate in the terrorist organisation.
Thus, T.R.o. Abdullaev, in 2015 (the exact date has not been determined), in Simferopol, the
Republic of Crimea, organised the activities of the local cell of Islamic Liberation Party (Hizbut ut-Tahrir al-
Islami), recognised as a terrorist organisation by the effective decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian
Federation of 14 February 2003, and U.R.o. Abdullaev, R.Ya. Ismailov, E.E. Dzhemadenov and
A.D. Saledinov have participated in its activities from 2015 (the exact date has not been determined) to date.
Based on the above, taking into account the grounds provided for under Articles 140 and 143 of the
Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation for initiating a criminal case — a report on the signs of
Annex 300
2
crimes under Part 1, Article 205.5 and Part 2, Article 205.5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
received from the Service for Combating Terrorism and Maintaining the Constitutional Order of the
Directorate of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol and
registered in Crime Records Registration Book No. 1 under No. 420 on 11 October 2016, with materials of
operative search activities attached, as well as the grounds provided for under Part 2, Article 140 of the
Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation for initiating a criminal case, taking into account that
there is sufficient data indicating that the actions of T.R.o. Abdullaev contain signs of a crime under Part 1,
Article 205.5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the actions of U.R.o. Abdullaev,
R.Ya. Ismailov, E.E. Dzhemadenov and A.D. Saledinov contain signs of a crime under Part 2, Article 205.5
of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, guided by Articles 140, 145, 146 and Part 1 of Article 156
of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation,
RESOLVED:
1. To initiate a criminal case into a crime under Part 1, Article 205.5 of the Criminal Code of
the Russian Federation with respect to the citizen of the Russian Federation, Teymur Rza-ogly Abdullaev,
born on 27 May 1975, suspected of organising the activities of the organisation that, in accordance with the
legislation of the Russian Federation, is recognised as terrorist.
2. To initiate a criminal case into a crime under Part 2, Article 205.5 of the Criminal Code of
the Russian Federation with respect to citizens of the Russian Federation Uzeir Rza ogly Abdullaev, born on
30 April, 1974; Rustem Yakubovich Ismailov, born on 3 September 1984; Emil Enverovich Dzhemadenov,
born on 19 August 1980; Aider Dilyarevovich Saledinov, born on 21 July 1987, suspected of participating in
the activities of the organisation that, in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, is
recognised as terrorist.
/Seal: Directorate of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation
for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol/
/Stamp: INVESTIGATIVE DEPARTMENT. TRUE COPY/
3. To initiate proceedings and begin investigating the case, assign to it registration number
2016427051.
4. To send a copy of this resolution to the Prosecutor of the Republic of Crimea.
Senior Investigator of the Investigative Department of
the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the
Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, Major of Justice /Signature/ [name]
A copy of this resolution was sent to the Prosecutor of the Republic of Crimea on 11 October 2016 at
12:30 p.m.
The resolution made on 11 October 2016 was reported to the persons against whom a criminal case
was initiated: T.R.o. Abdullaev, U.R.o. Abdullaev, R.Ya. Ismailov, E.E. Dzhemadenov and A.D. Saledinov.
Senior Investigator of the Investigative Department of
the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the
Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, Major of Justice /Signature/ [name]
/Seal: Directorate of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation
for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol/
/Stamp: INVESTIGATIVE DEPARTMENT. TRUE COPY/
Annex 300
Annex 301
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, Case No. 3/6-593/2016, Ruling
authorizing the search, 11 November 2016
1
Translation
Case No. 3/6-593/2016
RULING
11 November 2016 Simferopol
Judge of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea A.S. Tsykurenko,
with E.E. Samborskaya as the secretary,
with the participation of the prosecutor S.V. Korneev,
having considered in an open court hearing a motion of the senior investigator of the
Investigative Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the
Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, Major of Justice [name] on conducting a search in the
dwelling,
established:
On 11 October 2016, the Investigative Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security
Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol initiated a criminal case against
T.R.o.Abdullaev, suspected of committing a crime under Part 1, Article 205.5 of the Criminal Code
of the Russian Federation, as well as against U.R.o. Abdullaev, R.Ya. Ismailov, E.E. Dzhemadenov
and A.D. Saledinov, suspected of committing a crime under Part 2, Article 205.5 of the Criminal
Code of the Russian Federation.
The preliminary investigation established that in 2015 (the exact date has not been
determined), a citizen of the Russian Federation, T.R.o. Abdullaev, as a member of the Islamic
Liberation Party (Hizbut ut-Tahrir al-Islami), recognised as a terrorist organisation and banned in
the Russian Federation by the effective decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
dated 14 February 2003, organised a local cell of this organisation in Simferopol, Republic of
Crimea and directs its activities.
Since 2015 (the exact date has not been determined) the citizens of the Russian Federation
U.R.o. Abdullaev, R.Ya. Ismailov, E.E. Dzhemadenov and A.D. Saledinov have been engaged in
the activities of the said local cell of the terrorist organisation Islamic Liberation Party (Hizbut ut-
Tahrir al-Islami) operating in Simferopol, Republic of Crimea under the leadership of
T.R.o. Abdullaev.
According to the criminal case files, T.R.o. Abdullaev resides at: 7 Dzhankoy Street,
Stroganovka, Simferopolsky District, Republic of Crimea, where the instruments of crime, objects,
documents, valuables that are important for this criminal case, as well as other items and substances
removed from the stream of commerce in the Russian Federation, may be stored.
T.R.o. Abdullaev and the persons residing with him at the specified address do not belong to a
separate category of persons listed in Chapter 52 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian
Federation.
Thus, there is sufficient evidence to believe that there may be items, documents, computer
equipment that are important for establishing the truth under this criminal case, as well as items
removed from the stream of commerce in the territory of the Russian Federation, in the dwelling at
the place of residence of T.R.o. Abdullaev.
Based on the above, the senior investigator of the Investigative Department of the Directorate
of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, Major of
Justice [name] requested permission to conduct a search at the place of residence of
T.R.o. Abdullaev at: 7 Dzhankoy Street, Stroganovka, Simferopolsky District, Republic of Crimea,
Annex 301
2
where the instruments of crime, objects, documents, valuables that are important for this criminal
case and other items and substances removed from the stream of commerce in the territory of the
Russian Federation, may be stored.
Having heard the prosecutor who supported the motion and having examined the submitted
materials, the court considers the motion subject to satisfaction.
Parts 2, 3 of Article 182 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation provides
that a search shall be carried out on the basis of the investigator’s order. A search in a dwelling shall
be carried out on the basis of a court decision made in the manner prescribed by Article 165 of this
Code.
According to the case files, criminal сase No. 2016427051 was initiated on 11 October 2016
on the basis of a crime under Part 1, Article 205.5 and Part 2 of Article 205.5 of the Criminal Code
of the Russian Federation by the Investigative Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security
Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol.
According to a certificate from the Administration of the rural settlement of Trudovskoe of
the Simferopolsky District of the Republic of Crimea, T.R.o. Abdullaev has a land for individual
residential construction at: 7 Dzhankoy Street, Stroganovka, Simferopolsky District, Republic of
Crimea.
Thus, the court considers that at the place of residence of T.R.o. Abdullaev at: 7 Dzhankoy
Street, Stroganovka, Simferopolsk District, Republic of Crimea, the instruments of crime, objects,
documents, valuables that are important for this criminal case, as well as other items and substances
removed from the stream of commerce in the Russian Federation, may be stored.
Therefore, the motion is justified and subject to satisfaction.
Based on the foregoing and guided by Part 2, Article 165 and Article 182 of the Criminal
Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the court
ruled:
to satisfy the motion of the senior investigator of the Investigative Department of the
Directorate of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol,
Major of Justice [name].
To allow the search of the dwelling located at: 7 Dzhankoy Street, Stroganovka, Simferopol
District, Republic of Crimea.
The ruling may be appealed against to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea through
the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol within ten days from the date of its adoption.
Judge
/Signature/ A.S. Tsykurenko
Read by /illegible/
/Signature/ 12 October, 2016
/Seal: /illegible/, Kievskiy
District Court of Simferopol of
the Republic of Crimea/
/Stamp: INVESTIGATIVE
DEPARTMENT
TRUE COPY/
/Signature/
/Seal: Federal Security Service
of the Russian Federation,
Directorate for the Republic of
Crimea and Sevastopol / For
certificates and documents/
Annex 301
Annex 302
Court of Appeal of Sevastopol, Case No. 12-401/2016, Appellate
Decision, 17 November 2016
1
Translation
Decision No. 12-401/2016 of 17 November 2016 in Case No. 12-401/2016
Court of Appeal of Sevastopol (The City of Sevastopol) – Administrative
Judge A.N. Vasilenko, Case No. 12-401/2016
DECISION
in an administrative offence case
Sevastopol, 17 November 2016
Judge of the Sevastopol City Court Tatyana Aleksandrovna Artamonova, having examined in an open court
session in the premises of the court (20 Suvorova Street, Sevastopol) the appeal of S.P. against the decision of
the judge of the Leninskiy District Court of Sevastopol of 1 November 2016, rendered on the administrative
offence case provided for in paragraph 1.1 of Article 18.8 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the
Russian Federation (hereinafter – the Code),
ESTABLISHED:
that, by the decision of the judge of the Leninskiy District Court of the city Sevastopol of 1 November 2016,
S.P. was found guilty of committing an administrative offence provided for in paragraph 1.1 of Article 18.8 of
the Code, and was subjected an administrative penalty in the form of administrative fine in the amount of 2,000
Rubles with an administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation by way of a supervised independent
departure from the Russian Federation.
On 10 November 2016, S.P. filed an appeal with the Sevastopol City Court, in which he, without contesting
his guilt, expressed disagreement with the additional penalty (imposed on him) in the form of administrative
expulsion from the Russian Federation by way of a supervised independent departure from the Russian
Federation. In support of the arguments of the appeal, he refers to the fact that he has been permanently residing
in the territory of the city since 2008 with his common-law wife Yu.S. and her mother E.M. and has by now
taken measures to legalise his status by filing with the Nakhimovskiy District Court an application for the
establishment of the legal fact of his permanent residence in the territory of Sevastopol as at 18 March 2014
in order to subsequently acquire the citizenship of the Russian Federation. He also requests to take into account
the fact that he is an active participant of the defence of Sevastopol, for which reason, in the event of his
administrative expulsion to the territory of Ukraine, he may be subjected to criminal prosecution.
The appeal was filed within the term set out in paragraph 1 of Article 30.3 of the Code, and therefore it is
subject to the consideration on the merits.
During the court hearing, S.P. supported the arguments of the appeal, on the grounds set out therein, and
additionally explained that for 6 years he has been living in Crimea in a civil marriage with Yu.S., who is a
citizen of the Russian Federation, and that he has a young child with her, however, due to financial difficulties,
after birth, the child was registered only with the mother. He makes a living in the area of construction. His
own aunt, a citizen of the Russian Federation, resides in the town of Dzhankoy. There are also relatives in
Moscow, Tyumen. His father lives in the Donetsk region, however, there are constant hostilities in the area of
Mirnoe, since the village is located in the buffer zone. Moreover, he cannot return to Donetsk for he is a
participant of the “Anti-Maidan”, and because of that he even was in Ukrainian captivity for some time.
Annex 302
2
Having heard the explanations of the applicant, having studied the materials of the administrative offence case
in full, having verified the arguments of the appeal, I come to the following conclusions.
In accordance with paragraph 1.1 of Article 18.8 of the Code, a violation by a foreign citizen or a stateless
person of the regime of stay (residence) in the Russian Federation, which manifested itself in the absence of
documents confirming the right to stay (reside) in the Russian Federation, ... if these actions do not contain
signs of a criminally punishable act, entails the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of two
thousand to five thousand rubles with an administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation.
The judge of the district court, when considering the case, established that, on DD.MM.YYYY at 11:20, in
Sevastopol near <address>, police officers identified a citizen of Ukraine S.P., who was present in the territory
of the Russian Federation in violation of the regime of stay without documents confirming the right to such
stay, by which he violated Article 25.10 of Federal Law No. 114-FZ of 15 August 1996 “On the Procedure for
Leaving the Russian Federation and Entering the Russian Federation” (hereinafter – Law No. 114-FZ).
The said circumstances and the guilt of S.P. in the commission of the administrative offence, provided for in
paragraph 1.1 of Article 18.8 of the Code, are not contested by the applicant and are confirmed by the aggregate
evidence, the reliability and admissibility of which is beyond doubt.
In accordance with the requirements of Articles 24.1 and 26.11 of the Code, when considering the
administrative offence case, the district court, based on the provisions of Article 25.10 of Law No. 114-FZ as
well as a complete, comprehensive and objective analysis of the evidence, collected in the case, established all
legally significant circumstances of the committed administrative offence, provided for in Article 26.1 of the
Code, the fact of the occurrence of the administrative offence.
In this regard, the judge of the district court came to a well-grounded conclusion about the proof of S.P.’s guilt
in committing the administrative offence and correctly qualified his actions under paragraph 1.1 of Article
18.8 of the Code.
However, in light of the specific circumstances of the present case, there are grounds for amending the
contested judicial act in terms of the penalty imposed.
In accordance with the general rules for the imposition of an administrative penalty, an administrative penalty
for the commission of an administrative offence is imposed within the limits, provided for by the law that
establishes the responsibility for a particular administrative offence, and in accordance with the Code. When
imposing an administrative penalty upon an individual, the nature of the administrative offence committed by
him, the offender’s personality, his property status, the circumstances mitigating the administrative
responsibility and the circumstances aggravating the administrative responsibility, shall be taken into account
(paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 4.1 of the Code).
The imposition of an additional penalty in the form of administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation
shall be based on data confirming the genuine need to impose upon the person, in respect of whom the
proceedings on the administrative offence case are underway, such a measure of responsibility, as well as its
proportionality as being the only possible way to achieve the balance of public and private interests within the
framework of the administrative proceedings.
According to paragraph 2 of Article 1.1 of the Code, the Code is based on the Constitution of the Russian
Federation, generally recognised principles and international law and international agreements of the Russian
Federation.
By virtue of the provisions of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms (Rome, 4 November 1950) everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life. There
shall be no interference by the public authority with the exercise of this right except when such interference is
necessary in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national
security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for
the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Annex 302
3
According to the legal position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, formulated in its
Resolution No. 11-P of 15 July 1999, the constitutional requirements of fairness and proportionality imply the
differentiation of public responsibility on the basis of the gravity of the offence, the extent and nature of
damage, the degree of the offender’s guilt and other circumstances significant for the individualisation of
certain measures of state coercion. Elaborating this legal position further in its Resolution No. 8-P of
27 May 2008, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation indicated that the criminal law measures,
aimed at protecting the constitutional values, shall be established in view of the fact that the consequences
generated by such measures (particularly for the person concerned) are required to be adequately related to the
damage caused by the crime in order to ensure proportionality of the criminal sanction and the offence and to
ensure the balance of fundamental rights of the individual and common interest in protecting the individual,
society and the state against criminal acts.
The cited legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation may be extended to
administrative responsibility.
In its Resolution No. 4-P of 14 February 2013, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation also
acknowledged that the rules for the application of measures of administrative responsibility, provided for in
the legislation on administrative offences, shall not only take into account the nature of the offence, its danger
to the legally protected values, but also ensure due consideration of the reasons for and the circumstances of
its commission, as well as of the offender’s personality and the degree of his guilt, thereby guaranteeing the
adequacy of the consequences generated (including for the person being held responsible) to the damage
caused as a result of the administrative offence, preventing extensive state coercion and ensuring the balance
of the fundamental rights of the individual (legal entity) and common interest in protecting the individual,
society and the state against administrative offences; otherwise – by virtue of the constitutional prohibition of
discrimination and the ideas of justice and humanism enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation
– would be incompatible with the principle of the individualisation of responsibility for administrative offences
(Resolutions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 3-P of 19 March 2003, No. 5-P of
13 March 2008, No. 8-P of 27 May 2008, No. 15-P of 13 July 2010, No. 1-P of 17 January 2013 and others).
The sanction of paragraph 1.1 of Article 18.8 of the Code provides for the mandatory imposition of such an
additional penalty, and the Code itself does not stipulate the possibility to impose for the commission of such
an offence a penalty that falls below the lower limit, prescribed by the sanction of the specific provision. In
this regard, such a penalty may not be imposed upon the person, who committed such an offence, only in cases
provided for by international law (paragraph 2 of Article 1.1 of the Code) provided there are exceptional
circumstances stipulated by them, which shall be proven.
When filing the appeal and in the course of its consideration, S.P. referred to the fact that he has had by now
taken measures to legalise his presence in the territory of the Russian Federation and, to confirm this, attached
a copy of his application for the establishment of the fact of his permanent residence, with an incoming stamp
of the Nakhimovskiy District Court of Sevastopol dated 9 November 2016, that, on 14 November.2016, was
accepted by the said district court for proceedings.
In addition, in the course of the proceedings, the foreign citizen S.P. Sobol stated that he is afraid to leave the
territory of the Russian Federation in light of the threat to his life and health due to his active participation in
the events of the Russian Spring in Sevastopol, the hostilities conducted on the territory of Ukraine and the
unstable political situation that has developed there; a letter to this effect of the ataman of the Country Cossack
Society “Nakhimovskaya Terskaya Sotnya of Sevastopol”, of which S.P. has been a member since February
2014, is attached to the appeal.
In accordance with Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as interpreted by the
UN Human Rights Committee, Article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984, a person shall not be expelled if there are
Annex 302
4
substantial grounds for believing that in the requesting state he would be in danger of being subjected to not
only torture, but also to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
An equivalent legal position is contained in Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian
Federation No. 11 of 14 June 2012 “On the Practice of the Courts’ Consideration of Matters Relating to the
Extradition of Persons for Prosecution Purposes or the Performance of a Sentence as well as to the Transfer of
Persons to Serve a Sentence”
In this regard, given that the information about the present hostilities in the southeast of Ukraine is generally
known, this circumstance also deserves attention.
The above-mentioned specific circumstances of the case allow us to conclude that the expulsion of S.P. from
the Russian Federation does not exclude serious interference by the state in the exercise of his right to respect
for his private and family life, and the imposition of this type of penalty contradicts the requirements of Article
8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
By virtue of subparagraph 2 of paragraph 1 of Article 30.7 of the Code, following the consideration of the
appeal against the decision on the administrative offence case, a decision to amend the ruling shall be passed,
if it does not aggravate the administrative penalty and does not deteriorate in some other way the position of
the person, in respect of whom such a decision was issued;
With the legal position expressed in the above-mentioned resolutions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian
Federation taken into consideration, the decision of the judge of the Leninskiy District Court of Sevastopol of
1 November 2016, issued against S.P. on the administrative offence case provided for in paragraph 1.1 of
Article 18.8 of the Code, is subject to be amended by the exclusion therefrom of the reference to the imposition
upon S.P. of an administrative penalty in the form of administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation.
Based on the above, guided by Articles 30.6-30.8 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation, the judge
DECIDED:
To satisfy the appeal of S.P. in part.
To amend the decision of the judge of the Leninskiy District Court of Sevastopol of 1 November 2016, issued
against S.P. on the administrative offence case provided for in paragraph 1.1 of Article 18.8 of the Code on
Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
To exclude from the decision concerned the reference to the imposition upon S.P. of an administrative penalty
in the form of administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation by way of a supervised independent
departure.
The court decision concerned shall be upheld in other respects.
The decision comes into force after it is rendered.
Judge T.A. Artamonova
Defendants:
S.P. Sobol
Annex 302
Annex 303
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Case No. 5-APG16-81S,
Appellate Decision, 14 December 2016
1
Translation
SUPREME COURT
OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Case No. 5-APG16-81S
APPELLATE DECISION
Moscow 14 December 2016
The Judicial Chamber on Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
composed of
the presiding judges V.B. Khamenkov,
O.V. Nikolaeva and E.V. Gorchakova
the secretary M.V. Daryina
having reviewed in closed session an administrative case under an appeal brought by Mustafa
Dzhemilev against the decision of the Moscow City Court of 20 May 2016 that dismissed his administrative
claim brought by him in order to contest the actions and decision of the Federal Security Service of the Russian
Federation denying him entry into the territory of the Russian Federation,
having listened to a report presented by V.B. Khamenkov, a judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian
Federation, explanations of M.Z. Feygin, a representative of Mustafa Dzhemilev who maintained the
arguments presented in the appeal, objections against the appeal filed by [Name], a representative of the
Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation, the Judicial Chamber on Administrative Cases of the
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
established:
Mustafa Dzhemilev brought an administrative claim before the court in order to contest the actions
and decision of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation denying him entry into the territory of
the Russian Federation. He believes that the above actions and decision are unlawful. In this administrative
claim, he argues that as at 18 March 2014 he permanently resided in the territory of the Republic of Crimea.
As the administrative defendant did not possess any information that M. Dzhemilev intended to retain his
Ukrainian citizenship, the administrative defendant could not make the contested decision in respect of the
administrative claimant as a foreign citizen on 19 April 2014. In view of the above, the administrative claimant
presumed that the administrative defendant’s actions consisting in denying him entry into the territory of the
Russian Federation and failing to notify him of the reasons behind such a decision are unlawful.
According to the decision of the Moscow City Court of 20 May 2016, Mustafa Dzhemilev’s
administrative claim was dismissed.
M.Z. Feygin, the administrative claimant’s representative, brought an appeal wherein he petitions the
court to overturn the decision and to adopt a new one satisfying the stated claims.
Having examined the case files, discussed the arguments presented in the appeal, the Judicial Chamber
on Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation finds the court’s decision to be correct
and sees no grounds for overturning it.
In dismissing the administrative claim, the court analysed the provisions of Article 218, Parts 1, 5–8
of Article 219 of the Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure of the Russian Federation and concluded that
the administrative claimant had missed the deadline for applying to court and that the said deadline could not
be reinstated. Besides, the court decided that the administrative claimant became aware of the decision denying
him entry on 22 April 2014 when he was served with a notice of denial of entry into the Russian Federation.
Annex 303
2
The Judicial Chamber finds this conclusion of the court to be justified on the
following basis.
According to Article 256 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation in effect as at the
date the contested decision and actions were made and taken, the citizen may bring a claim before the court
within three months since he became aware of the fact that his rights and freedoms were violated.
Part 1 of Article 219 of the Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure of the Russian Federation also
establishes a three-month deadline for bringing an administrative claim before the court, with this period
starting on the day the citizen became aware of the fact that his rights, freedoms, and legitimate interests were
violated.
As it follows from the case files, the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow adopted an effective
decision on 12 August 2015, thereby dismissing Mustafa Dzhemilev’s claim brought in order to challenge the
omission and to overturn the decision of the Federal Migration Service of the Russian Federation denying him
entry into the territory of the Russian Federation.
In light of this, in the course of this case, the administrative claimant became aware of the decision
made by the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation denying him entry into the Russian Federation.
However, Mustafa Dzhemilev brought this administrative claim before the court only on 17 February 2016,
meaning that he had missed the three-month deadline established by law.
Foreign citizens and citizens of the Russian Federation have equal procedural rights and duties, and
they are particularly entitled to seek legal redress for violations of their rights within the deadline established
by procedural law.
In this context, given that failure to meet the deadline for applying to court and non-reinstatement of
the said deadline for the absence of valid reasons under Part 8 of Article 219 of the Code of Administrative
Judicial Procedure of the Russian Federation constitute grounds for dismissing the administrative claim, the
court arrived at a correct decision.
Despite the fact that failure to meet the deadline for bringing an administrative claim before the court
is per se a reason to dismiss it, the court verified the correctness of that decision and examined it on the merits,
and having analysed the provisions of Federal Laws of 28 December 2010 No. 390-FZ “On Security”, of 3
April 1995 No. 40-FZ “On the Federal Security Service”, the Instruction on the organisation of work associated
with preventing foreign citizens and stateless persons, who are denied entry into the Russian Federation, from
entering the Russian Federation, and exercising control over foreign citizens and stateless persons entering the
Russian Federation, the court correctly concluded that the decision to deny Mustafa Dzhemilev entry into the
Russian Federation was made by officials of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation within
their authority to protect national security and in compliance with procedural guarantees provided for by law
in respect of the administrative claimant.
The provisions of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, do not preclude the state from controlling
foreign citizens entering its territory in accordance with international law and its contractual obligations.
By virtue of para. 3 of Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16
December 1966 and para. 3 of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Strasbourg, 16 September 1963), the right to reside in the territory of a
sovereign state may be restricted by the latter when so provided by law and necessary to protect state (national)
security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others.
According to Article 55 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the rights and freedoms of a
person and citizen may be restricted by federal law only to the extent necessary to protect the fundamental
principles of the constitutional system, morals, health, the rights and legitimate interests of other people, to
ensure defence of the country and security of the state.
By virtue of para. 1 of Part 1 of Article 27 of Federal Law No. 114-FZ of 15 August 1996 “On the
procedure for exit from the Russian Federation and entry into the Russian Federation”, a foreign citizen or
stateless person is denied entry into the Russian Federation when it is necessary to ensure defence or security
of the state, or public order, or public health protection.
Annex 303
3
The Government of the Russian Federation establishes a procedure for making decisions to restrict
one’s entry into the Russian Federation and prepares a list of federal executive bodies authorised to make such
decisions.
Officials of the security bodies have authority to decide on whether the activity of a certain citizen of
a foreign state, whose residence (living) in the Russian Federation is ruled to be undesirable, constitutes a
threat to the security of the state or not.
According to Article 1 of Federal Law of 3 April 1995 No. 40-FZ “On the Federal Security Service”,
the federal security service is a uniform centralised system of security bodies engaged in ensuring the national
security of the Russian Federation within its authority.
The Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation issued an order, thereby approving the
Instruction on the organisation of work associated with preventing foreign citizens and stateless persons, who
are denied entry into the Russian Federation, from entering the Russian Federation, and exercising control over
foreign citizens and stateless persons entering the Russian Federation.
The Instruction sets forth that, should there be identified any circumstances that fall within the
authority of the security bodies under Articles 26 and 27 of Federal Law of 15 August 1996 No. 114-FZ “On
the procedure for exit from the Russian Federation and entry into the Russian Federation”, on the basis of
which a foreign citizen may be denied entry into the Russian Federation, the security bodies’ operational units
prepare materials that serve as documented proof of the above circumstances.
When applying the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the
European Court of Human Rights repeatedly noted that even when national security is at stake, the concepts
of lawfulness and the rule of law in a democratic society require that measures affecting fundamental human
rights must be subject to some form of adversarial proceedings before an independent body competent to
review the reasons for the decision and relevant evidence, if need be with appropriate procedural limitations
on the use of classified information. The individual must be able to challenge the executive's assertion that
national security is at stake. Besides, the independent authority (court) must be able to react in cases where
invoking that concept has no reasonable basis in the facts or reveals an interpretation of “national security”
that is unlawful or contrary to common sense and arbitrary (Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
in Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, Lupsa v. Romania, Liu and Liu v. the Russian Federation).
Here and elsewhere, the European Court of Human Right recognised that when national security is at
stake, confidential information is invariably involved. Nevertheless, this does not imply that national
authorities cannot do away with effective control by the domestic courts whenever they choose to assert that
national security and terrorism are involved.
The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is of the same opinion in this respect. For example,
in its Ruling No. 902-O of 4 June 2013, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, following its
previous legal reasoning (Judgment No. 6-P of 17 February 1998, Ruling No. 155-O of 12 May 2006, and
others), concluded that courts, without confining themselves to establishing only the formal basis for the
application of the law, should examine and assess actual circumstances in order to declare the relevant
decisions in respect of a foreign citizen or stateless person to be necessary and proportionate.
As the court established, Mustafa Dzhemilev, a citizen of Ukraine, was denied entry into the Russian
Federation in order to ensure defence and security of the state.
Contrary to the arguments presented in the appeal, the evidence showing that it is necessary to restrict
the foreign citizen’s entry into the Russian Federation for the above reasons was submitted before the court
and verified in the court session.
With that said, the court correctly concluded that the decision to restrict the administrative claimant’s
entry into the Russian Federation was made by officials of the Federal Security Service of the Russian
Federation within their authority and in accordance with law.
The appeal’s argument that the case files present no evidence of the fact that Mustafa Dzhemilev was
conducting an activity threatening to the national security of the Russian Federation is refuted by a proposal
to deny Mustafa Dzhemilev entry into the territory of the Russian Federation that the court reviewed. The
Annex 303
4
content of that document allowed the court to conclude that the state’s restriction of a foreign citizen’s right to
enter its territory is not arbitrary and is based on the interests of national security.
The appeal’s invocation of the fact that the absence of information concerning Mustafa Dzhemilev’s
citizenship deprived the administrative defendant of its right to make the contested decision is without merit
since the administrative claimant was a Ukrainian citizen at the time the contested decision was made and still
is.
The court’s decision may not be overturned based on the appeal’s arguments because the latter are
based on an incorrect interpretation of substantive law and aimed at a different assessment of evidence
concerning the circumstances that the court established and examined in full compliance with procedural law.
In view of the aforesaid and relying upon Articles 307–311 of the Code of Administrative Judicial
Procedure of the Russian Federation, the Judicial Chamber on Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of
the Russian Federation
decided:
To uphold the decision of the Moscow City Court of 20 May 2016 and to dismiss the appeal brought
by Mikhail Zakharovich Feygin, an attorney and representative of Mustafa Dzhemilev.
Presiding judge /Signature/
Judges /Signature/
/Signature/
TRUE COPY
Judge /Signature/
Secretary /Signature/
20 March 2020
/Seal: MOSCOW CITY COURT, Primary State Registration Number 1037718041261, Russian National
Classifier of Businesses and Organisations 02860586, Taxpayer Identification Number 7718123097/
Annex 303
Annex 304
Police Station No. 1 “Zheleznodorozhny” of the Directorate of the
Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol, Report on the
results of operative search activities, 2017
Translation
To the Acting Head of Police Station
No. 1 “Zheleznodorozhny” of the
Directorate of the Ministry of Internal
Affairs of Russia for Simferopol,
Police Lieutenant Colonel
A.A. Smolin
Report
I hereby report to you that, during the operative search activities conducted at the request of the
Senior Investigator of the Investigative Department for the Zheleznodorozhny District of Simferopol,
it was not possible to identify the witnesses of the alleged abduction of M.V. Vdovchenko.
Should any new information be received, it will be immediately provided to the Investigative
Department.
Operative Investigator of the
Criminal Investigative Department
of Police Station No. 1
“Zheleznodorozhny” of the
Directorate of the Ministry of
Internal Affairs of Russia for
Simferopol,
Police Senior Lieutenant (signed) K.N. Kazakov
Annex 304
Annex 305
Centre for Countering Extremism of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for
the Republic of Crimea, Report, 9 January 2017
Translation
/Handwritten: Permitted/
/Signature: O.B. Utkin/
9 January 2017
To the Head of the Centre for Countering
Extremism of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for
the Republic of Crimea
Police Colonel
O.B. Utkin
Report
I report, following the monitoring of the online social media, I found a user on vk.com registered
under the pseudonym “Marlen Mustafayev” (URL: https://vk.com/id193426780).
The account of the specified user at https://vk.com/idl93426780 has a list of videos including 3
files,
Friends: 1,640 persons;
The inspection of the account revealed propaganda in the form of published symbols of the
terrorist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir and Nazi symbols.
It is worth noting that the account and materials are open and anyone can view, listen and, if
necessary, copy the published extremist materials.
Therefore, I ask permission to inspect this account and to seize the images of symbols of the
extremist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir in order to document the violation of Russian law by this
citizen.
Chief Operative Investigator of
the Centre for Countering
Extremism of the Ministry of
Internal Affairs for the Republic
of Crimea
Major of Police
9 January 2017
/Signature/ N.N. Belashov
Annex 305
Annex 306
Centre for Countering Extremism of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for
the Republic of Crimea, Certificate of inspection of the Internet
resource, 9 January 2017
Translation
CERTIFICATE
of Inspection of the Internet Resource
Simferopol 9 January 2017
Start: 1:30 p.m.
End: 3:00 p.m.
I, Chief Operative Investigator of the Centre for Countering Extremism of the Ministry of Internal
Affairs for the Republic of Crimea, Major of Police N.N. Belashov, being guided by Article 13 of the
Federal Law “On the Police,” Articles 6, 15 of the Federal Law “On Operative Search Activities,” at:
19 Dekabristov Street, office 68, Simferopol, Republic of Crimea, under artificial lightning, using a personal
computer HP Compaq Elite 8300 Microtower, a laser printer HP LaserJet P1102 and the Mozilla Firefox
browser performed an inspection of the Internet pages of the “Vkontakte” social network belonging to the
user “Marlen Mustafaev”: https://vk.com/id193426780.
The inspection was carried out in the presence of the following persons invited as public
representatives:
1. Yury Viktorovich Ponomarev, [date of birth.], [address]
2. Svetlana Viktorovna Samsonova, [date of birth.], [address]
who were informed, prior to the start of the inspection, of their rights to be present at all actions performed
with their participation, to ask questions and make comments in the course of the actions performed, which
are to be registered in a record, as well as their obligation to certify the fact of the nature and the result of the
inspection.
1. /Signature/ (Ponomarev) 2. /Signature/ (Samsonova)
1. /Signature/ (Ponomarev) /Signature/ 2. /Signature/ (Samsonova)
Annex 306
1
The inspection revealed that at the Internet address:
https://vk.com/id193426780, there is a vk.com page under the name “Marlen Mustafaev”, date of birth: 19
September 1983; city: Simferopol; married.
There is the following information on the page:
Followers: 254 persons;
Friends: 1,640 persons;
Pages of interest: 99 pages;
Photos: 2;
Videos: 3 files.
Screenshot No. 1 Page of Marlen Mustafaev
1. /Signature/ (Ponomarev) /Signature/ 2. /Signature/ (Samsonova)
Annex 306
2
Screenshot No. 2 Photos of Marlen Mustafaev
In the “Records” section of the above page at: http://vk.com/id193426780?z=photo-
32509315_335285399%2Fwall193426780_716, a propaganda photo of a rally of the terrorist organisation
Hizb ut-Tahrir, as well as the symbols of this organisation, were found:
Screenshot No. 3 of 21 July 2014
Symbols of Hizb ut-Tahrir
Screenshot No. 4 in the “Records” section, there is a free-access photo of 29 June 2014 under the
name “Amir of Hizb ut-Tahrir Ata ibn Khalil Abu Rashta officially declared in live broadcast that Saturday
was the last day of the month of Shaʽban. Tomorrow we will read Tarawih. Congratulations to all on the
arrival of the holy month of Ramadan. The first day of Ramadan is 29 June 2014!” in which symbols of the
Hizb ut-Tahrir terrorist organisation are shown.
https://vk.com/id193426780?z=photo204207665_332062236%2Fwall193426780_694
1. /Signature/ (Ponomarev) /Signature/ 2. /Signature/ (Samsonova)
Annex 306
3
Screenshot No. 5 in the “Records” section, there is a photo of 21 March 2014 with Nazi symbols
https://vk.com/id 193426780?z=photo-6649204_326118305%2Fwall193426780_535
In the course of the inspection, electronic copies of the web page “https://vk.com/id193426780” and
the “desktop and time” submenu were made on 6 pages, which were printed with an HP LaserJet P1102
printer on 6 pages and certified by signatures of those present.
1. /Signature/ (Ponomarev) /Signature/ 2. /Signature/ (Samsonova)
Annex 306
4
These desktop copies were recorded along with the saved audio records on a CD “VS CD-R 700 MB
52 х 80 min,” which was placed in a paper envelop sealed with strips of white paper with imprints of the seal
“For packages No. 33.”
The certificate of inspection of Internet resource at “https://vk.com/id193426780” was made in one
copy on five (5) sheets, read aloud, correctly drawn up. No comments were made.
Appendix: 1. Electronic copy of the Internet page on 5 sheets in 1 counterpart;
2. Verbatim DVD-R 4.7 GB 16 х 120 min in an envelope.
Present:
1. /Signature/ (Ponomarev) /Signature/ (Belashov) 2. /Signature/ (Samsonova)
1. /Signature/ (Ponomarev) /Signature/ 2. /Signature/ (Samsonova)
Annex 306
5
/Signature/ /Signature/ /Signature/
Annex 306
6
Screenshot No. 2 Photos of Marlen Mustafaev
/Signature/ /Signature/ /Signature/
Annex 306
7
In the “Records” section of the above page at: http://vk.com/id193426780?z=photo-32509315_335285399%2Fwall193426780_716, a propaganda photo of a
rally of the terrorist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir, as well as the symbols of this organisation, were found:
Screenshot No. 3 of 21 July 2014
Symbols
/Signature/ /Signature/ /Signature/
Annex 306
8
/Signature/ /Signature/ /Signature/
Annex 306
9
Screenshot No. 5 in the “Records” section, there is a photo of 21 March 2014 with Nazi symbols
https://vk.com/id 193426780?z=photo-6649204_326118305%2Fwall193426780_535
/Signature/ /Signature/ /Signature/
Annex 306
10
Annex 307
Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, case No. 33a-267/2017,
Appellate Decision, 11 January 2017
1
Translation
Case No. 33а-267/2017
(33a-10083/2016) Judge A.S. Savchenko
APPELLATE DECISION
11 January 2017 Simferopol
The Judicial Chamber on Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea,
comprised of:
presiding judge O.V. Khozhainova
judges: L.A.-V. Yusupova
V.V. Agin
secretary O.A. Kochetkova
considered in open court session an administrative case on the appeal of Sanie Isaevna Ametova
against the decision of the Krasnoperekopsk District Court of the Republic of Crimea of 4 October 2016 in
administrative case No. 2a-1578/2016 on the administrative claim of Sanie Isaevna Ametova against the
Head of the Administration of the Voinka Rural Settlement of the Krasnoperekopsk District of the Republic
of Crimea Ekaterina Vasilyevna Maksimova, the Administration of the Voinka Rural Settlement of the
Krasnoperekopsk District of the Republic of Crimea on recognising the actions as unlawful.
Having heard the report of the judge O.V. Khozhainova on the circumstances of the case and the
arguments of the appeal, the explanations of the persons who appeared, the judicial chamber
established:
S.I. Ametova filed in the Krasnoperekopsk District Court of the Republic of Crimea an
administrative claim against the Head of the Administration of the Voinka Rural Settlement of the
Krasnoperekopsk District of the Republic of Crimea E.V. Maksimova, the Administration of the Voinka
Rural Settlement of the Krasnoperekopsk District of the Republic of Crimea, where she asked to recognise as
unlawful the actions of the Head of the Administration related to the refusal to grant permission to hold a
rally on 18 May 2016 from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. in the centre of Village of Voinka near the memorial complex, to
resolve the issue of holding the planned event in accordance with the law.
The claims are based on the fact that on 4 May 2016, S.I. Ametova, as the organiser of the mass
event, sent to the Head of the Administration of the Voinka Rural Settlement of the Krasnoperekopsk District
of the Republic of Crimea E.V. Maksimova a notification on holding the rally on 18 May 2016 from 3 p.m.
to 5 p.m. in the centre of Village of Voinka of the Krasnoperekopsk District of the Republic of Crimea,
organised with the purpose to commemorate the victims of the ethnocide of the Crimean Tatar people as a
result of the deportation from their historical homeland on 18 May 1944. On 10 May 2016, she was invited
to a meeting with the Head of the Administration E.V. Maksimova, where the administrative claimant was
offered to hold a joint event at the designated time or to reschedule the rally. On 12 May 2016, she submitted
to the Administration a written document for approval of a different time, namely from 11 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
On 13 May 2016, a response was received from the administrative defendant containing contradictory
arguments and explanations, the response was sent in violation of the time limit established by Paragraph 2
of Part 1 of Article 12 of Federal Law of 19 June 2004 No. 54-FZ “On assemblies, rallies, demonstrations,
marches and picketing”. In view of the above, S.I. Ametova believes that the actions of the Head of the
Administration of the Voinka Rural Settlement of the Krasnoperekopsk District of the Republic of Crimea
E.V. Maksimova are unlawful, violating the rights of the administrative claimant as the organiser of the
public event, as well as creating obstacles to the exercise of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of
citizens provided by the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The stated circumstances served as a basis
for filing this claim.
Annex 307
2
By the decision of the Krasnoperekopsk District Court of the Republic of Crimea of 4 October 2016,
the claims of the administrative claim of S.I. Ametova were dismissed.
Disagreeing with the adopted decision, S.I. Ametova filed an appeal, where she asked to reverse the
decision as unlawful, adopted with the conclusions of the court of first instance being inconsistent with the
facts of the administrative case. She asked for a new decision in the case to satisfy the administrative claim
in full. The appeal is based on the fact that, in resolving the stated claims on the merits, the court of first
instance did not take into account that the administrative defendant violated the time limit established by
Paragraph 2 of Part 1 of Article 12 of the Federal Law of 19 June 2004 No. 54-FZ “On assemblies, rallies,
demonstrations, marches and picketing” on giving a reasoned proposal to change the time of the public
event.
At the hearing, S.I. Ametova, her representative M.M. Nebiev, maintained the arguments of the
appeal in full.
At the hearing of the court of appeal, the Head of the Administration of the Voinka Rural Settlement
of the Krasnoperekopsk District of the Republic of Crimea E.V. Maksimova, a representative of the
Administration of the Voinka Rural Settlement of the Krasnoperekopsk District of the Republic of Crimea
did not appear; they were duly notified of the time and place of the hearing. The administrative defendants
filed a motion to consider the case without the participation of their representatives.
The Judicial Chamber, taking into account the provisions of Part 6 of Article 226 of the Code of
Administrative Judicial Procedure of the Russian Federation, considers it possible to conduct a hearing in the
absence of the duly informed persons who did not appear, on the basis of the available written documents
included in the case files.
Having examined the case files, having checked the legal assessment of the circumstances of the
case and the completeness of their establishment, the correctness of the application by the court of first
instance of substantive and procedural law, the Judicial Chamber finds as follows.
In accordance with Part 1 of Article 308 of the Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure of the
Russian Federation, the court of appeal considers the administrative case in full and is not bound by the
grounds and arguments set out in the appeal, prosecutor’s appeal and objections against the appeal,
prosecutor’s appeal.
Under Article 46 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, everyone is guaranteed judicial
protection of his rights and freedoms. Decisions and actions (or omission) of government bodies, local
government bodies, public organisations and officials may be appealed against in court.
According to Part 1 of Article 218 of the Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure of the Russian
Federation, a citizen, organisation, other persons may apply to court with claims to challenge decisions,
actions (omission) of a body, organisation, person vested with state or other public powers if they think that
their rights, freedoms and legitimate interests are violated or challenged, that there are obstacles to the
exercise of their rights, freedoms and legitimate interests, or that obligations are imposed upon them
unlawfully.
A court decision in an administrative case on challenging a decision, action (omission) of a body,
organisation, person vested with state or other public powers is adopted in accordance with the rules
stipulated in Chapter 15 of this Code (Part 1 of Article 227 of the Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure
of the Russian Federation).
As it follows from the case files, it was found by the court of first instance that on 4 May 2016, S.I.
Ametova sent to the Head of the Administration of the Voinka Rural Settlement of the Krasnoperekopsk
District of the Republic of Crimea E.V. Maksimova a notification on holding a public event in the form of
rally on 18 May 2016 from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. in the centre of the Village of Voinka of the Krasnoperekopsk
District of the Republic of Crimea (memorial complex), organised with the purpose to commemorate the
Annex 307
3
victims of the ethnocide of the Crimean Tatar people as a result of the deportation from their historical
homeland on 18 May 1944, the estimated number of participants in the event – 110 persons (case sheet 3).
On 10 May 2016, letter No. 03-39/735 signed by the Head of the Administration of the Voinka Rural
Settlement of the Krasnoperekopsk District of the Republic of Crimea E.V. Maksimova, was sent to the
administrative claimant, which reads that at the time specified in the notification, the Administration of the
Voinka Rural Settlement of the Krasnoperekopsk District of the Republic of Crimea planned an event – the
laying of flowers at a memorial sign in the territory of the Voinka Rural Settlement. In this regard, it was
proposed to hold a joint laying of flowers to the memorial sign on 18 May 2016 at 3 p.m.
On 12 May 2016, S.I. Ametova sent to the administrative defendant a written proposal to change the
time of the mass event on 18 May 2016 to 11 a.m. (beginning) to 12:30 p.m. (end) (case sheet 5).
On 13 May 2016, the Head of the Administration of the Voinka Rural Settlement of the
Krasnoperekopsk District of the Republic of Crimea E.V. Maksimova sent to S.I. Ametova letter ref. No. 03-
39 754 informing her on the impossibility to approve the holding of the rally on 18 May 2016 from 3 p.m. to
4 p.m. or from 11 p.m. to 12:30 p.m. This letter indicates that on the territory of the park, in accordance with
Decision of the 29th Session of the 1st Convocation of the Voinka Rural Settlement of 28 April 2016 No.
361, work is underway to improve the park territory (installation of a fence, installation of a playground,
mowing of grass, repair of the outdoor performance stage) and all events on this territory were prohibited, an
exception was made for the event on 18 May 2016 from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. – the laying of flowers to the
memorial sign to those who had died during the deportation (according to Decree of the Voinka Rural
Settlement of the Krasnoperekopsk District of the Republic of Crimea of 29 April 2016 No. 111 - case sheet
6).
Refusing to satisfy the claims of the administrative claim of S.I. Ametova, the court of first instance,
guided by the provisions of Federal Law of 19 June 2004 No. 54-FZ “On assemblies, rallies, demonstrations,
marches and picketing”, proceeded from the fact that the notification of S.I. Ametova was considered,
responses signed by an authorised official were given, the claimant’s arguments about the violation by the
Head of the Administration E.V. Maksimova of the provisions of the legislation of the Russian Federation on
rallies, demonstrations, marches and picketing were not objectively confirmed, and no evidence of any
violation of the rights of the organiser of the public event was revealed from the submitted evidence.
The Judicial Chamber finds the stated conclusions of the court of first instance to be correct, wellreasoned,
supported by the evidence available in the case, which was assessed according to the rules of
Article 84 of the Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure of the Russian Federation, based on the
following.
Federal Law of 19 June 2004 No. 54-FZ “On assemblies, rallies, demonstrations, marches and
picketing” (hereinafter – Federal Law No. 54-FZ) is aimed at ensuring the exercise of the right of citizens of
the Russian Federation established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation to peaceful gatherings
without weapons, holding assemblies, rallies, demonstrations, marches and picketing.
Notification requirements regarding public events and the procedure for the submission of
notifications are established by Article 7 of Federal Law No. 54-FZ.
Article 12 of Federal Law No. 54-FZ provides for the obligations of the executive body of a
constituent entity of the Russian Federation or local government body.
Paragraph 2 of Part 1 of this Article stipulates that the executive body of a constituent entity of the
Russian Federation or local government body, after receiving a notification on holding a public event, shall
inform the organiser of the public event, within three days of receipt of the notification on holding the event
(or, if the notification on holding a picket by a group of individuals is submitted within less than five days
before its intended date – on the day of its receipt), of a reasoned proposal to change the venue and/or time of
the public event, as well as of any proposal for the organiser of the event to bring the objectives, form or
Annex 307
4
other conditions for holding the event as indicated in the notification into line with the requirements of this
Federal Law.
According to the legal stance of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, expressed in
Resolution of 2 April 2009 No. 484-O-P, within the meaning of Part 5 of Article 5 of Federal Law No. 54-
FZ, a public body cannot prohibit (not permit) the holding of a public event, it may only propose to change
the place and (or) time of its holding, and such proposal shall necessarily be well-reasoned and caused either
by the need to maintain the normal and uninterrupted functioning of vital communal or transport
infrastructure, or by the need to maintain public order, ensure the safety of citizens (both participants in
public events and persons who may be at the place of its holding at a certain time), or for other similar
reasons.
It follows from the case files that on 10 May 2016, the Head of the Administration of the Voinka
Rural Settlement of the Krasnoperekopsk District of the Republic of Crimea E.V. Maksimova, after
considering the notification of 4 May 2016, proposed to I.S. Ametova, as the organiser of the public event, to
hold a joint event on 18 May 2016 without changing the time of the public event (case sheet 4).
The specified proposal, set out in letter ref. No. 03-39/735, is considered by the judicial chamber as
reasonable since it indicates the explanation for such proposal, namely, at the time indicated in the
notification (18 May 2016 at 3 p.m.), the Administration of the Voinka Rural Settlement of the
Krasnoperekopsk District of the Republic of Crimea planned an event – the laying of flowers to the
memorial sign on the territory of the Voinka Rural Settlement. Thus it was proposed to S.I. Ametova to hold
a joint laying of flowers to the memorial sign on 18 May 2016 at 3 p.m.
The case materials do not contain evidence that the circumstances cited by the Administration of
Voinka Rural Settlement of the Krasnoperekopsk District of the Republic of Crimea did not exist.
Responding to the letter of 12 May 2016 on the approval of a different time for holding the rally at
11 a.m., the Head of the Administration of the Voinka Rural Settlement of the Krasnoperekopsk District of
the Republic of Crimea E.V. Maksimova, in the letter of 13 May 2016, indicated the impossibility to approve
the specified time due to that on the territory of the park, in accordance with Decision of the 29th Session of
the 1st Convocation of the Voinka Rural Settlement of 28 April 2016 No. 361, work is underway to improve
the park territory (installation of a fence, installation of a playground, mowing of grass, repair of the outdoor
performance stage) and all events on this territory were prohibited, an exception was made for the event on
18 May 2016 from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. – the laying of flowers to the memorial sign to those who had died during
the deportation (according to Decree of the Voinka Rural Settlement of the Krasnoperekopsk District of the
Republic of Crimea of 29 April 2016 No. 111).
At the same time, the Judicial Chamber considers it necessary to draw attention to the fact that only
one notification of 4 May 2016 was submitted by the administrative claimant that met the requirements of
Article 7 of Federal Law No. 54-FZ. The response of the administrative defendant to the said notification in
its content does not constitute refusal to approve the holding of the public event since in the response the
administrative claimant was offered to hold a public event jointly, without changing the time and place of
holding the public event, and therefore, the applicant was not deprived of the opportunity to exercise the
constitutional right guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
The approval letter of 12 May 2016 sent by the administrative claimant to the Head of the
Administration of the Voinka Rural Settlement of the Krasnoperekopsk District of the Republic of Crimea
E.V. Maksimova does not meet the requirements of Article 7 of the Law “On assemblies, rallies,
demonstrations, marches and picketing.”
Based on the foregoing, the Judicial Chamber concludes that the actions of the administrative
defendant when sending the proposal to hold the public event jointly, without changing the time and place of
holding the public event, do not contradict the provisions of Article 12 of Federal Law No. 54-FZ.
Annex 307
5
In the appeal, the administrative claimant indicates the administrative defendant’s failure to comply
with the provisions of Paragraph 2 of Part 1 of Article 12 of Federal Law No. 54-FZ regarding the period for
providing the organiser of the public event with a proposal to change the place and (or) time of the public
event. At the same time, the Judicial Chamber disagrees with such arguments since the proposal set out in
the letter of 10 May 2016 under ref. No. 03-39/735, in its content, did not imply any change of the place and
time of the public event. At the same time, the Judicial Chamber takes into account the fact that that 7 and 8
May 2016 were weekends, and 9 May 2016 was a public holiday.
Under these circumstances, the Judicial Chamber agrees with the conclusion of the court of first
instance that there are no legal grounds to satisfy the stated demands of the administrative claim filed by S.I.
Ametova.
Thus, resolving the stated demands, the court correctly identified the legally relevant facts. The
circumstances established by the court were confirmed by the case files and evidence examined and proper
assessed by the court. The conclusions of the court correspond to the established circumstances. There was
no violation of procedural and substantive law committed by the court which would entail the revocation of
the decision.
The appeal does not contain reasoned arguments based on the evidence, refuting the conclusions of
the court of first instance set out in the decision, and allowing to reverse the challenged judicial act. Other
arguments of the appeal, including those related to a different assessment of the evidence and a different
interpretation of the provisions of law than that of the court of first instance, do not refute the conclusions of
the court and do not indicate that there are grounds for the revocation of the judicial act adopted in the case.
The appeal does not contain any references to any new facts that were ignored by the court of first
instance. The Judicial Chamber does not have any grounds for the reassessment of the evidence presented
and for other application of the provisions of law, since the conclusions of the court of first instance
completely comply with the circumstances of this case.
Guided by Articles 309-311 of the Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure of the Russian
Federation, the Judicial Chamber
decided:
To uphold the decision of the Krasnoperekopsk District Court of the Republic of Crimea of 4
October 2016 in case No. 2a-1578/2016 and to dismiss the appeal filed by Sanie Isaevna Ametova.
The appellate decision enters into force from the date of its adoption.
The appellate decision may be challenged to the court of cassation within 6 months.
Presiding judge: /signed/ O.V. Khozhainova
Judges: /signed/ L.A.-V. Yusupova
/signed/ V.V. Agin
Annex 307
Annex 308
Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa of the Republic of Bashkortostan, Case
No. 2-900/2017, Decision, 1 February 2017
1
Translation
2-900/2017
DECISION
In the Name of the Russian Federation
1 February 2017 Ufa
Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa of the Republic of Bashkortostan
comprising of the presiding judge A.Sh. Dobryanskaya,
with the secretary [FULL NAME 5],
with the participation of the Assistant Prosecutor of the Republic of Bashkortostan [FULL NAME 6],
acting on the basis of power of attorney No. a-2017 of DD.MM.YYYY,
the concerned party, the Directorate of the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications,
Information Technology and Mass Media for the Republic of Bashkortostan – [FULL NAME 7], acting on the
basis of powers of attorney No. D of 31 January 2017, No. D of 5 May 2016,
having considered in open court a civil case following an application of the Prosecutor of the Republic
of Bashkortostan in defence of the interests of the state and society, the general public, on the recognition of
the printed material, the book “Selected Hadiths,” as extremist,
ESTABLISHED:
The Prosecutor of the Republic of Bashkortostan appealed to the court in defence of the interests of
the state and society, the general public, with an application on the recognition of the printed material, the book
“Muhammad Zakariya Kandehlavi. Piety and Fear of God” as extremist.
In support of the application, it is indicated that the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of
Bashkortostan, when studying the materials of criminal case No. 5000047, initiated by the Investigative
Department of the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Bashkortostan on
the grounds of a crime under Part 2 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, found
materials that contain information that promotes incitement of hatred and enmity, as well as degrading the
human dignity of a group of persons on the basis of ethnic and religious affiliation, namely the printed book
“Selected Hadiths” / Sheikh Muhammad Yusuf Kandehlavi, Sheikh Muhammad Sa d Kandehlavi/ translation
from Arabic. Kazan Centre for Innovative Technologies, 2003 - 640 p.
According to conclusion of a comprehensive psychological, linguistic and religious examination No.
42 of 25 July 2016, carried out by specialists of the Centre for Linguistic Expert Examination and Editing of
the Bashkir State Pedagogical University named after M. Akmulla, the materials presented contain statements
aimed at involving Muslims in the activities of the international religious association Tablighi Jamaat (Tabligh
Jamaat). Having changed their beliefs, gaining “knowledge of religion”, Muslims should “stick with the
jamaat”, educate the callers, change the beliefs of other people, spreading Islam in the journey on the path of
Allah” (including in Hijra – resettlement), calling them to Islam, fighting infidels (leading an armed jihad) “to
introduce the orders of Allah in the image of His Messenger into all spheres of life...” Contextually, this means
the ubiquity of Islam (as the only religion) and Sharia law in a single Islamic state, the Caliphate. There are
statements expressing a hostile attitude towards people united on a confessional basis – towards those who do
not profess Islam, towards infidel “kafirs”, including polytheists and Christians, as well as statements
containing calls for an armed struggle against people on a confessional basis – for an armed jihad against
infidels (non-Muslims). The book uses the techniques of open manipulation associated with “indoctrination”
and “persuasion”, reveals multiple signs of manipulative influence, the use of manipulative techniques and
emotionally loaded appeal in the form of statements, which has a direct psychological effect in one form or
another on the sphere of feelings, emotions and the consciousness of a person perceiving information, thereby
lulling his/her critical attitude to the perceived information. The author uses the technique of “substitution of
concepts”, that is, the word “believer” has a meaning beneficial to the author of the text. With the help of the
“indoctrination” technique, the author creates an attitude towards the need for jihad and the significance of the
Annex 308
2
reward for it: “Whoever meets Allah without any trace of jihad will appear before Allah with a hole in his
body” (p. 566); in excerpt 73: “You must wage jihad on the path of Allah, as this is one of the doors of the
Jannat. Because of it, Allah removes sorrow and grief” (p. 569); in excerpt 75: “... Of all the actions, the best
way to approach Allah is jihad on the path of Allah. And nothing brings it closer than jihad” (p. 570); in excerpt
83: “... There is another thing, because of which the slave is raised one hundred steps in the Jannat. And the
distance between every two steps is like between heaven and earth.” He asked: “Oh, Rasulullah (sallallahu
alayhi wa sallam), what is it?” – “This is jihad on the path of Allah, jihad on the path of Allah” (p. 572).
From the conclusion of the religious studies scholar, it follows that the material indicates that it belongs
to the international religious association Tablighi Jamaat, recognised as extremist by the Decision of the
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 7 September 2009 (No. GKPI 09-525). By this decision, the
activities of the organisation on the territory of the Russian Federation are prohibited.
Based on the above, the applicant asks the court to recognise the book “Selected Hadiths” / Sheikh
Muhammad Yusuf Kandehlavi, Sheikh Muhammad Sa d Kandehlavi/ translation from Arabic. Kazan Centre
for Innovative Technologies, 2003 - 640 p. as extremist.
At the hearing, applicant’s representative [FULL NAME 6] maintained the claims, and asked to satisfy
them in full.
The representative of the concerned party, the Directorate of the Federal Service for Supervision of
Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media for the Republic of Bashkortostan – [FULL
NAME 7] left the application on the recognition of the book “[FULL NAME 1]. Piety and Fear of God” as
extremist to the discretion of the court.
The concerned party, the Department of the Ministry of Justice of Russia for the Republic of
Bashkortostan did not ensure the attendance of its representative at the court hearing, whereas it was duly
notified of the time and place of the hearing. The court was not informed about the reasons for the failure to
attend the hearing.
Guided by Article 167 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the court deems it
possible to consider the case in the absence of the person who failed to appear.
Having heard the applicant’s representative, having studied and evaluated the materials of the case,
having heard the applicant’s representative, the court concludes the following.
It was established that the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Bashkortostan, when studying the
materials of criminal case No. 5000047, initiated by the Investigative Department of the Directorate of the
Federal Security Service of Russia for the Republic of Bashkortostan on the grounds of a crime under Part 2
of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, found materials that contain information that
promotes incitement of hatred and enmity, as well as degrading the human dignity of a group of persons on
the basis of ethnic and religious affiliation, namely the printed book “Selected Hadiths” / Sheikh Muhammad
Yusuf Kandehlavi, Sheikh Muhammad Sa d Kandehlavi/ translation from Arabic. Kazan Centre for Innovative
Technologies, 2003 - 640 p.
According to conclusion of a comprehensive psychological, linguistic and religious examination No.
42 of 25 July 2016, carried out by specialists of the Centre for Linguistic Expert Examination and Editing of
the Bashkir State Pedagogical University named after M. Akmulla, the materials presented contain statements
aimed at involving Muslims in the activities of the international religious association Tablighi Jamaat (Tabligh
Jamaat). Having changed their beliefs, gaining “knowledge of religion”, Muslims should “stick with the
jamaat”, educate the callers, change the beliefs of other people, spreading Islam in the journey on the path of
Allah” (including in Hijra – resettlement), calling them to Islam, fighting infidels (leading an armed jihad) “to
introduce the orders of Allah in the image of His Messenger into all spheres of life...” Contextually, this means
the ubiquity of Islam (as the only religion) and Sharia law in a single Islamic state, the Caliphate. There are
statements expressing a hostile attitude towards people united on a confessional basis – towards those who do
not profess Islam, towards infidel “kafirs”, including polytheists and Christians, as well as statements
containing calls for an armed struggle against people on a confessional basis – for an armed jihad against
infidels (non-Muslims). The book uses the techniques of open manipulation associated with “indoctrination”
and “persuasion”, reveals multiple signs of manipulative influence, the use of manipulative techniques and
Annex 308
3
emotionally loaded appeal in the form of statements, which has a direct psychological effect in one form or
another on the sphere of feelings, emotions and the consciousness of a person perceiving information, thereby
lulling his/her critical attitude to the perceived information. The author uses the technique of “substitution of
concepts”, that is, the word “believer” has a meaning beneficial to the author of the text. With the help of the
“indoctrination” technique, the author creates an attitude towards the need for jihad and the significance of the
reward for it: “Whoever meets Allah without any trace of jihad will appear before Allah with a hole in his
body” (p. 566); in excerpt 73: “You must wage jihad on the path of Allah, as this is one of the doors of the
Jannat. Because of it, Allah removes sorrow and grief” (p. 569); in excerpt 75: “... Of all the actions, the best
way to approach Allah is jihad on the path of Allah. And nothing brings it closer than jihad” (p. 570); in excerpt
83: “... There is another thing, because of which the slave is raised one hundred steps in the Jannat. And the
distance between every two steps is like between heaven and earth.” He asked: “Oh, Rasulullah (sallallahu
alayhi wa sallam), what is it?” – “This is jihad on the path of Allah, jihad on the path of Allah” (p. 572).
From the conclusion of the religious studies scholar, it follows that the material indicates that it belongs
to the international religious association Tablighi Jamaat, recognised as extremist by the Decision of the
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 7 September 2009 (No. GKPI 09-525). By this decision, the
activities of the organisation on the territory of the Russian Federation are prohibited.
In accordance with Part 2 of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, propaganda or
agitation inciting social, racial, national or religious hatred and enmity are prohibited. Propaganda of social,
racial, national, religious or linguistic superiority is prohibited.
In accordance with Article 1 of the Federal Law “On Countering Extremist Activities”, the following
activities are recognised as extremist activities (extremism):
Forcible change of the foundations of the constitutional order and violation of the integrity of the
Russian Federation;
Public justification of terrorism and other terrorist activities;
Incitement of social, racial, ethnic or religious hatred;
Propaganda of the exclusivity, superiority or inferiority of a person on the basis of his/her social, racial,
ethnic, religious or linguistic affiliation or attitude to religion;
Violation of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of man and citizen, depending on his/her
social, racial, ethnic, religious or linguistic affiliation or attitude to religion;
Obstruction of the exercise by citizens of their electoral rights and the right to participate in a
referendum or violation of the secrecy of voting, combined with violence or the threat of its use;
Obstruction of the lawful activities of state bodies, local self-government bodies, election
commissions, public and religious associations or other organisations, combined with violence or the threat of
its use;
Commission of crimes based on the reasons specified in paragraph “e” of the Part 1 of Article 63 of
the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation;
Propaganda and public display of Nazi attributes or symbols, or attributes or symbols similar to Nazi
attributes or symbols to the point of confusion;
Public calls for the implementation of these activities or the mass distribution of knowingly extremist
materials, as well as their production or keeping for the purpose of mass distribution;
Public knowingly false accusation of a person holding a public office in the Russian Federation or a
public office in a constituent entity of the Russian Federation of committing the activities specified in this
article and constituting a crime during the performance of his/her official duties;
Organisation and preparation of these activities, as well as incitement to their implementation;
Financing of these activities or other assistance in their organisation, preparation and implementation,
including through the provision of educational, printing, material and technical resources, telephone and other
types of communication or the provision of information services;
Extremist materials are documents intended for publication or information on other media that call for
the implementation of extremist activities or substantiate or justify the need for such activities, including the
works of the leaders of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, the Fascist Party of Italy, publications
Annex 308
4
substantiating or justifying ethnic and (or) racial superiority, or justifying the practice of committing war or
other crimes aimed at the complete or partial destruction of any ethnic, social, racial, national or religious
group.
Analysing the above, the court decides to recognise the book “Selected Hadiths” / Sheikh Muhammad
Yusuf Kandehlavi, Sheikh Muhammad Sa d Kandehlavi/ translation from Arabic. Kazan Centre for Innovative
Technologies, 2003 - 640 p. as extremist.
Based on Articles 194-198 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the court
DECIDED:
To satisfy the application of the Prosecutor of the Republic of Bashkortostan in defence of the interests
of the state and society, the general public, on the recognition of the printed material, the book “Selected
Hadiths” / Sheikh Muhammad Yusuf Kandehlavi, Sheikh Muhammad Sa d Kandehlavi/ translation from
Arabic. Kazan Centre for Innovative Technologies, 2003 - 640 p. as extremist.
To recognise the book “Selected Hadiths” / Sheikh Muhammad Yusuf Kandehlavi, Sheikh
Muhammad Sa d Kandehlavi/ translation from Arabic. Kazan Centre for Innovative Technologies, 2003 - 640
p. as extremist.
The decision may be appealed against to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan through
the Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa within a month from the date when the final decision of the court was
adopted.
Judge A.Sh. Dobryanskaya
Annex 308
Annex 309
Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 33-1258/2017,
Appellate Decision, 15 February 2017
1
Translation
SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA
APPELLATE DECISION
Case No. 33-1258/2017
Judge of the first instance: E.Yu. Blagodatnaya
On 15 February 2017, the Judicial Chamber on Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of
Crimea composed of:
Presiding Judge R.V. Bondarev
Judges M.V. Roshka, A.V. Ponomarenko
Secretary A.O. Evdokimova
During a public court hearing, considered a civil case on an application, submitted by the Prosecutor’s
Office of the Republic of Crimea, with the purpose to protect the interests of the general public against the
charity organisation “Crimea Foundation” to enforce the elimination of violations of the provisions of the
federal legislation, and on an individual claim submitted by a representative of the charity organisation
“Crimea Foundation” against the Ruling of 1 December 2016, issued by the Simferopol Central District Court
of the Republic of Crimea.
Having heard a report from Judge R.V. Bondarev,
ESTABLISHED:
The Decision of 29 September 2014, rendered by the Simferopol Central District Court of the Republic
of Crimea, granted the claims of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Crimea against the charity
organisation “Crimea Foundation” with the purpose to protect the interests of the general public. The charity
organisation “Crimea Foundation” was obliged to eliminate the violations of Part 1 of Article 15 of the Law
of the Russian Federation “On Non-Profit Organisations” by removing M.A. Dzhemilev from its founders.
According to the Ruling of the court of first instance of 15 September 2014, interim measures were
introduced in relation to the application by suspending the financial and business activity of the charity
organisation “Crimea Foundation” to the extent of operation and use of the property and bank settlement
accounts thereof until the elimination of violations of Part 1 of Article 15 of the Law of the Russian Federation
“On Non-Profit Organisations” by removing M.A. Dzhemilev from its founders.
According to the Ruling of 1 December 2016, issued by the Simferopol Central District Court of the
Republic of Crimea, the claim to cancel the interim measures was dismissed.
Having disagreed with the said Ruling of the Court, the representative of the charity organisation
“Crimea Foundation” filed an individual claim, requesting to set it aside referring to the fact that the Court had
issued the Ruling unlawfully, without valid reasons. Particularly, they point out that the interim measures were
not needed then since the Ruling of the Court was enforced as supported by the resolutions to terminate
enforcement proceedings.
According to Clause 3 of Article 333 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the
Judicial Chamber considers this individual claim without notifying the parties to the proceedings.
Having reviewed the materials of the case, discussed the arguments from the individual claim, the
Judicial Chamber finds no reason to reverse the disputed court ruling.
According to Article 139 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the judge or the
court could impose interim measures claimed by the participating parties. Interim measures are allowed at any
stage of the proceedings, where failure to introduce interim measures could impede the enforcement of the
Annex 309
2
court ruling or make it impossible.
According to Part 1 of Article 140 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, interim
measures could include: freezing the property owned by the defendant and possessed by it or other parties,
prohibiting the defendant to act in a certain way; prohibiting other individuals to act in a certain way relating
to the disputed issue, particularly transferring the property to the defendant or discharging other obligations
associated therewith.
If necessary, the judge or the court could introduce other interim measures that facilitate the pursuit of
the objectives stated in Article 139 of this Code. The judge or the court could allow several interim measures.
According to Part 3 of Article 140 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the interim
measures must be proportionate to the alleged claim.
According to Part 3 of Article 144 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, if the claim
is granted, the interim measures introduced for the purposes thereof shall remain valid until the court ruling is
enforced.
According to Part 1 of Article 144 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the interim
measures could be cancelled by the same judge or the court as claimed by the parties to the proceedings or as
the judge or the court sees fit.
Thus, the cancellation of the interim measures shall be grounded on a change in the circumstances that
served as the grounds for the introduction of such measures.
By dismissing the claim to cancel the interim measures, the court of first instance relied on the fact
that there is no reason leading to the lawful cancellation of the interim measures since no data from the State
Registration Service of Ukraine was submitted to the Court in relation to the results of the review of the record
of removal of M.A. Dzhemilev, therefore there is no valid information to support the enforcement of the
Decision of 29 September 2014, rendered by the Simferopol Central District Court of the Republic of Crimea.
The Judicial Chamber agrees with the said conclusions of the Court.
As found by the Court, the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Crimea applied to the Court in
September 2014 and submitted the claim under Article 45 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian
Federation with the purpose to protect the interests of the general public against the charity organisation
“Crimea Foundation” demanding that the charity organisation “Crimea Foundation” eliminate the violations
of Part 1, Article 15 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On Non-Profit Organisations” by removing M.A.
Dzhemilev from its founders.
The Ruling entered into force and was not appealed against.
On 15 September 2014, the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Crimea sought the introduction of
the interim measures by suspending the financial and business activity of the charity organisation “Crimea
Foundation” to the extent of operation and use of the property and bank settlement accounts thereof until the
elimination of violations of Part 1 of Article 15 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On Non-Profit
Organisations” by removing M.A. Dzhemilev from its founders.
According to the Ruling of 15 September 2014, rendered by the Simferopol Central District Court of
the Republic of Crimea, the application from the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Crimea was granted,
the interim measures were introduced by suspending the financial and business activity of the charity
organisation “Crimea Foundation” to the extent of operation and use of the property and bank settlement
accounts thereof until the elimination of violations of Part 1 of Article 15 of the Law of the Russian Federation
“On Non-Profit Organisations” by removing M.A. Dzhemilev from its founders.
As stated by the representative of the charity organisation “Crimea Foundation” in the individual
claim, M.A. Dzhemilev was removed from the founders of the charity organisation, therefore there is no
reasonable basis to maintain the interim measures under the application filed by the Prosecutor’s Office of the
Republic of Crimea.
Particularly, the enforcement of the ruling is supported by Record No. 19 of 8 October 2014, of the
extraordinary conference of the charity organisation “Crimea Foundation” on the removal of M.A. Dzhemilev
from the list of founders. Also, according to the Resolution of 29 June 2016 of a bailiff of the Interdistrict
Bailiffs Office for Special Enforcement Proceedings of the Directorate of the Federal Bailiffs Service in the
Annex 309
3
Republic of Crimea, enforcement proceedings No. 12861/15/82001-I were finished.
In the meantime, these documents could not be considered the evidence of the enforcement of the
ruling since the charity organisation “Crimea Foundation” was not re-registered in the Russian Federation, and
therefore it remains a foreign legal entity. There is no evidence delivered to the Court to support the removal
of M.A. Dzhemilev from the list of founders of the Foundation on the territory of Ukraine, which must be
confirmed by the details from the State Register of Legal Entities of Ukraine.
Therefore, there is no reason to find that the Decision of 29 September 2014 rendered by the
Simferopol Central District Court of the Republic of Crimea and entered into force has been enforced.
As regards the arguments of the application on the enforcement of the Decision of the Court, the
Judicial Chamber believes these arguments to be untenable since the activity of a legal entity, the founders of
which include a person subjected to a decision of the competent authority on the inappropriateness of their
stay on the territory of the Russian Federation, is not allowed according to the applicable provisions of the
Russian legislation.
Relying on the above and pursuant to Article 334 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian
Federation, the Judicial Chamber on Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea,
DECIDED:
To uphold the Ruling of 1 December 2016 of the Simferopol Central District Court of the Republic of
Crimea and to dismiss the individual claim of the representative of the charity organisation “Crimea
Foundation”.
Presiding judge: (Signed)
Judge: (Signed) (Signed)
Annex 309
Annex 310
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, Case No. 5-483/2017, Decision,
21 February 2017
1
Translation
Case No. 5-483/2017
DECISION
21 February 2017 Simferopol, 16 Vorovskogo Street
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea, comprising of the Presiding Judge
I.V. Kagitina, with the participation of the secretary, A.A. Sobakin, interpreter, G. Sh. Tantalova, having
considered in the open court hearing the administrative offence case against:
Medzhit Anafievich Abdurakhmanov, born on 2 February 1975, a native of the village Novaya Zhizn,
Nizhne-Cherkassky District, Tashkent Region, Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic, a citizen of the Russian
Federation, officially unemployed, registered at 11 Ramireva Street, village Zhuravleva, Simferopol Region,
Republic of Crimea, married, having children,
regarding the administrative offence provided for by Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on
Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation (administrative offence record No. 170802),
ESTABLISHED:
According to the administrative offence record No. 170802, on 21 February 2017, at Simferopol,
Kamenka, 4th stop, citizen M.A. Abdurakhmanov was identified, who took part in a mass simultaneous
gathering in a public place that entailed violation of public order and interfered with the pedestrian traffic.
At the court hearing, M.A. Abdurakhmanov did not admit his guilt in committing the administrative
offence. He was coming back from work and saw a gathering of people near the 4th stop, public order was not
disturbed, the police allowed themselves to use unlawful methods. The police didn’t allow time to disperse
voluntarily.
U.Z. Avamilev, Senior Inspector of the Public Order Maintenance Department of the Directorate of
the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol, who was interrogated as a witness at the court
hearing, testified that in order to fix possible violations by citizens he was by the order of the head on 21
February 2017 at Simferopol, Kamenka, 4th stop, at 10:20 a.m., where about 15 people gathered near the
cordon chain. They expressed their dissatisfaction, refused to go away from the venue of operative preventive
activities, thereby violating the public order. They were asked to leave the venue, as there were obstacles for
pedestrians. The citizens did not obey the lawful request of the police officer and were taken to the police
department for the records to be drawn. All actions were video recorded. M.A. Abdurakhmanov took part in
the unauthorised event, expressed his dissatisfaction and disturbed pedestrians in the general mass.
V. A. Zadorozhnaya, Inquiry officer of the Department of Inquiry of the Directorate of the Ministry
of Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol, interrogated as a witness testified that she was present during the
activities near Kamenka, the 4th stop. At about 10 a.m. there was a crowd of about 15 people, they did not react
to words of the policemen or did not react adequately and interfered with the passage of other citizens and
vehicles. Those circumstances were recorded by a video camera. M.A. Abdurakhmanov was present there, she
saw him. He was among the people who did not disperse. By their actions, they prevented citizens from
passing.
V.E. Romanovsky, interrogated as a witness during the court hearing testified that on 21 February
2017, a police officer approached him and offered to sign papers. He did not see any mass riots or crowds of
people.
Annex 310
2
Having heard the person brought to administrative responsibility, the witnesses, having examined the
case materials, the court comes to the following conclusion.
According to Article 31 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, citizens of the Russian
Federation have the right to gather peacefully, without weapons, to hold assemblies, meetings, demonstrations,
marches and picketing.
Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation establishes
administrative liability for arranging citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places
that is not a public event, public calls to citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public
places, or to participation in citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places, if
citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places has entailed public order disturbance
or violation of sanitary norms and rules, violation of the functioning and safety of critical infrastructure or
communication facilities, or has caused damage to greenery, or hindrance to the movement of pedestrians or
vehicles, or prevented citizens’ access to residential premises or transportation infrastructure facilities, or to
social infrastructure facilities, except for the situations provided for in Parts 2 and 3 of this Article
The object of the respective administrative offence is public relations in the area of public order and
public safety. Under this Article, the subjects of administrative offences may be citizens, officials and legal
entities. This act should be described as wrongful and committed with specific intent.
According to Article 26.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, evidence
in the administrative offence case is any factual data on the basis whereof the judge, body, official that handles
the case establishes whether or not there is an administrative offence event, the guilt of the person brought to
administrative liability and any other circumstances that are relevant for the correct solution of the case.
The set of all elements of the administrative offence is a set of objective and subjective attributes
provided for by the Code on Administrative Offences that describes a socially dangerous act as the offence;
the administrative offence event is the fact of a person taking an action provided for by the Code on
Administrative Offences for which administrative liability is established.
The fact of committing the administrative offence by and the guilt of M.A. Abdurakhmanov are
confirmed by the administrative offence record of 21 February 2017; the testimony of witnesses, U.Z.
Avamilev, Senior Police Lieutenant, Senior Inspector of the Public Order Maintenance Department of the
Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol, V. A. Zadorozhnaya, Inquiry officer
of the Department of Inquiry of the Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol,
and by the video recording.
According to Paragraph 1 of Part 2 of Article 28.3 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the
Russian Federation, officials of the internal affairs bodies (the police) are authorised to draw up administrative
offence records as provided for, among other things, by Article 20.2.2 of the Code.
The administrative offence record and other case materials were drawn up in compliance with the
requirements of law, by a proper official, there is no reason not to trust the information specified therein.
This evidence clearly shows that the actions of M.A. Abdurakhmanov include events and elements of
the administrative offence provided for by Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of
the Russian Federation.
The procedure and the limitation period for bringing M.A. Abdurakhmanov to administrative liability
are not violated.
Annex 310
3
His actions are correctly qualified under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative
Offences of the Russian Federation, as he took part in mass simultaneous gathering in the public place that
entailed a violation of the public order and interfered with the traffic of pedestrians.
When imposing an administrative punishment on M.A. Abdurakhmanov, the court takes into account
the requirements of Article 4.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, the nature
of the offence that was committed deliberately, the degree of public danger of the action committed, the attitude
of M.A. Abdurakhmanov to the action committed, the offender’s personality, the effect of the punishment on
the purpose of preventing new offences, both by the offender himself and by any other persons.
Together, the above enables the court to impose the administrative punishment in the form of an
administrative arrest. The court believes that the punishment in the form of a fine, compulsory community
service will not be fully in line to the action committed.
In view of the above, the court believes it necessary to impose on M.A. Abdurakhmanov the
administrative punishment in the form of arrest for a period of 5 days.
M.A. Abdurakhmanov is not a person in respect of whom the administrative arrest may not be applied
in accordance with the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
In accordance with Part 4 of Article 27.5 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation, the period of administrative detention of a person is calculated from the time of delivery in
accordance with Article 27.2 of this Code.
In accordance with the provisions of Article 27.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the
Russian Federation, the delivery is coerced trasnsportation of an individual in order to draw up the
administrative offence record if it is impossible to draw them up at the venue of the administrative offence, if
drawing up the record is compulsory.
Having regard to the above, the term of serving the administrative punishment should be calculated
from 21 February 2017, 11:30 a.m.
Based on the foregoing, being guided by Part 1 of Article 20.2.2, Articles 3.9, 4.2, 4.3, 26.2, 29.7.—
29.11 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation,
DECIDED:
To find Medzhit Anafievich Abdurakhmanov guilty of committing the administrative offence under
Part 1 of Article. 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation and impose on him
the administrative punishment in the form of administrative arrest for a period of five (5) days.
To calculate the term of serving the punishment from 21 February 2017, 11:30 a.m.
The decision is to be fulfilled by the internal affairs bodies immediately after the issue of such decision.
The decision may be appealed within ten days from the date of delivery or the receipt of a copy of the
decision to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea through Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol.
Judge /Signature/ I.V. Kagitina
Annex 310
Annex 311
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, Case No. 5-484/2017, Decision,
21 February 2017
1
Translation
Case No. 5-484/2017
DECISION
21 February 2017 Simferopol, 16 Vorovskogo Street
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea, comprising of the Presiding Judge
I.V. Kagitina, with the participation of the secretary, A.A. Sobakin, interpreter, G. Sh. Tantalova, having
considered in the open court hearing the administrative offence case against:
Ablyakim Anafievich Abdurakhmanov, born 14 January 1977, a native of Tashkent, Uzbek Soviet
Socialist Republic, a citizen of the Russian Federation, officially unemployed, married, having 2 children,
registered at: 4 Rechnoy Lane, urban-type settlement Gvardeyskoye, Simferopol Region, Republic of Crimea,
residing at: 33 Armut Street, Stroganovks village, Simferopol Region, Republic of Crimea,
regarding the administrative offence provided for by Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on
Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation (administrative offence record No. 170703),
ESTABLISHED:
According to the administrative offence record No. 170703, on 21 February 2017, at Simferopol,
Kamenka, 4th stop, citizen A.A. Abdurakhmanov was identified, who took part in a mass simultaneous
gathering in a public place that entailed a violation of the public order and interfered with the pedestrian traffic.
At the court hearing, A.A. Abdurakhmanov did not admit his guilt in committing the administrative
offence. He explained that on 21 February 2017 he was at: Simferopol, Kamenka, 4th stop, where about 15
people gathered, but he did not violate the public order and did not create any obstacles to pedestrians. Having
announced that they should disperse, the police officers did not give them time for this and detained
them.
U.Z. Avamilev, Senior Inspector of the Public Order Maintenance Department of the Directorate of
the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol, who was interrogated as a witness at the court
hearing, testified that in order to fix possible violations by citizens he was by the order of the head on 21
February 2017 at Simferopol, Kamenka, 4th stop, at 10:20 a.m., where about 15 people gathered near the
cordon chain. They expressed their dissatisfaction, refused to go away from the venue of investigative
activities, thereby violating the public order. They were asked to leave the venue, as there were obstacles for
pedestrians. The citizens did not obey the lawful request of the police officer and were taken to the police
department for the record to be drawn up. All actions were video recorded. A.A. Abdurakhmanov took part in
the unauthorised event, expressed his dissatisfaction and disturbed pedestrians in the general mass.
V. A. Zadorozhnaya, Inquiry Officer of the Department of Inquiry of the Directorate of the Ministry
of Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol, interrogated as a witness testified that she was present during the
activities near Kamenka, the 4th stop. At about 10 a.m. there was a crowd of about 15 people, they did not
react to words of the policemen or did not react adequately and interfered with the passage of other citizens.
Those circumstances were recorded by a video camera. A.A. Abdurakhmanov was present there, she saw him.
He was in the row on the foreground. He was among the people who did not disperse. By their actions, they
prevented citizens from passing.
V.E. Romanovsky, interrogated as a witness during the court hearing testified that on 21 February
2017, a police officer approached him and offered to sign papers. He did not see any mass riots or crowds of
people.
Having heard the person brought to administrative responsibility, the witnesses, having examined the
case materials, the court comes to the following conclusion.
According to Article 31 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, citizens of the Russian
Federation have the right to gather peacefully, without weapons, to hold assemblies, meetings, demonstrations,
Annex 311
2
marches and picketing.
Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation establishes
administrative liability for arranging citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places
that is not a public event, public calls to citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public
places, or to participation in citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places, if
citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places has entailed public order disturbance
or violation of sanitary norms and rules, violation of the functioning and safety of critical infrastructure or
communication facilities, or has caused damage to greenery, or hindrance to the movement of pedestrians or
vehicles, or prevented citizens’ access to residential premises or transportation infrastructure facilities, or to
social infrastructure facilities, except for the situations provided for in Parts 2 and 3 of this Article
The object of the respective administrative offence is public relations in the area of public order and
public safety. Under this Article, the subjects of administrative offences may be citizens, officials and legal
entities. This act should be described as wrongful and committed with specific intent.
According to Article 26.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, evidence
in the administrative offence case is any factual data on the basis whereof the judge, body, official that handles
the case establishes whether or not there is an administrative offence event, the guilt of the person brought to
administrative liability and any other circumstances that are relevant for the correct solution of the case.
The set of all elements of the administrative offence is a set of objective and subjective attributes
provided for by the Code on Administrative Offences that describes a socially dangerous act as the offence;
the administrative offence event is the fact of a person taking an action provided for by the Code on
Administrative Offences for which administrative liability is established.
The fact of committing the administrative offence by and the guilt of A.A. Abdurakhmanov are
confirmed by the administrative offence record of 21 February 2017; the testimony of witnesses, U.Z.
Avamilev, Senior Police Lieutenant, Senior Inspector of the Public Order Maintenance Department of the
Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol, V. A. Zadorozhnaya, Inquiry Officer
of the Department of Inquiry of the Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol,
and by the video recording.
According to Paragraph 1 of Part 2 of Article 28.3 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the
Russian Federation, officials of the internal affairs bodies (the police) are authorised to draw up administrative
offence records as provided for, among other things, by Article 20.2.2 of the Code.
The administrative offence record and other case materials were drawn up in compliance with the
requirements of law, by a proper official, there is no reason not to trust the information specified therein.
This evidence clearly shows that the actions of A.A. Abdurakhmanov include events and elements of
the administrative offence provided for by Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of
the Russian Federation.
The procedure and the limitation period for bringing A.A. Abdurakhmanov to administrative liability
are not violated.
His actions are correctly qualified under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative
Offences of the Russian Federation, as he took part in mass simultaneous gathering in the public place that
entailed a violation of the public order and interfered with the traffic of pedestrians.
When imposing an administrative punishment on A.A. Abdurakhmanov, the court takes into account
the requirements of Article 4.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, the nature
of the offence that was committed deliberately, the degree of public danger of the action committed, the attitude
of A.A. Abdurakhmanov to the action committed, the offender’s personality, the effect of the punishment on
the purpose of preventing new offences, both by the offender himself and by any other persons.
Together, the above enables the court to impose the administrative punishment in the form of an
administrative arrest. The court believes that the punishment in the form of a fine, compulsory community
Annex 311
3
service will not be fully in line to what was done.
In view of the above, the court believes it necessary to impose on A.A. Abdurakhmanov the
administrative punishment in the form of arrest for a period of 5 days.
A.A. Abdurakhmanov is not a person in respect of whom the administrative arrest may not be applied
in accordance with the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
In accordance with Part 4 of Article 27.5 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation, the period of administrative detention of a person is calculated from the time of delivery in
accordance with Article 27.2 of this Code.
In accordance with the provisions of Article 27.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the
Russian Federation, the delivery is coerced transportation of an individual in order to draw up the
administrative offence record if it is impossible to draw them up at the venue of the administrative offence, if
drawing up the record is compulsory.
Having regard to the above, the term of serving the administrative punishment should be calculated
from 21 February 2017, 11:30 a.m.
Based on the foregoing, being guided by Part 1 of Article 20.2.2, Articles 3.9, 4.2, 4.3, 26.2, 29.7.—
29.11 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation,
DECIDED:
To find A.A. Abdurakhmanov guilty of committing the administrative offence under Part 1 of Article
20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation and impose on him the administrative
punishment in the form of administrative arrest for a period of five (5) days.
To calculate the term of serving the punishment from 21 February 2017, 11:30 a.m.
The decision is to be fulfilled by the internal affairs bodies immediately after the issue of such decision.
The decision may be appealed within ten days from the date of delivery or the receipt of a copy of the
decision to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea through Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol.
Judge /Signature/ I.V. Kagitina
Annex 311
Annex 312
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, Case No. 5-489/2017, Decision,
21 February 2017
1
Translation
Case No. 5-489/2017
DECISION
21 February 2017 Simferopol
Judge V.A. Mozhelianskiy of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, with the participation of the
secretary Z.I. Ragulskaya, the individual subjected to the administrative offence proceeding O.F.
Arifmemetov, the defence counsel - attorney E.S. Semidlyaev, who submitted the warrant of attorney No. KR-
15 of 21 February 2017 and the attorney’s certificate No. […] of […], the defense counsel - L.I. Gemedzhi,
interpreter G.Sh. Chantalova, having considered in an open court hearing the case against:
Osman Feratovich Arifmemetov, born on 28 August 1985, a native of town Frunze, Tashkent Region,
Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic, unemployed, registered at 14 Mamutova Street, village Dolinnoe,
Bakhchisaray Region, Republic of Crimea,
regarding the administrative offence provided for by Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on
Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation,
ESTABLISHED:
On 21 February 2017, at 10:20 a.m., O.F. Arifmemetov took part in a mass simultaneous gathering in a
public place located near the public transport stop No. 4 at Kamenka, Simferopol, Republic of Crimea, which
entailed a violation of the public order and interfered with the pedestrian traffic.
During the court hearing, O.F. Arifmemetov did not plead guilty of an administrative offence and
explained that he had not participated in illegal mass assemblies.
Although O.F. Arifmemetov refused to plead guilty, his guilt in committing an administrative offence
under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation is fully
supported by the evidence included in the case materials and examined during the court hearing.
Namely, subject to the administrative offence record of 21 February 2017, O.F. Arifmemetov took part
in a mass simultaneous gathering in a public place located near the public transport stop No. 4 at Kamenka,
Simferopol, Republic of Crimea, which entailed a violation of the public order and interfered with the
pedestrian traffic (case record sheet 1).
According to the explanations provided by A.A. Kruglov, V.E. Romanovsky, I.A. Chumakova, A.A.
Efimenko, on 21 February 2017, approximately at 10 a.m., they witnessed 15 individuals in a public place
located near the public transport stop No. 4 at Kamenka, Simferopol, who during an hour were obstructing free
movement of pedestrians, causing public disturbance, shouting, gesticulating, not responding to warnings of
the police officers, behaving aggressively (case record sheets 5, 6, 7, 8).
Subject to the reports of 21 February 2017, submitted by U.Z. Avamilev, Senior Inspector of the Public
Order Maintenance Department of the Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol,
and V. A. Zadorozhnaya, Inquiry officer of the Department of Inquiry of the Directorate of the Ministry of
Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol, on 21 February 2017, from 9 a.m. to 12 a.m., during the protection
of public order near the public transport stop No. 4 at Kamenka, Simferopol, i.e. in a public place, it was
detected that 15 individuals participated in a mass simultaneous gathering, caused public disturbance, shouted,
did not respond to warnings of the police officers, obstructed free movement of pedestrians, i.e. caused public
disturbance (case record sheets 9, 10).
Annex 312
2
As can be seen from the provided materials, a mass simultaneous gathering of a significant number of
individuals as an organised group resulted in obstructing of movement of pedestrians and caused public
disturbance.
Having evaluated the evidence, it is believed that the actions of O.F. Arifmemetov contain the elements
of the administrative offence under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the
Russian Federation, i.e. participation in a mass simultaneous gathering and movement of citizens in public
places, where mass simultaneous gathering and movement of citizens in public places causes public disorder
and obstructing the movement of pedestrians.
Subject to Articles 4.2, 4.3 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, no
circumstance to mitigate the administrative liability of O.F. Arifmemetov was found.
Considering the above circumstances, the nature of the administrative offence, the personality of the
defendant, considering the circumstances mitigating administrative responsibility, the absence of
circumstances aggravating administrative responsibility, and also considering the fact that O.F. Arifmemetov
does not fall into the category of persons to whom, in view of Part 2 of Article 3.9 of the Code on
Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, administrative arrest is not applied, in order to achieve the
goal of administrative punishment, it is necessary to impose on O.F. Arifmemetov an administrative
punishment in the form of administrative arrest for a period of 5 (five) days
Based on the foregoing, being guided by Part 1 of Article 20.2.2, Articles 4.2, 4.3, 26.2, 29.7-29.11 of
the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, the judge
DECIDED:
To find O.F. Arifmemetov guilty of committing the administrative offence under Part 1 of Article. 20.2.2
of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation and impose on him the administrative
punishment in the form of administrative arrest for a period of five (5) days.
To start the term of the administrative punishment imposed on O.F. Arifmemetov in the form of the
administrative arrest from the time of his detention on 21 February 2017 and delivery by the internal affairs
authorities to the place where the administrative punishment is served.
The decision may be appealed within ten days from the date of delivery or the receipt of a copy of the
decision to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea through Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol.
Judge: /Signature/ V.A. Mozhelianskiy
Annex 312
Annex 313
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, Case No. 5-488/2017, Decision,
21 February 2017
1
Translation
Case No. 5-488/2017
DECISION
21 February 2017 Simferopol
Judge V.A. Mozhelianskiy of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, with the participation of the
secretary Z.I. Ragulskaya, the individual subjected to the administrative offence proceeding R.R. Bekirov, the
defence attorney E.S. Semidlyaev, who submitted the warrant of attorney No. KR-17 of 21 February 2017 and
the attorney’s certificate No. […] of […], the defender L.I. Gemedzhi, interpreter G.Sh. Chantalova, having
considered in an open court hearing the case against:
Remzi Rustemovich Bekirov, born 20 February 1985, a native of the city of Bekabad, Uzbekistan,
married, unemployed, registered at 12 Azaltyk Street, village Stroganovka, Simferopol Region, Republic of
Crimea,
regarding the administrative offence under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative
Offences of the Russian Federation,
ESTABLISHED:
On 21 February 2017, at 10:00 a.m., R.R. Bekirov took part in a mass simultaneous gathering in a public
place located near the building 127 on Myasoedovskaya Street, Kamenka, Simferopol, Republic of Crimea,
which entailed a violation of the public order and interfered with the pedestrian traffic.
During the court hearing, R.R. Bekirov did not plead guilty of an administrative offence and explained
that he had not participated in illegal mass assemblies.
At the court hearing, the witness V.A. Zadorozhnaya, explained that she holds the position of an Inquiry
officer of the Department of Inquiry of the Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for
Simferopol. On 12 February 2017, at 10:00 a.m., during the protection of public order near the public transport
stop No. 4 at Kamenka, Simferopol, i.e. in a public place, it was detected that 15 individuals, including R.S.
Suleymanov, participated in a mass simultaneous gathering, caused public disturbance, shouted, did not
respond to warningы of the police officers, obstructed free movement of pedestrians, i.e. caused public
disturbance, of which she filed a report.
At the court hearing, the witness U.Z. Avamilev explained that he holds the position of a Senior
Inspector of the Public Order Maintenance Department of the Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs
of Russia for Simferopol. On 12 February 2017, at 10:00 a.m., during the protection of public order near the
public transport stop No. 4 at Kamenka, Simferopol, i.e. in a public place, it was detected that 15 individuals,
including R.S. Suleymanov, participated in a mass simultaneous gathering, caused public disturbance, shouted,
not responded to warning of the police officers, obstructed free movement of pedestrians, i.e. caused public
disturbance, of which she filed a report.
Although R.R. Bekirov refused to plead guilty, his guilt in committing an administrative offence under
Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation is fully supported
by the evidence included in the case materials and examined during the court hearing.
Namely, according to the administrative offence record of 21 February 2017, on 21 February 2017, at
10:00 a.m., R.R. Bekirov took part in a mass simultaneous gathering in a public place located near the building
127 on Myasoedovskaya Street, Kamenka, Simferopol, Republic of Crimea, which entailed a violation of the
public order and interfered with the pedestrian traffic (case record sheet 1).
According to the explanations provided by A.A. Kruglov, V.E. Romanovsky, I.A. Chumakova, A.A.
Efimenko, on 21 February 2017, at 10 a.m., they witnessed 15 individuals in a public place located near the
building 127 in Myasoedovskaya Street, Kamenka, Simferopol, Republic of Crimea, who during an hour were
Annex 313
2
obstructing free movement of pedestrians, causing public disturbance, shouting, gesticulating, not responding
to warnings of the police officers, behaving aggressively (case record sheets 5, 6, 7, 8).
Subject to the reports of 21 February 2017, submitted by U.Z. Avamilev, Senior Inspector of the Public
Order Maintenance Department of the Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol,
and V. A. Zadorozhnaya, Inquiry officer of the Department of Inquiry of the Directorate of the Ministry of
Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol, on 21 February 2017, at 10 a.m., during the protection of public
order near the public transport stop No. 4 at Kamenka, Simferopol, i.e. in a public place, it was detected that
15 individuals participated in a mass simultaneous gathering, caused public disturbance, shouted, did not
respond to warnings of the police officers, obstructed free movement of pedestrians, i.e. caused public
disturbance (case record sheets 9, 10).
As can be seen from the provided materials, a mass simultaneous gathering of a significant number of
individuals as an organised group resulted in obstructing of movement of pedestrians and caused public
disturbance.
The procedural documents drawn up in the administrative offence case comply with the requirements
of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, and therefore they are admissible, relevant,
reliable and sufficient in the aggregate evidence obtained in accordance with the rules of Articles 26.2, 26.11
of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
Having evaluated the evidence, it is believed that the actions of R.R. Bekirov contain the elements of
the administrative offence under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation, i.e. participation in a mass simultaneous gathering and movement of citizens in public places,
where mass simultaneous gathering and movement of citizens in public places causes public disorder and
obstructing the movement of pedestrians.
Subject to Articles 4.2, 4.3 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, no
circumstance to mitigate the administrative liability of R.R. Bekirov was found.
Considering the above circumstances, the nature of the administrative offence, the personality of the
defendant, considering the absence of circumstances mitigating or aggravating administrative responsibility,
and also considering the fact that R.R. Bekirov does not fall into the category of persons to whom, in view of
Part 2 of Article 3.9 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, administrative arrest
is not applied, in order to achieve the goal of administrative punishment, it is necessary to impose on R.R.
Bekirov an administrative punishment in the form of administrative arrest for a period of 5 (five) days.
Based on the foregoing, being guided by Part 1 of Article 20.2.2, Articles 4.2, 4.3, 26.2, 29.7-29.11 of
the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, the court
DECIDED:
To find Remzi Rustemovich Bekirov guilty of committing the administrative offence under Part 1 of
Article. 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation and impose on him the
administrative punishment in the form of administrative arrest for a period of five (5) days.
To start the term of the administrative punishment imposed on R.R. Bekirov in the form of the
administrative arrest from the time of his detention on 21 February 2017 and delivery by the internal affairs
authorities to the place where the administrative punishment is served.
The decision is to be executed by the internal affairs bodies immediately after its issuance.
The decision may be appealed within ten days from the date of delivery or the receipt of a copy of the
decision to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea through Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol.
Judge: /Signature/ V.A. Mozhelianskiy
Annex 313
Annex 314
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, Case No. 5-488/2017, Ruling,
21 February 2017
/
Translation
Case No. 5-488/2017
RULING
on correcting a typo
21 February 2017 Simferopol
Judge V.A. Mozhelianskiy of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol (Kievskiy District Court of
Simferopol, 16 Vorovskogo Street, Simferopol), having considered in an open court hearing the case against:
Remzi Rustemovich Bekirov, born 20 February 1985, a native of the city of Bekabad, Uzbekistan,
married, unemployed, registered at the address: 39 Sovetskaya Street, village Pervomayskoye, Belogorskiy
District, Republic of Crimea, residing at the address: 12 Azaltyk Street, village Stroganovka, Simferopol
Region, Republic of Crimea,
regarding the administrative offence under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative
Offences of the Russian Federation,
ESTABLISHED:
By the decision of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of 21 February 2017, R.R. Bekirov was
found guilty in committing an administrative offence provided for by Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on
Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation and the administrative punishment was imposed on him in
the form of administrative arrest for a period of five (5) days.
Having held the abovementioned decision, the court made a typo in the spelling of the name, surname
and patronymic of one of the person who, according to the testimony of the witnesses V.A. Zadorozhnaya and
U.Z. Avamilev, took part in a mass simultaneous gathering in a public place on 21 February 2017, which
entailed a violation of the public order and interfered with the pedestrian traffic: the court mentioned R.S.
Suleymanov instead of R.R. Bekirov.
Having considered the case materials, the minutes of the court hearing, the court comes to the
conclusion that it is necessary to correct the error made in the decision of the Kievskiy District Court of
Simferopol of 21 February 2017 against R.R. Bekirov, noting that the witness testimony of V.A. Zadorozhnaya
and U.Z. Avamilev during the court hearing was that one of the persons who took part in a mass simultaneous
gathering in a public place on 21 February 2017, which caused a violation of public order, was R.R. Bekirov.
Based on the foregoing, being guided by Article 29.12.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of
the Russian Federation, the court
RULED:
To correct the typo made in the decision of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of 21 February
2017 against R.R. Bekirov, noting that the witness testimony of V.A. Zadorozhnaya and U.Z. Avamilev during
the court hearing was that one of the persons who took part in a mass simultaneous gathering in a public place
on 21 February 2017, which caused a violation of public order, was R.R. Bekirov.
The ruling may not be appealed.
Judge: /Signature/ V.A. Mozhelianskiy
Annex 314
Annex 315
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, Case No. 5-487/2017, Decision,
21 February 2017
1
Translation
Case No. 5-487/2017
DECISION
21 February 2017 Simferopol
Judge of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol V.A. Mozhelianskiy, with the participation of the
secretary Z.I. Ragulskaya, the individual subjected to the administrative offence proceeding R.S. Suleymanov,
the defence counsel E.S. Semidlyaev, who submitted the warrant of attorney No. KR-16 of 21 February 2017
and the attorney’s certificate No. […] of […], the defender L.I. Gemedzhi, interpreter G.Sh. Chantalova,
having considered in an open court hearing the case against
Ruslan Serverovich Suleymanov, born 21 April 1983, a native of the town of Kokard, Ferghana Region,
Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic, married, unemployed, registered at 16 Sadovaya Street, village Sennoe,
Belogorskiy District, Republic of Crimea, residing at 8 Azaltyk Street, village Stroganovka, Simferopol
District, Republic of Crimea,
regarding the administrative offence under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative
Offences of the Russian Federation,
ESTABLISHED:
On 21 February 2017, at 10:00 a.m., R.S. Suleymanov took part in a mass simultaneous gathering in a
public place located near the building 127 on Myasoedovskaya Street, Kamenka, Simferopol, Republic of
Crimea, which entailed a violation of the public order and interfered with the pedestrian traffic.
During the court hearing, R.S. Suleymanov did not plead guilty of an administrative offence and
explained that he had not participated in illegal mass meetings or interfered with the pedestrian traffic.
At the court hearing, the defence attorney requested to terminate the proceedings due to the fact that
there is no set of all elements of the administrative offence under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on
Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation in the actions of the person being defended.
At the court hearing, the witness V.A. Zadorozhnaya, explained that she holds the position of an Inquiry
officer of the Department of Inquiry of the Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for
Simferopol. On 12 February 2017, at 10:00 a.m., during the protection of public order near the public transport
stop No. 4 at Kamenka, Simferopol, i.e. in a public place, it was detected that 15 individuals, including R.S.
Suleymanov, participated in a mass simultaneous gathering, caused public disturbance, shouted, did not
respond to warnings of the police officers, obstructed free movement of pedestrians, i.e. caused public
disturbance, of which she filed a report.
At the court hearing, the witness U.Z. Avamilev explained that he holds the position of a Senior
Inspector of the Public Order Maintenance Department of the Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs
of Russia for Simferopol. On 12 February 2017, at 10:00 a.m., during the protection of public order near the
public transport stop No. 4 at Kamenka, Simferopol, i.e. in a public place, it was detected that 15 individuals,
including R.S. Suleymanov, participated in a mass simultaneous gathering, caused public disturbance, shouted,
did not respond to warnings of the police officers, obstructed free movement of pedestrians, i.e. caused public
disturbance, of which he filed a report.
Although R.S. Suleymanov refused to plead guilty, his guilt in committing an administrative offence
under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation is fully
supported by the evidence included in the case materials and examined during the court hearing.
Namely, according to the administrative offence record of 21 February 2017, on 21 February 2017, at
10:00 a.m., R.S. Suleymanov took part in a mass simultaneous gathering in a public place located near the
building 127 on Myasoedovskaya Street, Kamenka, Simferopol, Republic of Crimea, which entailed a
violation of the public order and interfered with the pedestrian traffic (case record sheet 1).
According to the explanations provided by A.A. Kruglova, V.E. Romanovsky, I.A. Chumakova, A.A.
Efimenko, on 21 February 2017, at 10 a.m., they witnessed 15 individuals in a public place located near the
Annex 315
2
building 127 on Myasoedovskaya Street, Kamenka, Simferopol, Republic of Crimea, who during an hour were
obstructing free movement of pedestrians, causing public disturbance, shouting, gesticulating, not responding
to warnings of the police officers, behaving aggressively (case record sheets 5, 6, 7, 8).
According to the reports of the Senior Inspector of the Public Order Maintenance Department of the
Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol U.Z. Avamilev and the Inquiry officer
of the Department of Inquiry of the Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol
V.A. Zadorozhnaya of 21 February 2017, on 21 February 2017, at 10 p.m., during the protection of public
order near the public transport stop No. 4 at Kamenka, Simferopol, i.e. in a public place, it was detected that
15 individuals, participated in a mass simultaneous gathering, caused public disturbance, shouted, not
responded to warning of the police officers, obstructed free movement of pedestrians, i.e. caused public
disturbance (case record sheets 9, 10).
As can be seen from the provided materials, a mass simultaneous gathering of a significant number of
individuals as an organised group resulted in obstructing of movement of pedestrians and caused public
disturbance.
The procedural documents drawn up in the administrative offence case comply with the requirements
of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, and therefore they are admissible, relevant,
reliable and sufficient in the aggregate evidence obtained in accordance with the rules of Articles 26.2, 26.11
of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
Having evaluated the evidence, it is believed that the actions of R.S. Suleymanov contain the elements
of the administrative offence under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the
Russian Federation, i.e. participation in a mass simultaneous gathering and movement of citizens in public
places, where mass simultaneous gathering and movement of citizens in public places causes public disorder
and obstructing the movement of pedestrians.
Subject to Articles 4.2, 4.3 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, no
circumstance to mitigate the administrative liability of R.S. Suleymanov was found.
Considering the above circumstances, the nature of the administrative offence, the personality of the
defendant, considering the absence of circumstances mitigating or aggravating administrative responsibility,
and also considering the fact that R.S. Suleymanov does not fall into the category of persons to whom, in view
of Part 2 of Article 3.9 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, administrative arrest
is not applied, in order to achieve the goal of administrative punishment, it is necessary to impose on R.S.
Suleymanov an administrative punishment in the form of administrative arrest for a period of 5 (five) days.
Based on the foregoing, being guided by Part 1 of Article 20.2.2, Articles 4.2, 4.3, 26.2, 29.7-29.11 of
the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, the court
DECIDED:
To find Ruslan Serverovich Suleymanov guilty of committing the administrative offence under Part 1
of Article. 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation and impose on him the
administrative punishment in the form of administrative arrest for a period of five (5) days.
To start the term of the administrative punishment imposed on R.S. Suleymanov in the form of the
administrative arrest from the time of his detention on 21 February 2017 and delivery by the internal affairs
authorities to the place where the administrative punishment is served.
The decision is executed by the internal affairs bodies immediately after its issuance.
The decision may be appealed within ten days from the date of delivery or the receipt of a copy of the
decision to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea through Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol.
Judge: /Signature/ V.A. Mozhelianskiy
Annex 315
Annex 316
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, Case No. 5-485/2017, Decision,
21 February 2017
1
Translation
Case No. 5-485/2017
DECISION
21 February 2017 Simferopol, 16 Vorovskogo Street
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea, comprising of the Presiding Judge
I.V. Kagitina, with the participation of the secretary, A.A. Sobakin, having considered in the open court hearing
the administrative offence case against:
Alim Egamberdievich Karimov, born 8 April 1994, a native of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea,
Ukraine, a citizen of the Russian Federation, officially unemployed, single, registered at the address: 20
Zolotistaya Street, Simferopol,
regarding the administrative offence under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative
Offences of the Russian Federation (administrative offence record No. 156580),
ESTABLISHED:
According to the administrative offence record No. RK 156580, on 21 February 2017 at 12 p.m., at
Simferopol, Kamenka, 4th stop, citizen A.E. Karimov was identified, who took part in a mass simultaneous
gathering in a public place that entailed a violation of the public order and interfered with the pedestrian traffic.
At the court hearing, A.E. Karimov did not admit his guilt in committing the administrative offence.
He was near the 4th stop dealing with his own affairs, noticed the police and, being a diligent citizen,
approached. As was demanded by the police officers, he wanted to leave. The law enforcement authorities
created obstructions and applied illegal methods.
U.Z. Avamilev, Senior Inspector of the Public Order Maintenance Department of the Directorate of
the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol, who was questioned as a witness at the court hearing,
testified that in order to fix possible violations by citizens he was by the order of the head on 21 February 2017
at Simferopol, Kamenka, 4th stop, at 10:20 a.m., where about 15 people gathered near the cordon chain. They
expressed their dissatisfaction, refused to go away from the venue of investigative activities, thereby violating
the public order. They were asked to leave the venue, as there were obstacles for pedestrians. The citizens did
not obey the lawful request of the police officer and were taken to the police department for the records to be
drawn up. All actions were video recorded. A.E. Karimov took part in the unauthorised event, expressed his
dissatisfaction and disturbed pedestrians in the general mass.
V. A. Zadorozhnaya, Inquiry officer of the Department of Inquiry of the Directorate of the Ministry
of Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol, interrogated as a witness testified that she was present during the
activities near Kamenka, the 4th stop. At about 10 a.m. there was a crowd of about 15 people, they did not
react to warnings of the policemen or did not react adequately and interfered with the passage of other citizens
and vehicles. Those circumstances were recorded with a video camera. A.E. Karimov was present there, she
saw him. A.E. Karimov was among the people who did not disperse. By their actions, they prevented citizens
from passing.
V.E. Romanovsky, interrogated as a witness during the court hearing testified that on 21 February
2017, a police officer approached him and offered to sign papers. He did not see any mass riots or crowds of
people.
Having heard the person brought to administrative responsibility, the witnesses, having examined the
case materials, the court comes to the following conclusion.
According to Article 31 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, citizens of the Russian
Federation have the right to gather peacefully, without weapons, to hold assemblies, rallies, demonstrations,
Annex 316
2
marches and picketing.
Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation establishes
administrative liability for arranging citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places
that is not a public event, public calls to citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public
places, or to participation in citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places, if
citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places has entailed public order disturbance
or violation of sanitary norms and rules, violation of the functioning and safety of critical infrastructure or
communication facilities, or has caused damage to greenery, or hindrance to the movement of pedestrians or
vehicles, or prevented citizens’ access to residential premises or transportation infrastructure facilities, or to
social infrastructure facilities, except for the situations provided for in Parts 2 and 3 of this Article.
The object of the respective administrative offence is public relations in the area of public order and
public safety. Under this Article, the subjects of administrative offences may be citizens, officials and legal
entities. This act should be described as wrongful and committed with specific intent.
According to Article 26.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, evidence
in the administrative offence case is any factual data on the basis thereof the judge, body, official that handles
the case establishes whether or not there is an administrative offence event, the guilt of the person brought to
administrative liability and any other circumstances that are relevant for the correct solution of the case.
The set of all elements of the administrative offence is a set of objective and subjective attributes
provided for by the Code on Administrative Offences that describes a socially dangerous act as the offence;
the administrative offence event is the fact of a person taking an action provided for by the Code on
Administrative Offences for which administrative liability is established.
The fact of committing the administrative offence by and the guilt of A.E. Karimov are confirmed by
the administrative offence record of on 21 February 2017; the testimony of witnesses, i.e. U.Z. Avamilev,
Senior Inspector of the Public Order Maintenance Department of the Directorate of the Ministry of Internal
Affairs of Russia for Simferopol, Senior Lieutenant, V. A. Zadorozhnaya, Inquiry officer of the Department
of Inquiry of the Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol, and by the video
recording.
According to Paragraph 1 of Part 2 of Article 28.3 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the
Russian Federation, officials of the internal affairs bodies (the police) are authorised to draw up administrative
offence records as provided for, among other things, by Article 20.2.2 of the Code.
The administrative offence record and other case materials were drawn up in compliance with the
requirements of law, by a proper official, there is no reason not to trust the information specified therein.
This evidence clearly shows that the actions of A.E. Karimov include events and elements of the
administrative offence provided for by Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the
Russian Federation.
The procedure and the limitation period for bringing A.E. Karimov to administrative liability are not
violated.
His actions are correctly qualified under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative
Offences of the Russian Federation, as he took part in mass simultaneous gathering in the public place that
entailed a violation of the public order and interfered with the traffic of pedestrians.
When imposing an administrative punishment on A.E. Karimov, the court takes into account the
requirements of Article 4.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, i.e. the nature
of the offence that was committed deliberately, the degree of public danger of the action committed, the attitude
of A.E. Karimov to the action committed, the offender’s personality, the effect of the punishment on the
purpose of preventing new offences, both by the offender himself and by any other persons.
Annex 316
3
Together, the above enables the court to impose the administrative punishment in the form of an
administrative arrest. The court believes that the punishment in the form of a fine, compulsory community
service will not be fully in line to what was done.
In view of the above, the court believes it necessary to impose on A.E. Karimov the administrative
punishment in the form of arrest for a period of 5 days.
A.E. Karimov is not a person in respect of whom the administrative arrest may not be applied in
accordance with the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
In accordance with Part 4 of Article 27.5 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation, the period of administrative detention of a person is calculated from the time of delivery in
accordance with Article 27.2 of this Code.
In accordance with the provisions of Article 27.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the
Russian Federation, the delivery is coerced transportation of an individual in order to draw up the
administrative offence record if it is impossible to draw them up at the venue of the administrative offence, if
drawing up the record is compulsory.
Having regard to the above, the term of serving the administrative punishment should be calculated
from 21 February 2017, 11:30 a.m.
Based on the foregoing, being guided by Part 1 of Article 20.2.2, Articles 3.9, 4.2, 4.3, 26.2, 29.7.—
29.11 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation,
DECIDED:
To find Alim Egamberdievich Karimov guilty of committing the administrative offence under Part 1
of Article. 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation and impose on him the
administrative punishment in the form of administrative arrest for a period of five (5) days.
To calculate the term of serving the punishment from 21 February 2017, 11:30 a.m.
The decision is to be executed by the internal affairs bodies immediately after the issue of such
decision.
The decision may be appealed within ten days from the date of delivery or the receipt of a copy of the
decision to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea through Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol.
Judge /Signature/ I.V. Kagitina
Annex 316
Annex 317
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, Case No. 5-480/2017, Decision,
21 February 2017
1
Translation
Case No. 5-480/2017
DECISION
In the name of the Russian Federation
21 February 2017 Simferopol
Judge of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol A.S. Tsykurenko, with the participation of the
secretary Е.Е. Samborskaya, the Prosecutor E.A. Kovaleva (certificate […]), the attorney E.S. Semidlyaev
(warrant of attorney No. RK-018 of 21 February 2017), the representative of the individual subjected to the
administrative offence proceeding L.I. Gemedzhi, the individual subjected to the administrative offence
proceeding R.M. Izetov, having considered the administrative materials (administrative offence record No. RK
170801 of 21 February 2017) against:
Riza Mustafaevich Izetov, born 24 January 1979, a native of the town of Fergana, Uzbek Soviet Socialist
Republic, divorced, having one dependent child and mother, registered at the address: 62 Verkhniy quarter,
village Chistenkoe, Simferopol District, Republic of Crimea, residing at the address: 2 Avget Street, village
Stroganovka, Simferopol District, Republic of Crimea,
Under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation
ESTABLISHED:
On 21 February 2017, at Simferopol, Kamensky area, 4th stop, R.M. Izetov took part in a mass
simultaneous gathering in a public place that entailed a violation of the public order and interfered with the
pedestrian traffic.
During court hearing, R.M. Izetov, his attorney E.S. Semidlyaev and representative L.I. Gemedzhi
refused to plead guilty, requested termination of the case proceeding.
Having considered the administrative materials, the court found the following.
As can be seen from the administrative offence case, on 21 February, at Simferopol, Kamensky area,
4th stop, R.M. Izetov took part in a mass simultaneous gathering in a public place that entailed a violation of
the public order and interfered with the pedestrian traffic.
Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation establishes
administrative liability for arranging citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places
that is not a public event, public calls to citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public
places, or to participation in citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places, if
citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places has entailed public order disturbance
or violation of sanitary norms and rules, violation of the functioning and safety of critical infrastructure or
communication facilities, or has caused damage to greenery, or hindrance to the movement of pedestrians or
vehicles, or prevented citizens’ access to residential premises or transportation infrastructure facilities, or to
social infrastructure facilities, except for the situations provided for in Parts 2 and 3 of this Article.
During the court hearing, the interrogated witness Ya.S. Muyedinov testified that he was a woodcutter
and was present in the Kamensky area to deal with his personal affairs. People wearing uniform blocked the
road, and he was unable to pass, nobody of the uniformed people explained the reasons. He reported that R.M.
Izetov had not breached the public order.
During the court hearing, the witness N.N. Sheikhmambetov explained that on 21 February 2017, he
was present in the Kamensky area, driving to his friend. However, he did not manage to reach the friend since
Annex 317
2
the roads were blocked. He reported that R.M. Izetov did not obstruct pedestrian movement, he did not see any
crowd of people with aggressive intentions, R.M. Izetov did not breach public order.
During the court hearing, the witness E.S. Suleymanov explained that he was present in the Kamensky
area, was told that somebody came to Marlen for search, and wanted to inquire into the reasons of these actions.
However, the uniformed people that blocked the road prevented him from clearing this issue. Through a
loudspeaker, it was announced that it was necessary to disperse, however, no opportunity was given to do that.
R.M. Izetov did not breach public order.
During the court hearing, a video was examined where R.M. Izetov was recorded being present in the
in Kamensky area, 4th stop, who was participating in the meeting, which indicates that he participated in a
mass simultaneous gathering in a public place, which caused a breach of public order.
The fact that R.M. Izetov committed an administrative offence is confirmed by the evidence collected
for the case: the administrative offence record of 21 February 2017 (case record sheet 3), the report (case record
sheets 13-14), the video footage.
The motion of the defence counsel to exclude explanations of the individuals (case record sheets 9-12)
from the evidence shall be granted.
According to Part 1 of Article 26.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation,
the evidence in an administrative offence case shall mean any actual data, on the basis of which a judge, body,
official that try the case determine whether the administrative offence is committed, the guilt of the person
sanctioned with the administrative liability, and also other circumstances relevant for proper resolution of the
case. Subject to Part 2 of Article 26.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, this
data is detected, particularly, by the administrative offence records, other records and documents.
The court excludes the explanations of the individuals contained in case record sheets 9-12 from the
evidence since they are executed improperly: prepared according to the procedure established in the Criminal
Procedural Code of the Russian Federation.
According to Part 1 of Article 28.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation,
the records shall be prepared on a committed administrative offence, exclusive of the circumstances provided
for in Article 28.4, Parts 1 and 3 of Article 28.6 of said Code.
Subject to the provisions of this norm, the administrative offence records shall be prepared with the
participation of the person subjected to the proceedings on the administrative offence case.
An individual or a legal representative of a legal entity, subjected to proceedings on an administrative
offence case, must be given the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the administrative offence records.
These persons are entitled to submit explanations and remarks on the content of the records, which are attached
to the records (Part 4 of Article 28.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation).
During the court hearing, R.M. Izetov explained that the administrative offence records were executed
in his presence, but he refused to sign them and give any explanation.
Subject to the requirements of Article 26.11 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation, the specified evidence is admissible, reliable and sufficient.
Therefore, the actions of R.M. Izetov contain the full set of all elements of the administrative offence
provided for by Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
The evidence collected for the case certifies objectively that the records were validly executed against
R.M. Izetov with the purpose to impose the administrative liability under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code
on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
Annex 317
3
When considering an administrative offence case, on the basis of a complete and comprehensive
analysis of the evidence collected for the case, all legally significant circumstances of the committed
administrative offence were established.
The administrative punishment shall be imposed within the sanction provided for under Part 1 of Article
20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
Considering the circumstances of the committed offence, the personality of the offender, the data that
describes him, and also refusal to plead guilty of the offence, it is believed that the administrative punishment
shall be imposed according to general rules in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3.1, 3.8 and 4.1 of
the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation and within the sanction of Part 1 of Article
20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
The court considers it necessary to impose on R.M. Izetov the punishment in the form of administrative
arrest for the term of 5 days.
Based on the foregoing, being guided by Articles 3.1, 4.1, Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on
Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, the judge
DECIDED:
To find Riza Mustafaevich Izetov, born 24 January 1979, guilty of committing the administrative
offence under Part 1 of Article. 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation and
impose on him the administrative punishment in the form of administrative arrest for a period of five (5) days.
The decision may be appealed within ten days from the date of delivery or the receipt of a copy of the
decision to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea through Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol.
Judge: /Signature/ A.S. Tsykurenko
Annex 317
Annex 318
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, Case No. 5-482/2017, Decision,
21 February 2017
1
Translation
Case No. 5-482/2017
DECISION
In the name of the Russian Federation
21 February 2017 Simferopol
Judge of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol A.S. Tsykurenko, with the participation of the
secretary Е.Е. Samborskaya, the individual subjected to the administrative offence proceeding S.K. Murtaza,
having considered the administrative materials (administrative offence record No. RK 170804 of 21 February
2017) against:
Seyran Kamaldinovich Murtaza, born on 27 November 1983, a native of the village Ketmentepisky,
Galabinsky District, Tashkent Region, Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic, registered at 9 Belogorskaya Street,
Alushta, village Privetnoe, Republic of Crimea,
Under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation
HAS ESTABLISHED:
On 21 February 2017, at Simferopol, Kamensky area, 4th stop, S.K. Murtaza took part in a mass
simultaneous gathering in a public place that entailed a violation of the public order and interfered with the
pedestrian traffic.
During court hearing, S.K. Murtaza did not admit his guilt.
Having considered the administrative materials, the court finds that the guilt of S.K. Murtaza in
committing the offence has been fully confirmed.
No motions for procedural actions provided by Article 29.8 of the Code on Administrative Offences of
the Russian Federation were filed.
According to Paragraph 9 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian
Federation and in compliance with Article 29.8 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation, during a case hearing on administrative offence the collegial body keeps record of all performed
procedural actions, explanations, testimonies and conclusions of participating individuals and researched
documents. Considering that the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation does not contain
restrictions on record-keeping by the judge during proceedings, the possibility of keeping said records is left
open when necessary.
Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation establishes
administrative liability for arranging citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places
that is not a public event, public calls to citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public
places, or to participation in citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places, if
citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places has entailed public order disturbance
or violation of sanitary norms and rules, violation of the functioning and safety of critical infrastructure or
communication facilities, or has caused damage to greenery, or hindrance to the movement of pedestrians or
vehicles, or prevented citizens’ access to residential premises or transportation infrastructure facilities, or to
social infrastructure facilities, except for the situations provided for in Parts 2 and 3 of this Article.
It appears from the materials of the administrative offence case that on 21 February 2017, at
Simferopol, Kamensky area, 4th stop, S.K. Murtaza took part in a mass simultaneous gathering in a public
place that entailed a violation of the public order and interfered with the pedestrian traffic.
The fact of committing of the administrative offence by S.K. Murtaza is confirmed by the evidence
Annex 318
2
available in the case, i.e. the administrative offence record of 21 February 2017 (case record sheet 1), the
explanation (case record sheets 5, 11-14), the report (case record sheets 15-16), the video recording.
In compliance with the requirements of Article 26.11 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the
Russian Federation, the specified evidence is admissible, reliable and sufficient.
Therefore, the actions of S.K. Murtaza contain the full set of all elements of the administrative offence
provided for by Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
The evidence collected for the case certifies objectively that the records were validly executed against
S.K. Murtaza with the purpose to impose the administrative liability under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code
on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
When considering an administrative offence case, on the basis of a complete and comprehensive
analysis of the evidence collected for the case, all legally significant circumstances of the committed
administrative offence were established.
The administrative punishment shall be imposed within the sanction provided for under Part 1 of Article
20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
Considering the circumstances of the committed offence, the personality of the offender, the data that
describes him, and also refusal to plead guilty of the offence, it is believed that the administrative punishment
shall be imposed according to general rules in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3.1, 3.8 and 4.1 of
the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation and within the sanction of Part 1 of Article
20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
The court considers it necessary to impose on S.K. Murtaza the punishment in the form of administrative
arrest for the term of 5 days.
Based on the foregoing, being guided by Articles 3.1, 4.1, Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on
Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, the judge
DECIDED:
To find Seyran Kamaldinovich Murtaza, born on 27 November 1983, guilty of committing the
administrative offence under Part 1 of Article. 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation and impose on him the administrative punishment in the form of administrative arrest for a period
of five (5) days.
The decision may be appealed within ten days from the date of delivery or the receipt of a copy of the
decision to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea through Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol.
Judge: /Signature/ A.S. Tsykurenko
Annex 318
Annex 319
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, Case No. 5-481/2017, Decision,
21 February 2017
1
Translation
Case No. 5-481/2017
DECISION
In the name of the Russian Federation
21 February 2017 Simferopol
Judge of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol A.S. Tsykurenko, with the participation of the
secretary Е.Е. Samborskaya, the individual subjected to the administrative offence proceeding E.N. Tasinov,
having considered the administrative materials (administrative offence record No. RK 170803 of 21 February
2017) against:
Enver Nadimovich Tasinov, born on 15 August 1976, a native of the town of Kitab, Qashqadaryino
Region, registered at the address: 19 Topolevaya Street, village Vishnevoe, Belogorsky District, Republic of
Crimea
Under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation
ESTABLISHED:
On 21 February 2017, at Simferopol, Kamensky area, 4th stop, at 12:00 p.m., E.N. Tasinov took part in
a mass simultaneous gathering in a public place that entailed a violation of the public order and interfered with
the pedestrian traffic.
At the court hearing, E.N. Tasinov did not admit his guilt.
Having examined the administrative material, the court finds that the guilt of E.N. Tasinov in the offence
has been fully confirmed.
Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation establishes
administrative liability for arranging citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places
that is not a public event, public calls to citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public
places, or to participation in citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places, if
citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places has entailed public order disturbance
or violation of sanitary norms and rules, violation of the functioning and safety of critical infrastructure or
communication facilities, or has caused damage to greenery, or hindrance to the movement of pedestrians or
vehicles, or prevented citizens’ access to residential premises or transportation infrastructure facilities, or to
social infrastructure facilities, except for the situations provided for in Parts 2 and 3 of this Article.
It appears from the materials of the administrative offence case that on 21 February 2017, at Simferopol,
Kamensky area, 4th stop, at 12:00 p.m., E.N. Tasinov took part in a mass simultaneous gathering in a public
place that entailed a violation of the public order and interfered with the pedestrian traffic.
The fact of committing by E.N. Tasinov of the administrative offence is confirmed by the evidence
available in the case, i.e. the administrative offence record of 21 February 2017 (case record sheet 1), the
explanation (case record sheets 3, 5-8), the report (case record sheets 10-11), the video recording.
In compliance with the requirements of Article 26.11 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the
Russian Federation, the specified evidence is admissible, reliable and sufficient.
Thus, the actions of E.N. Tasinov form a set of all elements of the administrative offence provided for
by Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
The evidence available in the case certifies objectively that the administrative offence records on
bringing to the administrative liability provided for by Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative
Annex 319
2
Offences of the Russian Federation were validly executed against E.N. Tasinov.
When considering the administrative offence case, all the legally significant circumstances of
committing the administrative offence were established on the basis of full and comprehensive review of the
evidence available in the case.
The administrative punishment shall be imposed within the sanction provided for under Part 1 of Article
20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
Considering the circumstances of the committed offence, the personality of the offender, the data that
describes him, and also refusal to plead guilty of the offence, it is believed that the administrative punishment
shall be imposed according to general rules in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3.1, 3.8 and 4.1 of
the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation and within the sanction of Part 1 of Article
20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
The court considers it necessary to impose on E.N. Tasinov the punishment in the form of administrative
arrest for a period of 5 days.
Based on the foregoing, being guided by Articles 3.1, 4.1, Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on
Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, the judge
DECIDED:
To find Enver Nadimovich Tasinov, born on 15 August 1976, guilty of committing the administrative
offence under Part 1 of Article. 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation and
impose on him the administrative punishment in the form of administrative arrest for a period of 5 (five) days.
The decision may be appealed within ten days from the date of delivery or the receipt of a copy of the
decision to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea through Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol.
Judge: /Signature/ A.S. Tsykurenko
Annex 319
Annex 320
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, Case No. 5-486/2017, Decision,
21 February 2017
1
Translation
/Stamp: copy/
Case No. 5-486/2017
DECISION
21 February 2017 Simferopol, 16 Vorovskogo Street
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea, comprising of the Presiding Judge
I.V. Kagitina, with the participation of the secretary, A.A. Sobakin, having considered in the open court hearing
the administrative offence case against:
Valery Mikhailovich Grigor, born on 28 December 1971, a native of Simferopol, a citizen of the
Russian Federation, officially unemployed, registered at the address: 9 Dzhankoy Street, village Stroganovka,
Simferopol region, Republic of Crimea,
regarding the administrative offence provided for by Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on
Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation (administrative offence record No. RK 170702),
ESTABLISHED:
According to the administrative offence record No. RK 170702, on 21 February 2017, at Simferopol,
Kamenka, 4th stop, at 1 p.m., citizen V.M. Grigor was identified, who took part in a mass simultaneous
gathering in a public place that entailed a violation of the public order and interfered with the pedestrian traffic.
At the court hearing, V.M. Grigor did not admit his guilt in committing the administrative offence. On
his way to work, he noticed an acquaintance at the 4th stop, stopped and asked for the reason of the police
presence. After that, the police offered to disperse. However, no opportunity was given to do that, and he was
detained.
U.Z. Avamilev, Senior Inspector of the Public Order Maintenance Department of the Directorate of
the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol, who was questioned as a witness at the court hearing,
testified that in order to fix possible violations by citizens he was by the order of the head on 21 February 2017
at Simferopol, Kamenka, 4th stop, at 10:20 a.m., where about 15 people gathered near the cordon chain. They
expressed their dissatisfaction, refused to go away from the venue of investigative activities, thereby violating
the public order. They were asked to leave the venue, as there were obstacles for pedestrians. The citizens did
not obey the lawful request of the police officer and were taken to the police department for the records to be
drawn up. All actions were video recorded. V.M. Grigor took part in the unauthorised event, expressed his
dissatisfaction and disturbed pedestrians in the general mass.
V. A. Zadorozhnaya, Inquiry officer of the Department of Inquiry of the Directorate of the Ministry
of Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol, interrogated as a witness testified that she was present during the
activities near Kamenka, 4th stop. At about 10 a.m. there was a crowd of about 15 people, they did not react
to words of the policemen or did not react adequately and interfered with the passage of other citizens and
vehicles. Those circumstances were recorded by a video camera. V.M. Grigor was present there, she saw him.
V.M. Grigor was among the people who did not disperse. By their actions, they prevented citizens from
passing.
V.E. Romanovsky, interrogated as a witness during the court hearing testified that on 21 February
2017, a police officer approached him and offered to sign papers. He did not see any mass riots or crowds of
people.
Having heard the person brought to administrative responsibility, the witnesses, having examined the
case materials, the court comes to the following conclusion.
According to Article 31 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, citizens of the Russian
Federation have the right to gather peacefully, without weapons, to hold assemblies, meetings, demonstrations,
Annex 320
2
marches and picketing.
Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation establishes
administrative liability for arranging citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places
that is not a public event, public calls to citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public
places, or to participation in citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places, if
citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places has entailed public order disturbance
or violation of sanitary norms and rules, violation of the functioning and safety of critical infrastructure or
communication facilities, or has caused damage to greenery, or hindrance to the movement of pedestrians or
vehicles, or prevented citizens’ access to residential premises or transportation infrastructure facilities, or to
social infrastructure facilities, except for the situations provided for in Parts 2 and 3 of this Article.
The object of the respective administrative offence is public relations in the area of public order and
public safety. Under this Article, the subjects of administrative offences may be citizens, officials and legal
entities. This act should be described as wrongful and committed with specific intent.
According to Article 26.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, evidence
in the administrative offence case is any factual data on the basis thereof the judge, body, official that handles
the case establishes whether or not there is an administrative offence event, the guilt of the person brought to
administrative liability and any other circumstances that are relevant for the correct solution of the case.
The set of all elements of the administrative offence is a set of objective and subjective attributes
provided for by the Code on Administrative Offences that describes a socially dangerous act as the offence;
the administrative offence event is the fact of a person taking an action provided for by the Code on
Administrative Offences for which administrative liability is established.
The fact of committing the administrative offence by and the guilt of V.M. Grigor are confirmed by
the administrative offence record of 21 February 2017; the testimony of witnesses, i.e. U.Z. Avamilev, Senior
Inspector of the Public Order Maintenance Department of the Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs
of Russia for Simferopol, Senior Lieutenant, V. A. Zadorozhnaya, Inquiry officer of the Department of Inquiry
of the Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol, and by the video recording.
According to Paragraph 1 of Part 2 of Article 28.3 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the
Russian Federation, officials of the internal affairs bodies (the police) are authorised to draw up administrative
offence records as provided for, among other things, by Article 20.2.2 of the Code.
The administrative offence record and other case materials were drawn up in compliance with the
requirements of law, by a proper official, there is no reason not to trust the information specified therein.
This evidence clearly shows that the actions of V.M. Grigor include events and elements of the
administrative offence provided for by Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the
Russian Federation.
The procedure and the limitation period for bringing V.M. Grigor to administrative liability are not
violated.
His actions are correctly qualified under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative
Offences of the Russian Federation, as he took part in mass simultaneous gathering in the public place that
entailed a violation of the public order and interfered with the traffic of pedestrians.
When imposing an administrative punishment on V.M. Grigor, the court takes into account the
requirements of Article 4.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, i.e. the nature
of the offence that was committed deliberately, the degree of public danger of the action committed, the attitude
of V.M. Grigor to the action committed, the offender’s personality, the effect of the punishment on the purpose
of preventing new offences, both by the offender himself and by any other persons.
Together, the above enables the court to impose the administrative punishment in the form of an
Annex 320
3
administrative arrest. The court believes that the punishment in the form of a fine, compulsory community
service will not be fully in line to what was done.
In view of the above, the court believes it necessary to impose on V.M. Grigor the administrative
punishment in the form of arrest for a period of 5 days.
V.M. Grigor is not a person in respect of whom the administrative arrest may not be applied in
accordance with the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
In accordance with Part 4 of Article 27.5 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation, the period of administrative detention of a person is calculated from the time of delivery in
accordance with Article 27.2 of this Code.
In accordance with the provisions of Article 27.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the
Russian Federation, the delivery is coerced transportation of an individual in order to draw up the
administrative offence record if it is impossible to draw them up at the venue of the administrative offence, if
drawing up the record is compulsory.
Having regard to the above, the term of serving the administrative punishment should be calculated
from 21 February 2017, 11:30 a.m.
Based on the foregoing, being guided by Part 1 of Article 20.2.2, Articles 3.9, 4.2, 4.3, 26.2, 29.7.—
29.11 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation,
DECIDED:
To find Valery Mikhailovich Grigor guilty of committing the administrative offence under Part 1 of
Article. 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation and impose on him the
administrative punishment in the form of administrative arrest for a period of 5 (five) days.
To calculate the term of serving the punishment from 21 February 2017, 11:30 a.m.
The decision is to be executed by the internal affairs bodies immediately after the issue of such
decision.
The decision may be appealed within ten days from the date of delivery or the receipt of a copy of the
decision to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea through Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol.
Judge /Signature/ I.V. Kagitina
(Seal) Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea
(Stamp)The decision entered into force on 2 March 2017
Judge /Signature/
Secretary /Signature/
(Seal) Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea
(Stamp) Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea
Original of the decision is kept in the administrative case No. 5-5-486/2017
The copy was issued on 20 May 2020
Judge /Signature/
Secretary of judicial session /Signature/
Annex 320
Annex 321
Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, Case No. 5-479/2017, Decision,
21 February 2017
1
Translation
Case No. 5- 479/2017
DECISION
21 February 2017 Simferopol
Judge V.A. Mozhelianskiy of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea,
(Kievskiy District Court, 16 Vorovskogo St., the city of Simferopol, the Republic of Crimea), with
participation of an individual subjected to the proceedings under the administrative offence, M.E. Mustafaev,
the representative of the individual subjected to the administrative offence proceedings - attorney E.M.
Kurbedinov, with secretary Z.I. Ragulskaya, having heard in an open court hearing the case against:
Marlen Eskenderovich Mustafaev, born on 19 September 1983, native of Samarkand, Uzbekistan, a
citizen of the Russian Federation, resided at 127 Myasoedovskaya Str., Simferopol, Republic of Crimea, speaks
Russian, the language of the court hearing, does not need the services of an interpreter,
into an administrative offence under Part 1, Article 20.3 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the
Russian Federation,
ESTABLISHED:
M.E. Mustafaev using the “Internet” telecommunications network, publicly displayed the symbols of an
extremist organization, propaganda and public demonstration of which is prohibited by the law.
On 9 January 2017, at 1:30 pm, it was established that M.E. Mustafaev posted on the Internet, on the
publicly available page of social network “VKontakte” with nickname “Marlen Mustafaev”, address
https://vk.com/id193426780, the symbols of the terrorist organization Party of Islamic Liberation (Hizb ut-
Tahrir al-Islami), which aim is to oust non-Islamic governments and establish a global Islamic rule by
recreating the “Global Islamic Caliphate” particularly on the territory of Russia and the countries of the CIS
through aggressive Islamic propaganda combined with intolerance against other religions; active recruitment
of supporters, purposeful activity aimed at splitting the society, recognized as a terrorist organization, the
activity thereof being prohibited on the territory of the Russian Federation, by the Decision of the Supreme
Court of the Russian Federation of 14 February 2003 that entered into force. The performed visual inspection
detected that on 26 June 2014 M.E. Mustafaev placed the said symbols in the public domain, and it was
available to be seen by the public till it was detected, i.e. till 21 February 2017.
During the court hearing, M.E. Mustafaev did not admit guilt of the administrative offence under Part 1
of Article 20.3 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation and stated that he had
actually posted various symbols on his page in “VKontakte” social network being indifferent to the content
and affiliation thereof, and had no intent to make exactly the symbols of the organization of an extremist nature
publicly available.
Although M.E. Mustafaev refused to admit guilt, his guilt for the administrative offence under Part 1,
Article 20.3 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation is fully supported by the
evidence included in the case materials and examined during the court hearing.
The administrative offence records reflect the circumstances of the administrative offence committed by
M.E. Mustafaev under Part 1 Article 20.3 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation
(case file sheet 1).
According to the report by Belashova N.N., officer of the Centre for Countering Extremism of the
Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Republic of Crimea of 9 January 2017, as well as records of monitoring of
an Internet resource of 9 January 2017, at 1:30 pm, it was detected that M.E. Mustafaev posted and publicly
displayed on the Internet, on the publicly available page of social network “VKontakte” with nickname
Annex 321
2
“Marlen Mustafaev”, address https://vk.com/id193426780,the symbols of the terrorist organization Party of
Islamic Liberation (Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami), which aim is to oust non-Islamic governments and establish a
global Islamic rule by recreating the Global Islamic Caliphate particularly on the territory of Russia and the
countries of the CIS through aggressive Islamic propaganda combined with intolerance against other religions;
active recruitment of supporters, purposeful activity aimed at splitting the society, recognized as a terrorist
organization, the activity thereof being prohibited on the territory of the Russian Federation, by the Decision
of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 14 February 2003, that entered into force (case file sheets
4, 5-14).
The Expert Opinion of Nikiforov A.R., an expert of the Institute of CIS Countries in the Republic of
Crimea according to which the symbols that had been posted and publicly displayed by M.E. Mustafaev on
the Internet, on the page of social network “VKontakte” with nickname “Marlen Mustafaev”, address
https://vk.com/id193426780, are the symbols of terrorist organization Party of Islamic Liberation (Hizb ut-
Tahrir al-Islami) (case file sheets 15-17).
The certificates that M.E. Mustafaev owns the cell phone number used for registration of the page on
social network “VKontakte” with nickname “Marlen Mustafaev”, address https://vk.com/id193426780 (case
file sheets 22, 23, 24).
In his explanation M.E. Mustafaev stated that he had actually posted the symbols of the prohibited
terrorist organization Party of Islamic Liberation (Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami) on his page in “Vkontakte” social
network (case file sheets 27-29).
The procedural documents made for the administrative offence case meet the requirements of the Code
on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, therefore in their entirety they are admissible, referable,
accurate, sufficient evidence collected in accordance with rules provided under Articles 26.2, 26.11 of the
Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
According to Article 13 of Federal Law of 25 July 2002 No. 114-FZ “On countering extremist
activities”, it is prohibited to distribute extremist materials and also to produce or storage them for the purposes
of distribution on the territory of the Russian Federation. In the events stipulated under laws of the Russian
Federation, production, storage or distribution of extremist materials is a crime resulting in imposition of a
liability.
The federal list of extremist materials is available on the international computer network “Internet”, on
the website of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, and also it is published in “Rossiyskaya
Gazeta”.
Therefore, it was conclusively established by the Court that M.E. Mustafaev made publicly available,
i.e. publicly displayed the symbols of the prohibited terrorist organization Party of Islamic Liberation (Hizb
ut-Tahrir al-Islami) on his personal page in “Vkontakte” social network and was aware of the fact that he
demonstrated that symbols to every general user of the Internet.
Having evaluated evidence in its entirety, the Court believes that the actions of M.E. Mustafaev contain
administrative corpus delicti under Part 1, Article 20.3 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation, i.e. public display of the signs and symbols propaganda and public display of which is prohibited
under federal laws.
According to Article 4.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, a
circumstance that M.E. Mustafaev has a dependent minor child mitigates his administrative liability.
According to Article 4.3 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, no
circumstance that aggravates the administrative liability of M.E. Mustafaev is found.
Considering the aforesaid circumstances, the nature of the committed administrative offence, the
personality of the defendant, considering the circumstances that mitigate the administrative liability, lacking
Annex 321
3
the circumstances to aggravate the administrative liability, and also considering the fact the M.E. Mustafaev
does not belong to the category of individuals, to which the administrative arrest is not applicable under Part
2 of Article 3.9 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, to achieve the
administrative punishment of M.E. Mustafaev, it is necessary to impose the administrative punishment in the
form of the administrative arrest for the term of 11 (Eleven) days without imposing additional sanction in the
form of confiscation of the items used to commit the administrative offence.
Relying on the above, following Article 20.3, Articles 4.2, 4.3, 26.2, 29.7-29.11 of the Code on
Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, the Judge
DECIDED:
To find Marlen Eskenderovich Mustafaev guilty of committing an administrative offence under Part
1 of Article 20.3 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, and to impose the
administrative punishment in the form of the administrative arrest for the term of 11 (Eleven) days.
To start the term of the administrative punishment imposed on Marlen Eskenderovich Mustafaev in
the form of the administrative arrest from the time of his detention on 21 February 2017, and delivery by the
internal affairs authorities to the place where the administrative punishment is served.
To return the Nokia mobile phone to Marlen Eskenderovich Mustafaev.
Judge’s ruling on administrative arrest is to be executed by the internal affairs authorities immediately
after that ruling is issued.
The Decision can be appealed against before the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea through
the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, within ten days from its delivery or receipt of a copy of the Decision.
Judge: /Signed/ V.A. Mozhelianskiy
Annex 321
Annex 322
Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 12-505/2017,
Decision, 1 March 2017 (excerpts)
1
Translation
Excerpts
Case No. 12-505/2017
DECISION
1 March 2017 Simferopol
Judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, E.G. Timoshenko, having reviewed the
appeal filed by attorney Emil Makhsudovich Kurbedinov, defence counsel of Marlen Eskenderovich
Mustafaev against the decision made by the Judge of Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol, Republic of
Crimea of 21 February 2017 No. 5-479/2017,
established:
According to Decision of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea of
21 February 2017 No. 5-479/2017, Marlen Eskenderovich Mustafaev was found guilty of committing an
administrative offence under Part 1 Article 20.3 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation, and sentenced to an administrative arrest for 11 (eleven) days.
The said court decision was based on the circumstances that M.E. Mustafaev, by using the
“Internet” telecommunication network, publicly demonstrated the symbols of an extremist organization,
the propaganda and public demonstration of which is prohibited by law, thereby violated the requirements
of Federal Law of 25 July 2002 No. 114-FZ “On countering extremist activities”.
Disagreeing with the above-mentioned court decision, attorney Emil Makhsudovich Kurbedinov,
defence counsel of Marlen Eskenderovich Mustafaev, filed an appeal where he asks to revoke the said
court decision and dismiss the case. The appellant justifies his arguments as follows: during the court
hearing it was not confirmed that any symbols of an extremist organization were promulgated, but the
public demonstration of anything that does not aim at propaganda may not be deemed as extremist action.
As the appellant points out M.E. Mustafaev did not have willful intention to commit any offence, so there
are no elements of the offence the liability for which is provided for under Part 1 Article 20.3 of the Code
on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation. The defence counsel also believes that at the time
when M.E. Mustafaev posted the mentioned materials in the social network, the legislation of Ukraine was
effective in the territory of the Republic of Crimea which did not envisage any liability for such actions.
According to the appellant, the decision being contested violates the guarantees provided for in Articles 6,7
of the European Convention on Human Rights. Imposing on M.E. Mustafaev such punishment as an
administrative arrest is not substantiated.
Since M.E. Mustafaev has been duly and timely notified of the venue and time of the court
hearing, and his defence counsel is attending the court hearing, the court considers it lawful to review the
appeal in absence of M.E. Mustafaev.
Having studied the case materials, having checked the arguments of the appeal, having heard E.M.
Kurbedinov - the defence counsel of M.E. Mustafaev who spoke in support of the arguments contained in
the appeal, I have come to the following conclusion.
[…]
Page 2
[…]
As it appears from the administrative offence case materials: on 9 January 2017 at 13:30 it was
found that M.E. Mustafaev posted and made publicly available the symbols of the terrorist organization
“Islamic Party of Liberation” (Hizb ut-Tahrir al Islami) on the page of social network “VKontakte” with
Annex 322
2
nickname “Marlen Mustafaev” at https://vk.com/id193426780; the terrorist organization which aim is to
oust non-Islamic governments and establish a global Islamic rule by recreating the “Global Islamic
Caliphate” particularly on the territory of Russia and the countries of the CIS, through aggressive Islamic
propaganda combined with intolerance against other religions; active recruitment of supporters, purposeful
activity aimed at splitting the society, recognized as a terrorist organization, the activity thereof being
prohibited on the territory of the Russian Federation, by the Decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian
Federation of 14 February 2003 that entered into force. The performed visual inspection detected that on
26 June 2014 M.E. Mustafaev posted the said symbols in the public domain, and it was available to be seen
by the public till it was detected.
The said circumstances served the basis for holding M.E. Mustafaev administratively liable under
Part 1 Article 20.3 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
[…]
Page 4
[…]
The conclusion that the actions of the person against whom the administrative proceedings are
being carried out, contain elements of an administrative offence under Article 20.3 of the Code on
Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, corresponds to the facts of the case and the evidence
provided and properly assessed in the judicial acts under appeal.
[…]
Pages 5-6
[…]
In the view of the foregoing and guided by Articles 30.6, 30.7 of the Code on Administrative
Offences of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea
decided:
To dismiss the appeal of attorney E.M. Kurbedinov, defence counsel of Marlen Eskenderovich
Mustafaev, against the decision made by the Judge of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the
Republic of Crimea of 21 February 2017 No. 5-479/2017.
To uphold the decision of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea of
21 February 2017 No. 5-479/2017 with regard to Marlen Eskenderovich Mustafaev.
The decision may be revised as stipulated by Articles 30.12-30.19 of the Code on Administrative
Offences of the Russian Federation.
Judge (signed) E.G. Timoshenko
Annex 322
Annex 323
Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 12-504/2017,
Decision, 2 March 2017
1
Translation
Judge I.V. Kagitina Case No. 12-504/2017
DECISION
Simferopol 2 March 2017
Judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea N.R. Mostovenko, having considered in the
open court hearing the appeal of Emil Maksudovich Kuberdinov, the defence counsel of Medzhit Anafievich
Abdurakhmanov, against the decision of the Kievskiy District Court of the city of Simferopol of the Republic
of Crimea of 21 February 2017 rendered against Medzhit Anafievich Abdurakhmanov in a case of
administrative offence under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation,
ESTABLISHED:
By the Decision of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea of 21 February
2017, Medzhit Anafievich Abdurakhmanov was found guilty of committing the administrative offence under
Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation and was sentenced
to an administrative punishment in the form of administrative arrest for a period of Five (5) days for the fact
that on 21 February 2017 at about 10:20 a.m. at the 4th station at the intersection of Sirenevaya and
Myasoedovskaya streets, in Kamenka village, Simferopol, he took part in citizens’ mass simultaneous
gathering in a public place that entailed a violation of the public order: he shouted loudly, waved his arms, did
not react to repeated demands of police officers to stop the unlawful acts and interfered with the traffic of
pedestrians and vehicles.
In his appeal filed with the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea in the manner provided for under
Articles 30.1-30.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, E.M. Kurbedinov, the
defence counsel of M.A. Abdurakhmanov, asks to revoke the above-mentioned decision and to dismiss the
case due to the absence of elements of the administrative offence in his actions.
The appeal is based on a violation of the right to protection of M.A. Abdurakhmanov at the court
hearing of the court of the first instance. Not all the evidence in the case was examined at the court hearing.
Not all witnesses in the case were interrogated. The court hearing was in fact restricted, thereby the principle
of publicity was violated. The court of the first instance did not assess the arguments of the defence counsel.
The defence motion to join a prosecutor to the case was not satisfied. It appears from the video recording
contained in the administrative material that M.A. Abdurakhmanov did not violate the public order. The above
meeting was peaceful and did not violate the public order. M.A. Abdurakhmanov was brought to administrative
liability on the basis of a law that was never published in the territory of the Republic of Crimea. The court of
the first instance did not substantiate its imposing the administrative punishment in the form of administrative
arrest on M.A. Abdurakhmanov. The administrative punishment is disproportionate to what was done.
At the court hearing, M.A. Abdurakhmanov and E.S. Semedlyaev, his defence counsel, attorney
certificate No. […], as well as his defence counsel by motion L.E. Engulatova, maintained the arguments of
appeal.
Having heard the applicant and his defence counsel, having interrogated official M.A. Makin, District
Police Officer, having examined the appeal arguments and the case materials, the court comes to the following
conclusion.
In accordance with Article 24.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation,
the tasks of proceedings on cases of administrative offences are comprehensive, complete, objective and timely
clarification of the circumstances of each case, resolving it in accordance with the law, ensuring the execution
of the judgment, as well as identifying the causes and conditions that contributed to the commission of
administrative offences.
In accordance with Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation, arranging citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places that is not a
public event, public calls to citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places, or
participation in citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places, if citizens’ mass
Annex 323
2
simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places has entailed public order disturbance or violation
of sanitary norms and rules, violation of the functioning and safety of critical infrastructure or communication
facilities, or has caused damage to greenery, or hindrance to the movement of pedestrians or vehicles, or
prevented citizens’ access to residential premises or transportation infrastructure facilities, or to social
infrastructure facilities, except for the situations provided for in Parts 2 and 3 of this Article, entail the
imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of ten thousand to twenty thousand rubles, or
compulsory community service for up to one hundred hours, or an administrative arrest for a period of up to
fifteen days.
The target of the respective administrative offences is public relations in the sphere of public order
and public safety.
According to Clause b of Part 1 of Article 2 of the Federal Law of 7 February 2011 No. 3-FZ “On
Police”, one of the key areas of the police activity is ensuring public order in public places.
By virtue of Clause 5 of Part 1 of Article 12 of that Federal Law, the police is obliged to ensure the
safety of citizens and the public order in the streets, squares, stadiums, public gardens, parks, highways, train
stations, airports, sea and river ports and other public places.
By virtue of Article 13 of the Federal Law “On Police”, in order to fulfil its duties the police is
empowered to demand from citizens to stop the unlawful acts.
As it appears from the reports of the police officers, on 21 February 2017 at about 10:20 a.m., at the
4th station at the intersection of Sirenevaya and Myasoedovskaya streets, in Kamenka village, Simferopol,
M.A. Abdurakhmanov took part in citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering in a public place that entailed a
violation of the public order: he shouted loudly, waved his arms, did not react to repeated demands of police
officers to stop the unlawful acts and interfered with the traffic of pedestrians and vehicles (special vehicles).
On 21 February, 2017, M.A. Makin., District Police Officer, drew up an administrative offence record
against M.A. Abdurakhmanov for committing an offence under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on
Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, in the presence of a person to whom his/her processual
rights were explained, and who refused to sign it.
The fact that M.A. Abdurakhmanov committed the administrative offence under Part 1 of Article
20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation is confirmed by the administrative
offence record (case file sheet 1), the record of delivery (case file sheet 2), the written explanations (case file
sheets 6—9), the reports of police officers (case file sheets 4—5, 10—11), the video recording (case file sheet
12), the testimony of V.A. Zadorozhnaya and Yu.Z. Avamilev, employee of the Public Order Enforcement
Department of the Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol, the witnesses
interrogated at the court hearing, as assessed by the judge in conjunction with all case materials in compliance
with the requirements of Article 26.11 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
Moreover, M.A. Abdurakhmanov reliably confirmed at the court hearing that on 21 February 2017,
in the morning, he was at the public place specified in the administrative offence records with the sole purpose
of citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering in the public place, the street was cordoned off, and his brother was
subjected to operating activities.
In itself, failure to specify the time in the administrative offence records does not prove that there was
no administrative offence event, that is confirmed by the testimony of M.A. Makin, District Police Officer,
interrogated at the court hearing and notified of administrative liability under Article 17.9 of the Code on
Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, and reliably confirmed the time of occurrence and factual
circumstances of the case.
Therefore, the court finds that the defence counsel’s arguments for the exclusion of the administrative
offence record from the evidence should not be satisfied.
The reliability and the admissibility of this evidence is beyond doubt, as it is consistent, does not
contain any discrepancies and is in line with the factual circumstances. The evidence above enables to make
an unambiguous conclusion on the circumstances of the committed offence and the guilt of M.A.
Abdurakhmanov therein.
Thus, the appeal arguments that the court of the first instance did not investigate all the evidence in
the case are untenable.
Annex 323
3
The court views critically the appeal arguments regarding violation of M.A. Abdurakhmanov’s right
to protection at the court of the first instance hearing since attorney E.M. Kurbedinov and L.E. Engulatova, his
defence counsel participated in that court hearing.
The circumstance that not all witnesses were interrogated at the court of the first instance hearing and
that the appealed decision did not assess the arguments of the defence counsel, does not affect the establishment
of the fact that M.A. Abdurakhmanov committed the administrative offence. The testimonies of the persons
interrogated at the court hearing of the district court are consistent with each other and with other evidence in
the case and do not raise any doubts of the court.
The court finds unsubstantiated the appeal of M.A. Abdurakhmanov that he didn’t understand the text
of the officials warning him of administrative liability.
The court views critically the appeal of defence counsel E.S. Semedlyaeva that this case is fabricated.
The appeal arguments that the court of the first instance hearing was in fact restricted, thereby the
principle of free speech was violated, are erroneous and are refuted by the records of the court hearing of the
court of the first instance of 21 February 2017.
The defence motion to join a prosecutor to the case was considered by the court of the first instance
and resulted in a court order.
The appeal arguments that it appears from the video recording contained in the administrative case
material that M.A. Abdurakhmanov did not violate the public order and that the above meeting was peaceful
and did not violate the public order are viewed by the court critically and are refuted by the evidence in the
case.
So, it appears from the above video recording that M.A. Abdurakhmanov participated in citizens’
mass simultaneous gathering in the public place, interfered with the traffic of pedestrians and vehicles, did not
react to repeated demands of police officers to stop unlawful acts.
Those circumstances are confirmed by the testimonies of the witnesses interrogated at the court
hearing of the court of the first instance as well.
Thus, the main appeal arguments are limited to violations of procedural law and were not confirmed
by the court of appeal.
The procedure and the time limits for bringing the person to the administrative liability were not
violated.
The appeal arguments that M.A. Abdurakhmanov was brought to administrative liability on the basis
of a law that was never published in the territory of the Republic of Crimea are unfounded.
According to Part 3 of Article 1 of Federal Constitutional Law of 21 March 2014 No. 6-FKZ “On the
admission of the Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation and the formation of new constituent entities
within the Russian Federation - the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol” (hereinafter Law
No. 6-FKZ), the Republic of Crimea is regarded as admitted to the Russian Federation from the date the Treaty
between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea on the Accession of the Republic of Crimea to
the Russian Federation and the Formation of New Constituent Entities within the Russian Federation was
signed.
The Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea on the Accession of the
Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation and the Formation of New Constituent Entities within the
Russian Federation was signed on 18 March 2014.
In accordance with Part 1 of Article 23 of Law No. 6-FKZ, legislative and other legal acts of the
Russian Federation shall be valid in the territories of the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol
from the day of admission of the Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation and formation of new
constituent entities of the Russian Federation, unless otherwise provided for by this Federal Constitutional
Law.
Thus, the legislation of the Russian Federation took effect in the territory of the Republic of Crimea
from the above date.
The appeal of defence counsel L.E. Engulatova that Article 5 of the European Convention on Human
Rights (right to a fair trial) was violated is refuted by the written materials of the case in their entirety, given
an assessment of their relatability and acceptability.
Annex 323
4
The imposing of the administrative punishment should be based on the data confirming the actual
need to impose it upon person against whom the proceedings in the administrative offence case are being
conducted, to the extent of the rule providing for liability for the administrative offence, that measure of state
coercion that would most efficiently achieve the administrative punishment objectives, and its proportionality
as the only possible way to achieve a fair balance of public and private interests within the administrative
proceedings.
According to Part 1 of Article 3.9 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation,
the administrative arrest consists in keeping the offender in isolation from the society and is established for up
to fifteen days. The administrative arrest is imposed by the judge. The administrative arrest is established and
imposed in exceptional cases only for certain types of administrative offences and may not be applied to
pregnant women, women having children under the age of fourteen, persons under the age of eighteen, disabled
persons of groups I and II, servicemen, citizens called up for military training and employees of the internal
affairs bodies, bodies and institutions of the penal system, the State Fire-Fighting Service, bodies controlling
the distribution of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and customs authorities who have special ranks
(Part 2 of Article 3.9 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation), the term of
administrative detention is included in the term of administrative arrest (Part 3 of Article 3.9 of the Code on
Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation).
When imposing on M.A. Abdurakhmanov the administrative punishment in the form of the
administrative arrest for a period of Five (5) days, the court of the first instance took into account the nature
of the administrative offence committed that encroached on the public order and posed the public danger,
unemployed status [of M.A. Abdurakhmanov] and the absence of earnings as a result, thus came to the correct
conclusion that such an exceptional administrative punishment could be applied. The court finds that such
measure is proportionate and is required in order to protect the foundations of the constitutional order and to
ensure the security of the state, considering the factual circumstances of the case.
The admissibility and the reliability of the specified evidence do not raise any doubts, are not contested
by the appellant himself, and the body of evidence was reasonably recognized by the court to be sufficient to
resolve the case on the merits.
M.A. Abdurakhmanov actions form the objective elements of the administrative offence provided for
by Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
Thus, the circumstances of the committed administrative offence were clarified in a comprehensive,
full, unbiased and timely manner in the course of consideration of that administrative offence case in
compliance with the requirements of Article 24.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation.
The court of the first instance considered the case in the presence of M.A. Abdurakhmanov and his
defence counsel.
It appears from the appeal that there are no arguments that could form the basis for revoking the
appealed court decision.
This being stated, the court finds no grounds for satisfying the appeal and revoking the decision of the
court of the first instance.
Based on the foregoing and being guided by Clause 1 of Part of 1 Article 30.7 of the Code on
Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, the court
DECIDED:
To uphold the decision of Kievskiy District Court of the city of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea
of 21 February 2017 rendered against Medzhit Anafievich Abdurakhmanov in a case on administrative offence
under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, to dismiss
the appeal of Emil Maksudovich Kuberdinov, the defence counsel of Medzhit Anafievich Abdurakhmanov.
Judge (Signed) N.R. Mostovenko
Annex 323
Annex 324
Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 12-508/2017,
Decision, 2 March 2017
1
Translation
Judge I.V. Kagitina Case No. 12-508/2017
DECISION
Simferopol 2 March 2017
Judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea N.R. Mostovenko, having considered in the
open court hearing the appeal of Emil Maksudovich Kuberdinov, the defence counsel of Ablyakim Anafievich
Abdurakhmanov, against the decision of Kievskiy District Court of the city of Simferopol of the Republic of
Crimea of 21 February 2017 rendered against Ablyakim Anafievich Abdurakhmanov in a case of
administrative offence under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation,
ESTABLISHED:
By the decision of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea of 21 February
2017, Ablyakim Anafievich Abdurakhmanov was found guilty of committing the administrative offence
provided for by Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation and
was sentenced to an administrative punishment in the form of administrative arrest for a period of Five (5)
days for the fact that on February 21, 2017 at about 10:20 a.m. at the 4th station at the intersection of Sirenevaya
and Myasoedovskaya streets, in Kamenka village, Simferopol, he took part in citizens’ mass simultaneous
gathering in a public place that entailed a violation of the public order: he shouted loudly, waved his arms, did
not react to repeated demands of police officers to stop the unlawful acts and interfered with the traffic of
pedestrians and vehicles.
In his appeal filed with the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea in the manner prescribed by
Articles 30.1-30.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, E.M. Kurbedinov, the
defence counsel of A.A. Abdurakhmanov, asks to revoke the above-mentioned decision and to dismiss the
case due to the absence of elements of the administrative offence in his actions.
The appeal is based on a violation of the right to protection of A.A. Abdurakhmanov at the court
hearing of the court of the first instance. Not all the evidence in the case was examined at the court hearing.
Not all witnesses in the case were interrogated. The court hearing was in fact closed, thereby the principle of
publicity was violated. The court of the first instance did not assess the arguments of the defence counsel. The
defence motion to join a prosecutor to the case was not satisfied. It appears from the video recording contained
in the administrative material that A.A. Abdurakhmanov did not violate the public order. The above meeting
was peaceful and did not violate the public order. A.A. Abdurakhmanov was brought to administrative liability
on the basis of a law that was never published in the territory of the Republic of Crimea. The court of the first
instance did not substantiate its imposing the administrative punishment in the form of administrative arrest
on M.A. Abdurakhmanov. The administrative punishment is disproportionate to what was done.
At the court hearing, A.A. Abdurakhmanov and E.S. Semedlyaev, his defence counsel, attorney
certificate No. […], supported the appeal arguments.
Having heard the applicant and his defence counsel, having interrogated T.N. Abliev, Senior Police
Lieutenant, having examined the appeal arguments and the case materials, the court comes to the following
conclusion.
In accordance with Article 24.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation,
the tasks of proceedings on cases of administrative offences are comprehensive, complete, objective and timely
clarification of the circumstances of each case, resolving it in accordance with the law, ensuring the execution
of the judgment, as well as identifying the causes and conditions that contributed to the commission of
administrative offences.
In accordance with Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation, arranging citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places that is not a
Annex 324
2
public event, public calls to citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places, or
participation in citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places, if citizens’ mass
simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places has entailed public order disturbance or violation
of sanitary norms and rules, violation of the functioning and safety of critical infrastructure or communication
facilities, or has caused damage to greenery, or hindrance to the movement of pedestrians or vehicles, or
prevented citizens’ access to residential premises or transportation infrastructure facilities, or to social
infrastructure facilities, except for the situations provided for in Parts 2 and 3 of this Article, entail the
imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of ten thousand to twenty thousand roubles, or
compulsory community service for up to one hundred hours, or an administrative arrest for a period of up to
fifteen days.
The target of the respective administrative offences is public relations in the area of public order and
public safety.
According to Clause b of Part 1 of Article 2 of the Federal Law of 7 February 2011 No. 3-FZ “On
Police”, one of the key spheres of the police activity is ensuring public order in public places.
By virtue of Clause 5 of Part 1 of Article 12 of that Federal Law, the police are obliged to ensure the
safety of citizens and the public order in the streets, squares, stadiums, public gardens, parks, highways, train
stations, airports, sea and river ports and other public places.
By virtue of Article 13 of the Federal Law “On Police”, in order to fulfil its duties, the police is
empowered to demand from citizens to stop the unlawful acts.
As it appears from the reports of the police officers, on 21 February 2017 at about 10:20 a.m., at the
4th station at the intersection of Sirenevaya and Myasoedovskaya streets, in Kamenka village, Simferopol,
A.A. Abdurakhmanov took part in citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering in a public place that entailed a
violation of the public order: he shouted loudly, waved his arms, did not react to repeated demands of police
officers to stop the unlawful acts and interfered with the traffic of pedestrians and vehicles.
On 21 February 2017, T.N. Abiev, Senior Police Lieutenant, drew up the administrative offence
records against A.A. Abdurakhmanov for committing an offence under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on
Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, in the presence of a person to whom his/her rights were
explained.
The fact that A.A. Abdurakhmanov committed the administrative offence provided for by Part 1 of
Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation is confirmed by the
administrative offence record (case file sheet 1), the record of delivery (case file sheet 2), the written
explanations (case file sheets 6—9), the reports of police officers (case file sheets 10—11), the video recording
(case file sheet 12), the testimonies of V.A. Zadorozhnaya and Yu.Z. Avamilev, employee of the Public Order
Enforcement Department of the Administration of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol,
the witnesses interrogated at the court hearing, as assessed by the judge in conjunction with all case materials
in compliance with the requirements of Article 26.11 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation.
Moreover, A.A. Abdurakhmanov reliably confirmed at the court hearing that on 21 February 2017, in
the morning, he was at the public place specified in the administrative offence records with the sole purpose
of citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering in the public place, the street was cordoned off, and his brother was
subjected to operating activities.
In itself, failure to specify the time in the administrative offence records does not prove that there was
no administrative offence event that is confirmed by the testimony of T.N. Abliev, interrogated at the court
hearing and notified of administrative liability under Article 17.9 of the Code on Administrative Offences of
the Russian Federation.
Therefore, the court finds that the defence counsel’s motion for the exclusion of the administrative
offence records from the evidence should not be satisfied.
The reliability and the admissibility of this evidence is beyond doubt, as it is consistent, does not
contain any discrepancies and is in line with the factual circumstances. The evidence above enables to make
Annex 324
3
an unambiguous conclusion on the circumstances of the committed offence and the guilt of A.A.
Abdurakhmanov therein.
Thus, the appeal arguments that the court of the first instance did not investigate all the evidence in
the case are untenable.
The court views critically the appeal arguments regarding violation of A.A. Abdurakhmanov’s right
to protection at the court of the first instance hearing since attorney E.M. Kurbedinov and L.E. Engulatova, his
defence counsel participated in that court hearing.
The circumstance that not all witnesses were interrogated at the court hearing of the court of the first
instance and that the appealed decision did not assess the arguments of the defence counsel, does not affect the
establishment of the fact that A.A. Abdurakhmanov committed the administrative offence. The testimonies of
the persons interrogated at the court hearing of the district court are consistent with each other and with other
evidence in the case and do not raise any doubts of the court.
The appeal arguments that the court of the first instance hearing was in fact restricted, thereby the
principle of free speech was violated, are erroneous and are refuted by the records of the court hearing of the
court of the first instance of 21 February 2017.
The defence motion to join a prosecutor to the case was considered by the court of the first instance
and resulted in a court order.
The appeal arguments that it appears from the video recording included in the administrative material
that A.A. Abdurakhmanov did not violate the public order and that the above meeting was peaceful and did
not violate the public order are regarded by the court critically and are refuted by the evidence in the case.
So, it appears from the above video recording that A.A. Abdurakhmanov participated in citizens’ mass
simultaneous gathering in the public place, interfered with the traffic of pedestrians and vehicles, did not react
to repeated demands of police officers to stop unlawful acts.
Those circumstances are confirmed by the testimony of the witnesses interrogated at the court hearing
of the court of the first instance as well.
Thus, the appeal arguments are limited to a violation of procedural law, that is not confirmed.
The procedure and the time limits for bringing the person to the administrative liability were not
violated.
The appeal arguments that A.A. Abdurakhmanov was brought to administrative liability on the basis
of a law that was never published in the territory of the Republic of Crimea are unfounded.
According to Part 3 of Article 1 of Federal Constitutional Law of 21 March 2014 No. 6-FKZ “On the
admission of the Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation and the formation of new constituent entities
within the Russian Federation - the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol” (hereinafter Law
No. 6-FKZ), the Republic of Crimea is regarded as admitted to the Russian Federation from the date the Treaty
between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea on the Accession of the Republic of Crimea to
the Russian Federation and the Formation of New Constituent Entities within the Russian Federation was
signed.
The Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea on the Accession of the
Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation and the Formation of New Constituent Entities within the
Russian Federation was signed on 18 March 2014.
In accordance with Part 1 of Article 23 of Law No. 6-FKZ, legislative and other legal acts of the
Russian Federation shall be valid in the territories of the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol
from the day of admission of the Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation and formation of new
constituent entities of the Russian Federation, unless otherwise provided for by this Federal Constitutional
Law.
Thus, the legislation of the Russian Federation took effect in the territory of the Republic of Crimea
from the above date.
The imposing of the administrative punishment should be based on the data confirming the actual
need to impose it upon person against whom the proceedings in the administrative offence case are being
Annex 324
4
conducted, to the extent of the rule providing for liability for the administrative offence, that measure of state
coercion that would most efficiently achieve the administrative punishment objectives and its proportionality
as the only possible way to achieve a fair balance of public and private interests within the administrative
proceedings.
According to Part 1 of Article 3.9 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation,
the administrative arrest consists in keeping the offender in isolation from the society and is established for up
to fifteen days. The administrative arrest is imposed by the judge. The administrative arrest is established and
imposed in exceptional cases only for certain types of administrative offences and may not be applied to
pregnant women, women having children under the age of fourteen, persons under the age of eighteen, disabled
persons of groups I and II, servicemen, citizens called up for military training and employees of the internal
affairs bodies, bodies and institutions of the penal system, the State Fire-Fighting Service, bodies controlling
the distribution of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and customs authorities who have special ranks
(Part 2 of Article 3.9 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation), the term of
administrative detention is included in the term of administrative arrest (Part 3 of Article 3.9 of the Code on
Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation).
When imposing on A.A. Abdurakhmanov the administrative punishment in the form of the
administrative arrest for a period of Five (5) days, the court of the first instance took into account the nature
of the administrative offence committed that encroached on the public order and posed the public danger,
unemployed status [of A.A. Abdurakhmanov] and as a result the absence of earnings, and came to the correct
conclusion that such exceptional measure of administrative punishment could be applied. The court finds that
such measure is proportionate and is required in order to protect the foundations of the constitutional order and
to ensure the security of the state.
The admissibility and the reliability of the specified evidence do not raise any doubts, are not contested
by the appellant himself, and the body of evidence was reasonably recognized by the court to be sufficient to
resolve the case on the merits.
A.A. Abdurakhmanov actions form the objective elements of the administrative offence provided for
by Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
Thus, the circumstances of the committed administrative offence were clarified in a comprehensive,
full, unbiased and timely manner in the course of consideration of that administrative offence case in
compliance with the requirements of Article 24.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation.
The court of the first instance considered the case before A.A. Abdurakhmanov and his defence
counsel.
It appears from the appeal that there are no arguments that could be the basis for revoking the appealed
court decision.
This being stated, the court finds no grounds for satisfying the appeal and revoking the decision of the
court of the first instance.
Based on the foregoing and being guided by Clause 1 of Part of 1 Article 30.7 of the Code on
Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, the court
DECIDED:
To uphold the decision of the Kievskiy District Court of the city of Simferopol of the Republic of
Crimea of 21 February 2017 rendered against Ablyakim Anafievich Abdurakhmanov in a case on
administrative offence under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation, to dismiss the appeal of Emil Maksudovich Kuberdinov, the defence counsel of Ablyakim
Anafievich Abdurakhmanov.
Judge (Signed) N.R. Mostovenko
Annex 324
Annex 325
Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 12-513/2017,
Decision, 2 March 2017
1
Translation
Case No. 12- 513/2017
DECISION
2 March 2017 Simferopol
Judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea E.G. Timoshenko having considered the appeal
submitted by Osman Feratovich Arifmemetov’s defence counsel - attorney Edem Serverovich Semedlyaev
and Lilya Ibragimovna Gemedzhi, against the decision of the Judge of the Kievskiy District Court of
Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea of 21 February 2017 in case No. 5-489/2017 against
Osman Feratovich Arifmemetov, born on 28 August
1985, registered at: 14 Mamutova Str., Dolinnoye
village, Bakhchisaray District, Republic of Crimea.
in the case on the administrative offence under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences
of the Russian Federation,
established:
By decision of the Judge of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea of 21
February 2017 in case No. 5-489/2017, Osman Feratovich Arifmemetov is found guilty of the administrative
offence under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, and
the punishment was imposed on him in the form of administrative arrest for the term of 5 (Five) days since he
participated in citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering in a public place located near public transport stop No. 4
in Kamenka village, city of Simferopol, the Republic of Crimea on 21 February 2017 at 10:20 am, which
caused public disorder and obstruction of pedestrian movement.
Having disagreed with the rendered decision, Osman Feratovich Arifmemetov’s defence counsel -
attorney Edem Serverovich Semedlyaev and Lilya Ibragimovna Gemedzhi submitted an appeal, where they
request to reverse said decision and dismiss the case.
The applicants insist that the proceeding, which resulted in imposition of an administrative liability on
O.F. Arifmemetov, failed to examine all evidence in the case, the court refused to have the witnesses for the
defense, who were able to testify in the case, interrogated. The defence counsel point out that the disputed
decision of the court breached O.F. Arifmemetov’s right to a fair trial, breached basic principles of court
hearing: the principles of adversarial proceedings and transparency. As the applicants believe, the meeting on
the intersection between Myasoedovskaya and Sirenevaya streets, Kamenka microdistrict, was of a peaceful
nature, had not breached the rights of third parties. Also, O.F. Arifmemetov’s defence counsel believe that the
sanction was imposed on the latter disproportionately to the doings.
During court hearing before the Court of Appeal, O.F. Arifmemetov submitted a motion to summon an
interpreter to the court hearing to be able to give explanations in the Crimean-Tatar language.
There is no ground to satisfy said motion due to the following reasons. As can be seen from the case
materials, O.F. Arifmemetov, when disagreeing with the administrative offence records, personally indicated
in the records themselves that he intended to appeal against it in Russian, did not claim that it was necessary
to engage an interpreter. In the meantime, the Court notices no trouble experienced by O.F. Arifmemetov when
speaking and perceiving information in Russian.
Furthermore, Osman Feratovich Arifmemetov’s defence counsel - attorney Edem Serverovich
Semedlyaev and Lilya Ibragimovna Gemedzhi were joined into the proceeding, they submitted an application
on behalf of O.F. Arifmemetov in Russian and observing the rules of grammar and punctuation, the rules of
material and procedural legislation of the Russian Federation, they speak Russian fluently as was conclusively
established by the Court when said individuals were providing oral explanations.
The motion submitted by O.F. Arifmemetov’s defence counsel broadcast a court hearing on the Internet
cannot be satisfied. In the meantime, they are not deprived of an opportunity to record the court hearing using
their own technical means of audio recording.
As regards the motion to ensure the participation of the prosecutor in the court session,, the Court
considers it necessary to point out that the powers of the prosecutor in the proceedings on an administrative
offence case are enshrined in Part 1 of Article 25.11 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation. It is not established that a prosecutor’s participation in the cases of this category is mandatory, and
Annex 325
2
there is no need for the prosecutor to participate in this case.
According to the provisions of Article 26.11 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation, the Judge hearing an administrative offence case has the right to evaluate evidence according to
their internal belief based on a comprehensive, complete and objective examination of all circumstances in the
case in their totality.
The motion to attach to the case materials a disk with a video recording provided by O.F. Arifmemetov
is not subject to satisfaction, since the source of this recording is unknown to the court, and the available
evidence in its totality is sufficient to verify the legality and validity of the appealed decision and the arguments
of the appeal.
Having examined the case materials, checked the arguments provided in the appeal, heard
O.F. Arifmemetov, his defence counsel - attorney E.S. Semedlyaev (participated in the court hearing on 28
February 2017), E.S. Semedlyaev, L.I. Gemedzhi, who maintained the appeal, the Court comes to the following
conclusions.
According to Articles 24.1, 26.1, 26.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation, in an administrative offence case, the circumstances of the offence must be ascertained in their
totality in a comprehensive, complete, objective and timely manner. The evidence in an administrative offence
case shall mean any factual data, on the basis of which a judge, body, official that resolve the case determine
whether the administrative offence is committed, whether that person is guilty of it, and other circumstances
relevant for proper resolution of the case.
This data shall be established by the administrative offence records, other records specified in this Code,
explanations from the person subjected to the proceedings on the administrative offence case, the testimony
from the victim, witnesses, expert opinions, other documents, and also in data recorded by special technical
means, material evidence.
According to Clause 8 of Part 2 of Article 30.6 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation, the consideration of an appeal against a decision issued in an administrative offence case shall
include examination of lawfulness and reasonableness of the issued decision on the basis of the materials
available in the case and submitted additionally.
According to Part 1, Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation,
participation in citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places, if citizens’ mass
simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places has entailed public order disturbance or violation
of sanitary norms and rules, violation of the functioning and safety of critical infrastructure or communication
facilities, or has caused damage to greenery, or hindrance to the movement of pedestrians or vehicles, or
prevented citizens’ access to residential premises or transportation infrastructure facilities, or to social
infrastructure facilities, except for the situations provided for in Parts 2 and 3 of this Article, entail the
imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of ten thousand to twenty thousand rubles, or
compulsory community service for up to one hundred hours, or an administrative arrest for a period of up to
fifteen days.
As follows from the case materials, on 21 February 2017 at 10:20 am, Osman Feratovich Arifmemetov
participated in a citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering in a public place located near public transport Stop No.
4 in Kamenka village, city of Simferopol, the Republic of Crimea, which caused public disorder and
obstruction of pedestrian movement.
The fact that an administrative offence was committed by O.F. Arifmemetov is confirmed by the
evidence collected in the case of the administrative offence including the administrative offence record of 21
February 2017, reports from the police officers: V.A. Zadorozhnaya, Inquiry officer of the Department of
Inquiry of the Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol, and Yu.Z. Avamilev,
the Senior Inspector of the Public Order Maintenance Department of the Directorate of the Ministry of Internal
Affairs of Russia for Simferopol, who were interrogated during the hearing before the court of the first instance
and the Court of Appeal and confirmed the details provided in the reports.
At the same time, the reports were prepared by the officials within the scope of their duties and were
prepared due to discovery of the administrative offence, the procedure established for their preparation was
observed.
There is no ground to doubt the validity of explanations provided by the police officers who were
interrogated during the court hearing and had been performing their duties, therefore the evidence is classified
by the court as permissible, since they correspond to other case materials.
Said evidence was evaluated for admissibility, validity, sufficiency subject to the requirements specified
in Parts 2, 3 of Article 26.2, Article 26.11 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
Annex 325
3
The conclusion, which was made by the court of the first instance that the actions of O.F. Arifmemetov
contained administrative corpus delicti under Part 1, Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of
the Russian Federation, corresponds to the factual circumstances of the case and available evidence that was
examined by the Judge of the district court in a comprehensive, complete and objective manner and was
evaluated in a due manner in the court decision in compliance with the requirements of Article 26.11 of the
Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
The argument of the appeal that the administrative liability was imposed on the applicant under the law
that was never published on the territory of the Republic of Crimea is unfounded.
According to Part 3 of Article 1 of Federal Constitutional Law of 21 March 2014 No. 6-FKZ “On the
admission of the Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation and the formation of new constituent entities
within the Russian Federation - the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol” (hereinafter Law
No. 6-FKZ), the Republic of Crimea is regarded as admitted to the Russian Federation from the date the Treaty
between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea on the Accession of the Republic of Crimea to the
Russian Federation and the Formation of New Constituent Entities within the Russian Federation was signed.
The Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea on the Accession of the
Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation and the Formation of New Constituent Entities within the
Russian Federation was signed on 18 March 2014.
In accordance with Part 1 of Article 23 of Law No. 6-FKZ, legislative and other legal acts of the Russian
Federation shall be valid in the territories of the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol from
the day of admission of the Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation and formation of new constituent
entities of the Russian Federation, unless otherwise provided for by this Federal Constitutional Law.
Thus, the legislation of the Russian Federation took effect in the territory of the Republic of Crimea
from the above date.
The argument of the defence counsel that the guarantees provided for in Articles 6 and 7 of the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms are breached is untenable.
Imposition of administrative liability on an individual for the fact of committing a corresponding
administrative offence discovered and proven in the manner prescribed by the Code on Administrative
Offences of the Russian Federation does not entail a breach of the aforesaid rights of this individual, and does
not interfere with their implementation in compliance with the requirements of the law.
Similarly, no breach of O.F. Arifmemetov's right to a fair trial, and no breach of principles of adversarial
proceedings and transparency were found. The administrative offence case was considered by the Court with
the participation of the individual subjected to the administrative liability and his defence counsel. In the course
of the court hearing, they were giving explanations regarding the circumstances of the alleged administrative
offence, participated in the examination of evidence, enjoyed other procedural rights, their arguments having
legal significance for the case were verified and received a proper evaluation.
The circumstances referred to by the applicants in the appeal did not affect the comprehensiveness,
completeness and objectivity of the consideration of the case, and also did not entail a breach of the rights of
the individual subjected to the proceedings on the administrative offence case.
There is no new argument and evidence found during the consideration of the appeal that could entail a
reversal of the court decision.
According to the general rules for the imposition of administrative punishments, an administrative
punishment for committing an administrative offence is imposed within the limits established by the law
providing for the liability for this administrative offence under the Code on Administrative Offences of the
Russian Federation (Part 1 of Article 4.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation).
When imposing an administrative punishment on an individual, the nature of the administrative offence
committed by them, the personality of the defendant, their property status, circumstances to mitigate the
administrative liability and circumstances to aggravate the administrative liability shall be taken into account,
the list of which is exhaustive (Part 2 of Article 4.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation).
Imposition of the administrative punishment should be based on the data confirming the actual need to
impose it upon person against whom the proceedings in the administrative offence case are being conducted,
to the extent of the rule providing for liability for the administrative offence, that measure of state coercion
that would most efficiently achieve the administrative punishment objectives and its proportionality as the only
possible way to achieve a fair balance of public and private interests within the administrative proceedings.
In this regard, the judge, body or official considering the administrative offence case must provide the
reasons for imposing on the individual subjected to the administrative offence proceedings on an appropriate
Annex 325
4
administrative punishment within the sanction of the article to be applied.
Public order and public safety are the generic objects of administrative offences under Chapter 20 of the
Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation. The social relations developing in the process of
ensuring order in public places are the direct object of the administrative offence established by Part 1 of
Article 20.2.2 of this Code. At the same time, the provision of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative
Offences of the Russian Federation, by defining the public relations covered by its application both in its literal
meaning and taking into account its place in the system of applicable legal regulation, does not include any
events held in public places in this category, but only such mass events that pursue a predetermined goal, are
characterized by a unified plan of their participants and free access of citizens to participate in them, but are
not public events within the meaning of Federal Law of 19 June 2004 No. 54-FZ “On assemblies, rallies,
demonstrations, marches and picketing” (Clauses 1-6, Article 2). Moreover, this statutory provision conditions
imposition of a liability upon occurrence of adverse consequences specified therein.
The judge of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea, when deciding on
the imposition of an administrative punishment, took into account all legally significant circumstances, specific
circumstances of the case, and on that ground came to a reasonable conclusion that imposition of a more lenient
type of sanction than administrative arrest would not meet the goals and tasks of the legislation on
administrative offences, with which the Court of Appeal considering the appeal agrees.
At the same time, the Court of Appeal considers it necessary to point out that application of
administrative arrest to the extent of one third of the maximum duration provided in the sanction of the article
dealing with participation in a citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering in a public place located near a public
transport stop, which caused disruption of public order, obstruction of the traffic, allows to fully take into
account all circumstances, which are essential for the individualization of administrative liability and
characterize both the administrative offence itself and the personality of the offender, who, as can be seen from
the case materials, is not employed. Said sanction matches the required disciplinary action aimed at prevention
of offences.
There is no breach of the rules of material and procedural administrative law, the administrative
punishment was imposed on O.F. Arifmemetov within the sanction provided by the law, subject to which he
was found guilty, in the meantime, the Court correctly took into account the nature of the offence committed
by him and his personality.
In the course of consideration of this appeal, there is no circumstance found that could entail
modification or reversal of the disputed court decision.
Relying on the above and being guided by Articles 30.6, 30.7 of the Code on Administrative Offences
of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea
decided:
To dismiss the appeal of Osman Feratovich Arifmemetov’s defence counsel - attorney Edem
Serverovich Semedlyaev, Lilya Ibragimovna Gemedzhi, against the decision of the Judge of the Kievskiy
District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea of 21 February 2017 in case No. 5-489/2017.
To uphold decision of the Judge of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea
of 21 February 2017 in administrative offence case No. 5-489/2017 against Osman Feratovich Arifmemetov.
The Decision could be challenged according to the procedure specified in Articles 30.12-30.19 of the
Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
Judge (Signed) E.G. Timoshenko
Annex 325
Annex 326
Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 12-506/2017,
Decision, 2 March 2017
1
Translation
SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA
DECISION
of 2 March 2017 in case No. 12-506/2017
Judge V.A. Mozhelyanskiy
Judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea V.V. Agin,
with the participation of R.R. Bekirov, the person against whom administrative proceedings are
conducted and
E.S. Semedlyaev and L.I. Gemedzhi, his defence counsel,
E.A. Abibulaev, Inspector of the Administrative Legislation Execution Department of the Directorate
of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol,
having examined at the open court hearing in the city of Simferopol on
2 March 2017
the appeal of Edem Serverovich Semedlyaev defence counsel of Remzi Rustemovich Bekirov against
whom the decision of the judge of Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of 21 February 2017 in the case of
administrative offence under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation is rendered,
established:
By decision of the judge of Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of 21 February 2017, R.R. Bekirov
was found guilty of committing the administrative offence under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on
Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation and was sentenced to an administrative punishment in the
form of administrative arrest for a period of Five (5) days.
Having disagreed with decision of the judge of the district court, the defence counsel E.S. Semedlyaev
filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea in which he requested to reverse the abovementioned
decision as unlawful and unsubstantiated. In support, he specified that the judge of the district court
incorrectly assessed the established circumstances and that there is no set of all elements of the administrative
offence in the actions of R.R. Bekirov that is alleged to him.
Having heard R.R. Bekirov and his defence counsel – E.S. Semedlyaev and L.I. Gemedzhi, who
maintained the appeal, E.A. Abibulaev, Inspector of the Administrative Legislation Execution Department of
the Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol, who objected to the appeal’
satisfaction, A.A. Kruglov, A.A. Efimenko, V.A. Zadorozhnaya, Yu.Z. Avamilev, N.N. Sheikhmambetov,
E.S. Suleymanov, the witnesses, having reviewed the case materials in full, having examined the appeal
arguments, I come to the following conclusion.
According to Part 1 of Article 2.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation,
the administrative offence is an wrongful, guilty action (inaction) of an individual or a legal entity, for which
administrative liability is established by this Code or the administrative offence laws of the constituent entities
of the Russian Federation.
As it appears from the case materials, on 21 February 2017 at 10:00 a.m., near building No. 127 at
Myasoedovskaya Str., Kamenka village, Simferopol, Republic of Crimea, R.R. Bekirov was in a public place
and took part in mass simultaneous gathering which entailed a violation of the public order and interfered with
the traffic of pedestrians and vehicles.
The disposition of Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation provides for administrative liability for arranging citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or)
movement in public places that is not a public event, public calls to citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and
(or) movement in public places, or participation in citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement
in public places, if citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places has entailed
public order disturbance or violation of sanitary norms and rules, violation of the functioning and safety of
critical infrastructure or communication facilities, or has caused damage to greenery, or hindrance to the
movement of pedestrians or vehicles, or prevented citizens’ access to residential premises or transportation
infrastructure facilities, or to social infrastructure facilities, except for the situations provided for in Parts 2
and 3 of this Article.
Annex 326
2
In its Decision of 24 October 2013 No. 1721-O “On refusal to accept for consideration the appeal of
citizen A.V. Sherstyuk on violation of his constitutional rights by the provisions of Part 1 of Article 3.5 and
Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation”, the Constitutional
Court of the Russian Federation explained that “mass simultaneous stay or movement in public places” does
not include any events held in public places, but does include those mass events only that pursue a
predetermined objective, are characterized by the common intent of its participants and by free access of
citizens to the participation therein, but are not public events within the meaning of Federal Law of 19 June
2004 No. 54-FZ “On assemblies, rallies, demonstrations, marches and picketing” (Clauses 1—6 of Article 2
(the concepts of public event, assembly, rally, demonstration, march, picketing)). Moreover, this statutory
provision conditions imposition of a liability upon occurrence of adverse consequences specified therein.
Based on the meaning of the above provisions, Myasoedovskaya Str., Kamenka village, Simferopol,
the Republic of Crimea, and, in particular, the intersection of Myasoedovskaya and Serenevaya Streets,
including the pedestrian area is a public place intended for a mass people’s gathering and for meeting their
various vital needs, that is free for access to the public at large.
Besides, as it appears from the administrative offence record, the reports of the police officers (case
file sheets 1, 9, 10), the explanations of A.A. Kruglov, A.A. Efimenko, V.A. Zadorozhnaya, Yu.Z. Avamilev,
N.N. Sheikhmambetov and E.S. Suleymanov, the witnesses, as well as R.R. Bekirov, the person against whom
the proceedings in the administrative offence case are conducted, who did not contest his presence in the above
public place, gathering of a group of 15 citizens who arrived at the house of their acquaintance – Mustafaev,
in order to prevent the police officers from performing preventive activities in relation to the latter, entailed
mass gathering of citizens in the public place with the common purpose and the common intent, which
indicates the occurrence socially dangerous consequences, i.e. creation of a crowd that disrupts public order
and interferes with the free traffic of pedestrians and vehicles.
Thus, witnesses A.A. Kruglov and A.A. Efimenko stated that they live at the Kamenka village of the
City of Simferopol, and that on 21 February 2017 about 10 a.m. they could not go in the direction they needed
to the intersection of Myasoedovskaya and Serenevaya Streets as the police officers asked them to bypass that
section on a different route. They saw how the police officers cordoned off a group of civilians of Crimean
Tatar ethnicity who behaved aggressively.
N.N. Sheikhmambetov and E.S. Suleymanov, the witnesses interrogated at the initiative of the defence
explained that on 21 February 2017 at about 10 a.m. they were in a group of 15 people at the intersection of
Myasoedovskaya and Serenevaya Streets in Kamenka village, R.R. Bekirov was among them as well. They
arrived there in order to find out whether the search by the police officers at their friend Mustafayev’s premises
was lawful. N.N. Sheikhmambetov became aware of the fact that Mustafayev was being searched by the police
officers from the Internet, and E.S. Suleymanov from his acquaintances. N.N. Sheikhmambetov and E.S.
Suleymanov explained as well that the group of citizens in which they were did not interfere with the passage
of any pedestrians and did not behave aggressively, but tried to find out only whether the actions taken by the
police in relation to Mustafayev were lawful. After one of the police officers announced on a megaphone that
they need to leave that place and warned of liability in case of failure to fulfil that request, they started to
disperse. However, the officers began to detain the citizens from their group immediately, not allowing them
to comply with the specified request, among other things, the police officers detained R.R. Bekirov, that was
unlawful as they believe.
V.A. Zadorozhnaya and Yu.Z. Avamilev, the police officers interrogated at the court hearing stated
that they took part in preventive activities aimed at maintaining the public order and held at the intersection of
intersection of Myasoedovskaya and Serenevaya Streets in Kamenka village of Simferopol on 21 February
2017 from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., and were members of a group of the police officers who documented the event
using video recordings. They arrived at that place to maintain the public order, as at the same place there was
a group of citizens of Crimean Tatar ethnicity who behaved aggressively and interfered with the traffic of
special equipment, the police officers and pedestrians. R.R. Bekirov was in that group as well and behaved
actively and aggressively. After the police officer announced on a megaphone of liability for that mass
gathering in the public place with a purpose to obstruct the actions of the police officers, no one from the group
volunteered to leave and continued to take unlawful acts. It was after that only that some of the citizens,
including R.R. Bekirov, were detained.
V.A. Zadorozhnaya and Yu.Z. Avamilev, the police officers, A.A. Kruglov, A.A. Efimenko, the
witnesses, had not been acquainted with R.R. Bekirov, no hostile relations or any other grounds for the slander
of R.R. Bekirov by those persons were established in the case.
Giving his explanations at the hearing of the court of the second instance, R.R. Bekirov, the person in
respect of whom the proceedings in the administrative offence case are conducted, did not contest that he was
Annex 326
3
in the group of citizens at the intersection of Myasoedovskaya and Serenevaya Streets in Kamenka village of
Simferopol on 21 February 2017 at about 10 a.m. and that the purpose of being in that group, like for others,
was to protect the interests of Mustafayev when the police officers took actions against the latter.
Furthermore, the above circumstances are confirmed by the video recording provided by the body of
the Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol.
Under those circumstances, the actions of R.R. Bekirov were correctly qualified by the judge of the
district court under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
The appeal arguments that the court of the first instance did not establish what actions were committed
by R.R. Bekirov so that they could be qualified under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative
Offences of the Russian Federation are unfounded and are refuted by the body of the above evidence.
Based on the provisions of Article 26.11 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation, the judge carrying out the proceedings in the administrative offence case is entitled to assess the
evidence according to his/her inner conviction based on a comprehensive, full and unbiased examination of all
facts of the case in their entirety.
Contrary to the appeal, the factual participation in a non-public event that violates the public order
and interferes with the traffic of pedestrians, vehicles and entails citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering in the
public place that is not a public event constitutes the event and the set of all elements of the administrative
offence provided for by Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation.
In this regard, the appeal arguments are not based on the law.
Taking the foregoing into consideration, taking into account the established circumstances, I come to
the conclusion that the court of the first instance came to the correct conclusion that R.R. Bekirov was guilty
of the offence imputed to him.
The administrative offence record in relation to R.R. Bekirov was drawn up in compliance with the
requirements of Article 28.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, contains all
information required to consider the case, including the full description of the event of the administrative
offence alleged to him and provided for by Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of
the Russian Federation, and therefore it meets the criteria of admissibility of evidence in the case as well.
Taking into account the essence of the alleged offence, the appendix to the records is not a basis for revoking
the decision and recognizing those records as inadmissible evidence either (explanations of A.A. Efimenko,
I.A. Chumakov, V.E. Romanovskiy, A.A. Kruglov (case file sheets 4—7)). A detailed description of the
essence of the alleged offence set out in the appendix to the records (the police officers reports) is confirmed
by the evidence examined by the court of the second instance that is not contrary to the requirements of the
Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
The body of the evidence above fully and objectively describes the administrative offence event and
the guilt of R.R. Bekirov in committing the administrative offence provided for by Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of
the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
The law does not define the minimum number of citizens for qualifying an event as a mass one and
therefore such quantitative criterion is not compulsory, as open places may be visited by the public at large.
The evidence available in the case materials, in particular, the police officers reports attached thereto,
the testimonies of the witnesses interrogated at the court hearing of the court of the second instance reliably
confirm the simultaneous gathering of at least 15 citizens in the public place, i.e. at the intersection of
intersection of Myasoedovskaya and Serenevaya Streets in Kamenka village of Simferopol on 21 February
2017 at about 10 a.m. that falls within the concept of mass simultaneous stay of citizens in the public place
with the common purpose and the common intent.
Other arguments of the appeal are based on other interpretation of the law, are aimed at reassessing
the evidence examined by the judge to the advantage of the applicant and are refuted by the body of the above
evidence that indicates that R.R. Bekirov committed an administrative offence under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2
of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
In accordance with the general rules for imposing the administrative punishment, the administrative
punishment for committing the administrative offence is imposed to the extent established by the law providing
for liability for that administrative offence in accordance with the Code on Administrative Offences of the
Russian Federation (Part 1 of Article 4.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation).
When imposing the administrative punishment on an individual, the nature of the administrative offence
committed by him/her, the identity of the guilty person, his/her property status, any circumstances mitigating
the administrative liability and any circumstances aggravating the administrative liability shall be taken into
account (Part 2 of Article 4.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation).
Annex 326
4
When imposing the punishment, the judge of the district court took into account the nature of the
administrative offence, the identity of the guilty person, the absence of any circumstances aggravating and
mitigating the administrative liability.
The extent of the imposed punishment is in line with the sanction of Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the
Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation and is fair.
In the proceedings in the administrative offence case, the procedure and the limitation period for
bringing to the administrative liability, the principle of the presumption of innocence were not violated, the
burden of proof was allocated correctly.
There were no material violations of the rules of substantive and procedural law entailing the
revocation or change of the appealed decision.
Based on the foregoing and being guided by Articles 30.2-30.7 of the Code on Administrative
Offences of the Russian Federation, the judge
decided:
to dismiss the appeal of the defence counsel Edem Serverovich Semedlyaev,
to uphold the decision of the judge of Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of 21 February 2017
against Remzi Rustemovich Bekirov in the case of administrative offence under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the
Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
Judge (Signed) V.V. Agin
Annex 326
Annex 327
Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 12-511/2017,
Decision, 2 March 2017
1
Translation
Judge V.A. Mozhelyanskiy Case No. 12-511/2017
DECISION
2 March 2017 Simferopol
Judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea N.A. Terentyeva, having considered in the
open court hearing the appeal of E.S. Semedlyaev, L.I. Gemedzhi, the defence counsel of Suleymanov Ruslan
Serverovich against the decision of Kievskiy District Court of the city of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea
of 21 February 2017 in the administrative offence case provided for by Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on
Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation regarding the administrative offences in relation to Ruslan
Serverovich Suleymanov,
established:
By the Decision of the judge of Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea of
21 February 2017, Suleymanov Ruslan Serverovich was found guilty of committing the administrative offence
provided for by Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation and
was sentenced to an administrative punishment in the form of administrative arrest for a period of Five (5)
days.
In the appeal, E.S. Semedlyaev, L.I. Gemedzhi, the defence counsel of R.S. Suleymanov, ask to
reverse the court decision against R.S. Suleymanov in the case of the administrative offence provided for by
Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation. They believe that
the case was considered in violation of the right to [judicial] protection, the principle of transparency of the
proceedings and the principle of adversarial proceedings. R.S. Suleymanov alleges that as he was brought to
criminal liability, thus the guaranties provided for under Articles 6, 7, 11 of the European Convention on
Human Rights were violated. Also R.S. Suleymanov was brought to liability on the basis of the Code on
Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation that was never published in the territory of the Crimean
Peninsula. R.S. Suleymanov asserts that the court of the first instance violated the requirements of Article 3.8
of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation regarding the conditions for applying the
administrative arrest.
At the court hearing R.S. Suleymanov and his representatives under the power of attorney L.I.
Gemedzhi, E.S. Semedlyaev maintained the arguments of the appeal and asked to satisfy it.
Having examined the materials of the administrative offence case, having heard witnesses at the court
hearing, I come to the conclusion that there are no grounds for reversal of the court decision that was made in
the case.
Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation provides
for administrative liability for arranging citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public
places that is not a public event, public calls to citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in
public places, or participation in citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places, if
citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places has entailed public order disturbance
or violation of sanitary norms and rules, violation of the functioning and safety of critical infrastructure or
communication facilities, or has caused damage to greenery, or hindrance to the movement of pedestrians or
vehicles, or prevented citizens’ access to residential premises or transportation infrastructure facilities, or to
social infrastructure facilities, except for the situations provided for in Parts 2 and 3 of this Article.
As it appears from the case materials and is established by the judge of the district court, on 21
February 2017 in a public place near house number 127 in Myasoedovskaya street, Kamenka settlement,
Simferopol, the Republic of Crimea, citizen R.S. Suleymanov was identified, who took part in mass
simultaneous gathering in the public place which entailed violation of the public order and interfered with the
Annex 327
2
traffic of pedestrians.
R.S. Suleymanov’s actions are qualified under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative
Offences of the Russian Federation.
The fact of committing the administrative offence and the guilt of R.S. Suleymanov are confirmed by
the cumulative evidence which reliability and admissibility raise no doubt, i.e. the administrative offence
record of 21 February 2017; the report, the records of delivery of 21 February 2017, the testimonies of
witnesses, i.e. Yu.Z. Avamilev, Senior Police Lieutenant, Senior Inspector of the Public Order Enforcement
Department of the Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol, V.A. Zadorozhnaya,
Inquiry Officer of the Department of Inquiry of the Administration of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia
for Simferopol, the video recording.
At the same time, the court conclusion on the admissibility of all evidence in the case should be
excluded from the decision, because the explanations of A.A. Efimenko, I.A. Chumakova, A.A. Kruglov, and
V.E. Romanovsky cannot be received as evidence since the documents are not signed by the official who
recorded the explanations.
The appeal arguments do not contain any legal arguments on the merits that cast doubt on the legality
and reasonableness of the appealed judicial act, as they are aimed at reassessing the evidence in the case and
do not refute the conclusions of the judge of the district court.
The submitted testimony of E.S. Suleymanov, Ya.S. Muedinov who confirmed that R.S. Suleymanov
was in the group of people at the intersection of Sirenevaya and Myasoedovskaya streets and the impossibility
of travel along Myasoedovskaya Street does not entail the revocation of the court decision.
The appeal argument that the prosecutor did not take part in the court hearing as a person obliged to
support the state prosecution, which resulted, in the defence counsel’s opinion, in the court violating the
principle of adversarial proceedings, may not be a basis for revoking or amending the court Decision, as the
prosecutor’s powers in the proceedings in the administrative offence case are established by Part 1 of Article
25.11 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, the support of the state prosecution
is not included in that list.
The appeal argument that the judge of the district court unlawfully restricted the defence in submitting
the evidence by denying to satisfy motions for interrogating witnesses, cannot serve as a basis for revoking or
amending the appealed decision, as in accordance with Part 1 of Article 26.2 of the Code on Administrative
Offences of the Russian Federation read together with Article 26.11 of the Code on Administrative Offences
of the Russian Federation, the judge attaches additional evidence to the case materials, among other things,
summons witnesses for their interrogating, if the cumulative evidence on file does not enable the court to
establish all circumstances that are relevant for correct consideration and resolution of the administrative
offence case and are specified in Article 26.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation.
The argument of the applicant’s appeal that R.S. Suleymanov may not be held liable on the basis of
the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation that was never published in the territory of the
Crimean Peninsula, is refuted by the body of evidence.
At the same time, according to Federal Constitutional Law of 21 March 2014 No. 6-FKZ “On the
admission of the Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation and the formation of new constituent entities
within the Russian Federation - the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol”, and Treaty between
the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea on the Accession of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian
Federation and the Formation of New Constituent Entities within the Russian Federation signed in Moscow
on 18 March 2014, the Republic of Crimea was admitted to the Russian Federation from 18 March 2014.
By virtue of Part 1 of Article 23 of that Federal Constitutional Law, legislative and other legal acts of
the Russian Federation shall be valid in the territories of the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of
Sevastopol from the day of admission of the Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation and formation of
new constituent entities of the Russian Federation, unless otherwise provided for by this Federal Constitutional
Law.
Annex 327
3
Part 1 of Article 3 of Federal Law of 14 June 1994 No. 5-FZ “On procedure for publishing and entry
into force of federal constitutional laws, federal laws, acts of the chambers of the Federal Assembly”
determines that federal constitutional laws, federal laws are to be officially published within seven days after
the day they are signed by the President of the Russian Federation.
Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation was introduced by
Federal Law of 8 June 2012 No. 65-FZ “On amendments to the Code on administrative offences of the Russian
Federation and the Federal Law “On assemblies, rallies, demonstrations, marches and picketing”.
The text of Federal Law of 21 July 2014 No. 258-FZ “On amendments to certain legislative acts of
the Russian Federation in terms of improving the public events legislation” entered into force from the day of
its official publication (published at the Official Internet Portal of Legal Information http://www.pravo.gov.ru,
on 22 July 2014).
The arguments about innocence presented in the proceedings in the case are not based on the materials
of the administrative offence case, are refuted by the evidence presented above, are not in line with the factual
circumstances of the case, are aimed at reassessing the evidence to the advantage of R.S. Suleymanov and
therefore are not accepted by the court. The case materials do not contain any discrepancies or unavoidable
doubts affecting the conclusions that R.S. Suleymanov is guilty of committing the above administrative
offence.
The appeal argument that there is no set of all elements of the administrative offence provided for by
Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation in the actions of
R.S. Suleymanov is based on disagreement with the assessment of the evidence in the case by the judge of the
district court.
Any other arguments of the applicant do not contain any legal arguments that cast any doubt on the
legality and reasonableness of the appealed judicial act.
In accordance with the general rules for imposing the administrative punishment provided for by Part
1 of Article 4.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, the administrative
punishment for committing the administrative offence is imposed to the extent established by the law providing
for liability for that administrative offence, in accordance with the Code on Administrative Offences of the
Russian Federation.
When imposing the administrative punishment on an individual, the nature of the administrative
offence committed by him/her, the identity of the guilty person, his/her property status, any circumstances
mitigating the administrative liability and any circumstances aggravating the administrative liability are taken
into account, the list of which is exhaustive (Part 2 of Article 4.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of
the Russian Federation).
When resolving the issue of imposing the administrative punishment, the court of the first instance
took into account all the legally relevant circumstances and came to a reasonable conclusion that the
administrative arrest would meet the objectives and tasks of the administrative offence legislation. The court
considering the appeal agrees therewith.
The administrative punishment in the form of the administrative arrest was imposed in compliance
with the requirements of Articles 3.1, 3.9, 4.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation, subject to the identity of the guilty person, as well as the nature of the administrative offence
committed, within the sanction of Part 1 of Article 20.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation, and is fair and proportionate to what was done.
In the case, there were no material violations of the rules of substantive and procedural law entailing
the reversal of decision of the judge.
Based on the foregoing and being guided by Articles 30.6-30.8 of the Code of Administrative Offences
of the Russian Federation, the court
decided:
To uphold the Decision of the judge of Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of
Crimea of 21 February 2017 in the administrative offence case against Ruslan Serverovich Suleymanov for
Annex 327
4
committing the administrative offence provided for by Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative
Offences of the Russian Federation, to dismiss the appeal of Ruslan Serverovich Suleymanov filed by the
defence counsels E.S. Semedlyaev and L.I. Gemedzhi.
An appeal may be filed against the decision within 10 days from the date a copy of the court decision
is received.
Judge of the Supreme Court of the
Republic of Crimea (Signed) N.A. Terentyeva
Annex 327
Annex 328
Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea,
Case No. 12-509/2017, Decision, 2 March 2017
1
Translation
Judge I.V. Kagitina Case No. 12-509/2017
DECISION
2 March 2017 Simferopol
Judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, N.A. Terentieva, having considered in an open
court hearing an appeal of Emil Maksudovich Kurbedinov, defence counsel of Alim Egamberdievich Karimov,
against the Decision of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea of 21 February
2017 against Alim Egamberdievich Karimov in the case on administrative offence under Part 1, Article 20.2.2
of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation,
established:
By decision of the Judge of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea of 21
February 2017 Alim Egamberdievich Karimov was found guilty of the administrative offence under Part 1,
Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, and the administrative
punishment was imposed on him in the form of administrative arrest for the term of 5 (Five) days.
In the appeal against the Decision of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea
of 21 February 2017, before the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, E.M. Kurbedinov, defence counsel
of A.E. Karimov, requests reversal of the court decision issued against A.E. Karimov in the case of
administrative offence under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation. He believes that the case was considered in violation of the right to [judicial] protection, the
principle of transparency of the proceedings and the principle of adversarial proceedings. A.E. Karimov alleges
that as he was brought to criminal liability, thus the guaranties provided for under Articles 6, 7, 11 of the
European Convention on Human Rights were violated. Also A.E. Karimov was brought to liability on the basis
of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation that was never published in the territory of
the Crimean Peninsula. A.E. Karimov asserts that the court of the first instance violated the requirements of
Article 3.8 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation regarding the conditions for
applying the administrative arrest.
At the court hearing A.E. Karimov and his representatives E.S. Semedlyaeva, L.I. Gemedzhi maintained
the arguments of the appeal and asked to satisfy it.
Having examined the materials of the administrative offence case, the arguments of the appeal, I come
to the conclusion that there are no grounds for reversal of the court Decision issued for the case.
Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation provides for
administrative liability for arranging citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places
that is not a public event, public calls to citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public
places, or participation in citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places, if
citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places has entailed public order disturbance
or violation of sanitary norms and rules, violation of the functioning and safety of critical infrastructure or
communication facilities, or has caused damage to greenery, or hindrance to the movement of pedestrians or
vehicles, or prevented citizens’ access to residential premises or transportation infrastructure facilities, or to
social infrastructure facilities, except for the situations provided for in Parts 2 and 3 of this Article, shall entail
the imposition on citizens of an administrative fine in the amount from ten thousand to twenty thousand rubles,
or community work for up to one hundred hours, or administrative arrest for the term of up to fifteen days; for
officials - from fifty thousand to one hundred thousand rubles; for legal entities - from two hundred and fifty
thousand to five hundred thousand rubles.
The concept of “simultaneous mass gathering or movement in public places” does not include any events
held in public places in this category, but only those mass events that pursue a predetermined goal, are
Annex 328
2
characterized by a common intent of their participants and free access of citizens to participate in them, but
are not public events within the meaning of Federal Law No. 54-FZ of 19 June 2004 “On assemblies, rallies,
demonstrations, marches and picketing” (Subclauses 1 - 6, Article 2) as pointed out by the Constitutional Court
of the Russian Federation in its Decision of 24 October 2013 No. 1721-O.
Based on the meaning of the provisions listed above, the road and the pedestrian zone are classified as
a public place intended to be occupied by a mass number of people, free for access by the public.
As follows from the case materials and found by the Judge of the district court, on 21 February 2017, at
12 am, citizen A.E. Karimov was identified at the address Simferopol, Kamenka village, station No. 4, who
took part in a mass simultaneous gathering in a public place, which resulted in a public disorder, and also
obstructed the pedestrian movement.
A.E. Karimov’s actions are classified under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative
Offences of the Russian Federation.
The fact of committing an administrative offence and A.E. Karimov’s guilt are confirmed by the body
of evidence, the reliability and admissibility of which are beyond doubt, namely: the administrative offence
record of 21 February 2017; the delivery record of 21 February 2017, the testimony from witnesses senior
police lieutenant Yu.Z. Avamilev, the Senior Inspector of the Public Order Maintenance Department of the
Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol, V.A. Zadorozhnaya, the Inquiry officer
of the Department of Inquiry of the Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol,
who explained that a group of 15 people including A.E. Karimov simultaneously gathered in public place at
the intersection of Sirenevaya and Myasoedovskaya streets, which resulted in a breach of public order in the
form of obstructing special vehicles, pedestrians, the specified group of people did not react to the demands to
disperse, as well as video recording.
Explanations from I.A. Chumakova, A.A. Efimenko, V.E. Romanovskiy, A.A. Kruglov shall be
excluded from the evidence in the case since they lack a signature of the official that collected the explanations.
The exclusion of the explanations of these individuals from the evidence does not affect validity of the A.E.
Karimov’s guilt, since the guilt was confirmed by the body of other evidence in the case.
The administrative offence records were prepared in accordance with the requirements of the law by a
proper official, there is no reason not to trust the information specified in it, therefore the Judge correctly used
it and other case materials as the basis for the disputed Decision, by evaluating it in accordance with rules of
Article 26.11 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
In essence, the arguments of the appeal do not contain legal arguments that cast doubt on the legality
and validity of the disputed judicial act since they are aimed at re-evaluation of the evidence in the case, the
conclusions of the Judge of the district court are not refuted.
The testimony from N.I. Sheikhmambetov, E.S. Suleymanov, Ya.S. Muedinov, who confirmed that A.E.
Karimov was a part of the group of individuals on the intersection between Sirenevaya and Myasoedovskaya
streets, and that it was impossible to drive through the street, does not entail reversal of the court Decision.
The appeal argument that the judge of the district court unlawfully restricted the defence in submitting
the evidence by denying to satisfy motions for interrogating witnesses, cannot serve as a basis for revoking or
amending the appealed decision, as in accordance with Part 1 of Article 26.2 of the Code on Administrative
Offences of the Russian Federation read together with Article 26.11 of the Code on Administrative Offences
of the Russian Federation, the judge attaches additional evidence to the case materials, among other things,
summons witnesses for their interrogating, if the cumulative evidence on file does not enable the court to
establish all circumstances that are relevant for correct consideration and resolution of the administrative
offence case and are specified in Article 26.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation.
The arguments of innocence submitted in the course of the proceedings are not based on the materials
of the administrative offence case, are refuted by the aforesaid submitted evidence, do not correspond to the
factual circumstances of the case, are aimed at reevaluation of the evidence in favor of A.E. Karimov, and
therefore are not accepted by the Court. The Court does not accept the argument of innocence since the
Annex 328
3
evidence in the case materials, in its entirety, is sufficient for a complete, comprehensive and objective
consideration of the case, and also for a reasoned conclusion about the validity of guilt in committing an
administrative offence under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation. The case materials do not contain any contradictions or unavoidable doubts affecting the
conclusions that A.E. Karimov is guilty of committing the aforesaid administrative offence.
The appeal argument that the prosecutor did not take part in the court hearing as a person obliged to
support the state prosecution, which resulted, in the defence counsel’s opinion, in the court violating the
principle of adversarial proceedings, may not be a basis for revoking or amending the court Decision, as the
prosecutor’s powers in the proceedings in the administrative offence case are established by Part 1 of Article
25.11 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, the support of the state prosecution
is not included in that list.
The argument of the applicant’s appeal that A.E. Karimov R may not be held liable on the basis of the
Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation that was never published in the territory of the
Crimean Peninsula, is untenable.
According to Federal Constitutional Law of 21 March 2014 No. 6-FKZ “On the admission of the
Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation and the formation of new constituent entities within the
Russian Federation - the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol” and the Treaty between the
Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea on the admission of the Republic of Crimea into the Russian
Federation and the formation of new constituent entities within the Russian Federation signed in Moscow on
18 March 2014, the Republic of Crimea was admitted to the Russian Federation on 18 March 2014.
By virtue of Part 1 of Article 23 of that Federal Constitutional Law, legislative and other legal acts of
the Russian Federation shall be valid in the territories of the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of
Sevastopol from the day of admission of the Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation and formation of
new constituent entities of the Russian Federation, unless otherwise provided for by this Federal Constitutional
Law.
Part 1 of Article 3 of Federal Law of 14 June 1994 No. 5-FZ “On procedure for publishing and entry
into force of federal constitutional laws, federal laws, acts of the chambers of the Federal Assembly”
determines that federal constitutional laws, federal laws are to be officially published within seven days after
the day they are signed by the President of the Russian Federation.
The official publication of a federal constitutional law, a federal law, an act of the Federal Assembly
Chamber is the first publication of the full text thereof in “Parlamentskaya Gazeta”, “Rossiyskaya Gazeta”,
“Collected Legislation of the Russian Federation”, or the first placement (publication) on the “Official Internet
Portal of Legal Information” (www.pravo.gov.ru) (Part 1, Article 4 of the said federal law).
The text of Federal Law of 21 July 2014 No. 258-FZ “On the amendments to certain statutory acts of
the Russian Federation to the extent of improving the legislation on public events” entered into force on the
day of official publication thereof (published on the Official Internet portal of Legal Information
http://www.pravo.gov.ra on 22 July 2014).
The argument of the appeal that the actions of A.E. Karimov lacks administrative corpus delicti under
Part 1, Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation is based on
disagreement with evaluation made by the Judge of the District Court with respect to the evidence collected in
the case.
Other arguments of the applicant contain no legal arguments casting doubt on the lawfulness and
reasonableness of the disputed court decision.
According to the general rules for the imposition of administrative punishments under Part 1, Article
4.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, an administrative punishment for
committing an administrative offence is imposed within the limits established by the law providing for the
liability for this administrative offence under the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
When imposing an administrative punishment on an individual, the nature of the administrative offence
committed by them, the personality of the defendant, their property status, circumstances to mitigate the
Annex 328
4
administrative liability and circumstances to aggravate the administrative liability shall taken into account, the
list of which is exhaustive (Part 2 of Article 4.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation).
The court of the first instance, when deciding on the imposition of an administrative punishment, took
into account all legally significant circumstances and came to a reasonable conclusion that imposition of a
more lenient type of sanction than administrative arrest would not meet the goals and tasks of the legislation
on administrative offences, with which the Court considering the appeal agrees.
Administrative punishment in the form of administrative arrest is imposed subject to the requirements
of Articles 3.1, 3.9, 4.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation taking into account
the personality of the defendant, and also the nature of the committed (sic)
decided:
To uphold the Decision of the Judge of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of
Crimea of 21 February 2017 against Alim Egamberdievich Karimov in the case on administrative offence
under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, to dismiss
the appeal of the defence counsel, E.M. Kurbedinov.
The Decision can be appealed against.
Judge of the Supreme Court
of the Republic of Crimea (Signed) N.A. Terentieva
Annex 328
Annex 329
Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 12-503/2017,
Decision, 2 March 2017
1
Translation
Judge A.S. Tsykurenko, Case No. 12-503/2017
DECISION
Simferopol 2 March 2017
Judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, N.R. Mostovenko, having considered in an open
court hearing the appeal of Edem Serverovich Semedlyaev and Lilya Ibragimovna Gemedzhi – defense counsel
of Ryza Mustafaevich Izetov against the decision of Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of
Crimea of 21 February 2017 against Ryza Mustafaevich Izetov regarding the case on the administrative offence
under Part 1, Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation,
ESTABLISHED:
By decision of Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea of 21 February 2017,
Ryza Mustafaevich Izetov was found guilty of the administrative offence under Part 1, Article 20.2.2 of the
Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, and the administrative punishment was imposed
on him in the form of administrative arrest for the term of 5 (Five) days for the fact that on 21 February 2017,
at about 10:20 a.m., at stop No. 4 on the intersection of Sirenevaya Str. - Myasoedovskaya Str. in Kamenka
settlement, he participated in the citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering in a public place leading to public
nuisance: he shouted loudly, waved his arms, did not react to the repeated demands of police officers to stop
unlawful actions, obstructed the movement of pedestrians and vehicles.
In the appeal submitted to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea according to the procedure
provided for under Articles 30.1 - 30.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation,
defense counsel of R.M. Izetov - E.S. Semedlyaev and L.I. Gemedzhi request reversal of the aforesaid decision
and termination of the proceedings on the case due to lack of administrative corpus delicti in his actions.
The appeal is based on the fact that during the court hearing not all the evidence of the case were
examined. The accredited journalist was unreasonably denied coverage of the trial. Not all the witnesses in the
case were interrogated. The court of the first instance did not evaluate the arguments of the defense counsel.
As can be seen from the video footage available in the administrative material, R.M. Izetov did not breach
public order. The aforesaid meeting was of a peaceful nature and did not violate public order. The
administrative liability was imposed on R.M. Izetov under the law that was never published on the territory of
the Republic of Crimea. The court of the first instance failed to provide reasons for the imposition of the
administrative punishment on R.M. Izetov in the form of administrative arrest. The administrative punishment
is disproportionate to the committed acti.
During court hearing, R.M. Izetov and his defense counsel by motion L.Ae. Engulatova maintained the
arguments of the appeal and requested termination of the proceedings by referring to the absence of guilt.
Having heard the applicant, his defense counsel, interrogated police lieutenant D.S. Melnik, examined
the arguments in the appeal and the case materials, the Court comes to the following.
In accordance with Article 24.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, the
tasks of proceedings in administrative offence cases are comprehensive, full, unbiased and timely clarification
of the circumstances of each case, its solution in accordance with the law, the enforcement of the decision
issued and identifying the reasons and conditions that contributed to committing the administrative offences.
In accordance to Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation, arranging citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places that is not a
public event, public calls to citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places, or
participation in citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places, if citizens’ mass
simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places has entailed public order disturbance or violation
of sanitary norms and rules, violation of the functioning and safety of critical infrastructure or communication
facilities, or has caused damage to greenery, or hindrance to the movement of pedestrians or vehicles, or
prevented citizens’ access to residential premises or transportation infrastructure facilities, or to social
infrastructure facilities, except for the situations provided for in Parts 2 and 3 of this Article, entail imposition
of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of ten thousand to twenty thousand rubles, or compulsory
community service for up to one hundred hours, or administrative arrest for up to fifteen days
The target of the respective administrative offences is public relations in the area of public order and
Annex 329
2
public safety.
According to Clause b, Part 1, Article 2 of Federal Law of 7 February 2011 No. 3-FZ, “On the Police”,
ensuring law and order in public places is one of the primary lines of the police activity.
According to Clause 5, Part 1, Article 12 of said Federal Law, the police are obliged to ensure the safety
of citizens and public order in the streets, squares, stadiums, squares, parks, highways, train stations, airports,
sea and river ports and other public places.
By virtue of Article 13 of the Federal Law “On the Police”, in order to fulfil their duties the police is
empowered to demand from citizens to stop illegal acts.
As can be seen from the reports prepared by the police officers, on 21 February 2017, at about 10:20
a.m., on stop No. 4 at the intersection on Sirenevaya St. - Myasoedovskaya Street in Kamenka settlement,
Simferopol, R.M. Izetov participated in the citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering in a public place leading to
public nuisance: he shouted loudly, waved his arms, did not react to the repeated demands of police officers to
stop illegal actions, obstructed the movement of pedestrians and vehicles.
On 21 February 2017, police lieutenant D.S. Melnik executed the administrative offence records against
R.M. Izetov under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
The fact that R.M. Izetov committed the administrative offence under Part 1 of Art. 20.2.2 of the Code
on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.is confirmed by: administrative offence record (case file
sheets 3-4), delivery record (case file sheets 1-2), police officer reports (case file sheets 13-14), video footage
(case file sheets 17), considered by the judge together with all other case materials in accordance with
requirements of Article 26.11 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
A failure to specify the time in the administrative offence record, by itself, does not indicate the absence
of an actual administrative offence, it is confirmed by the testimony of police lieutenant D.S. Melnik
interrogated during court hearing and warned of the administrative liability under Article 17.9 of the Code on
Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, and reliably confirms the time of the commission and the
factual circumstances of the case.
The reliability and admissibility of this evidence is beyond doubt since they are consistent with each
other, do not contain any contradiction and correspond to the factual circumstances. The aforesaid evidence
allows to draw an unambiguous conclusion about the circumstances of the committed offence and the guilt of
R.M. Izetov.
Thus, the complaint arguments that the court hearing of the court of the first instance did not examine
all evidence in the case are unfounded.
The fact that during court hearing in the court of the first instance some witnesses were not interrogated,
and also that the appealed Decision did not evaluate the arguments of the defence counsel, does not affect the
validity of the fact that R.M. Izetov committed the administrative offence.
The arguments of the appeal that an accredited journalist was refused without providing reasons to make
a video footage and photographs during the trial are erroneous.
During court hearing in the court of the first instance, the motion submitted by the defense counsel to
allow participation of the media during the trial was granted.
The appeal arguments that it appears from the video footage included in the administrative material that
R.M. Izetov did not violate the public order and that the above meeting was peaceful and did not violate the
public order are evaluated by the court critically and refuted by the evidence in the case.
Namely, it could be seen from the aforesaid video footage that R.M. Izetov participated in citizens’ mass
simultaneous gathering in a public place, obstructing the movement of pedestrians or vehicles, did not react to
repeated requests from police officers to stop illegal actions.
The arguments of the appeal that the administrative liability was imposed on R.M. Izetov under the law
that was never published on the territory of the Republic of Crimea are untenable.
Subject to Part 3, Article 1 of Federal Constitutional Law of 21 March 2014 No. 6-FKZ “On the
admission of the Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation and the formation of new constituent entities
within the Russian Federation - the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol” (the “Law No. 6-
FKZ”), the Republic of Crimea is considered admitted to the Russian Federation starting from the date the
Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea on the Accession of the Republic of Crimea
to the Russian Federation and the Formation of New Constituent Entities within the Russian Federation was
signed.
The Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea on the Accession of the
Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation and the Formation of New Constituent Entities within the
Russian Federation was signed on 18 March 2014.
In accordance with Part 1 of Article 23 of Law No. 6-FKZ, legislative and other legal acts of the Russian
Annex 329
3
Federation shall be valid in the territories of the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol from
the day of admission of the Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation and formation of new constituent
entities of the Russian Federation, unless otherwise provided for by this Federal Constitutional Law.
Thus, the legislation of the Russian Federation took effect in the territory of the Republic of Crimea
from the above date.
Imposition of the administrative punishment should be based on the data confirming the actual need to
impose it upon person against whom the proceedings in the administrative offence case are being conducted,
to the extent of the rule providing for liability for the administrative offence, that measure of state coercion
that would most efficiently achieve the administrative punishment objectives and its proportionality as the only
possible way to achieve a fair balance of public and private interests within the administrative proceedings.
According to Part 1, Article 3.9 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation,
administrative arrest consists of keeping the offender isolated from the society and shall be imposed for up to
fifteen days. Administrative arrest shall be imposed by a judge. Administrative arrest is determined and
imposed only in exceptional cases for certain types of administrative offences and could not be applied to
pregnant women, women with children under the age of fourteen, persons under the age of eighteen, group I
and II disabled individuals, servicemen, citizens called up for military training and employees of the internal
affairs bodies, bodies and institutions of the penal system, the State Fire-Fighting Service, the bodies for
controlling the circulation of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, and customs authorities (Part 2,
Article 3.9 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation), the term of administrative
detention shall be included in the term of administrative arrest (Part 3 of Article 3.9 of the Code on
Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation).
When imposing administrative punishment on R.M. Izetov in the form of administrative arrest for the
term of 5 (five) days, the court of the first instance took into account the nature of the committed administrative
offence infringing on public order and social danger, and came to the correct conclusion that it is possible to
apply the specified exceptional administrative punishment. The Court finds this measure proportionate and
necessary in order to protect the foundations of the constitutional order and ensure the security of the country
based on the factual circumstances of the case. There is no information about the official employment of R.M.
Izetov.
The admissibility and the reliability of the specified evidence does not raise any doubts, this is not
specified by the appellant himself, and the body of evidence was reasonably recognized by the court as
sufficient to resolve the case on the merits.
The actions of R.M. Izetov form actus reus of administrative corpus delicti under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2
of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
The consideration of this administrative offence case, in accordance with the requirements of Article
24.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, included a comprehensive, full,
objective and timely examination of the circumstances of the committed administrative offence.
In the court of the first instance, the case was heard in the presence of R.M. Izetov and his defense
counsel.
It appears from the appeal that there are no arguments that could serve as a basis for reversal of the
appealed court decision.
This being stated, the court finds no grounds for satisfying the appeal and reversing the decision of the
court of the first instance.
Relying on the above and being guided by Clause 1, Part 1, Article 30.7 of the Code on Administrative
Offences of the Russian Federation,
DECIDED:
To uphold the decision of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea of 21
February 2017 against Ryza Mustafaevich Izetov in the case on the administrative offence under Part 1, Article
20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, to dismiss the appeal of Edem
Serverovich Semedlyaev and Lilya Ibragimovna Gemedzhi - defense counsel of Ryza Mustafaevich Izetov.
Judge (Signed) N.R. Mostovenko
Annex 329
Annex 330
Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 12-512/2017,
Decision, 2 March 2017
1
Translation
Judge I.V. Kagitina Case No. 12- 512/2017
DECISION
2 March 2017 Simferopol
Judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, N.A. Terentieva, having considered in an open
court hearing an appeal from Emil Makhsudovich Kurbedinov defense counsel of Valeriy Mikhailovich Grigor
against the Decision of Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea of 21 February 2017,
in the administrative offence case against Valeriy Mikhailovich Grigor for the committed administrative
offence under Part 1, Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation,
established:
By decision of Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea of 21 February 2017
Valeriy Mikhailovich Grigor was found guilty of the administrative offence under Part 1, Article 20.2.2 of the
Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, and the administrative punishment was imposed
on him in the form of administrative arrest for the term of 5 (five) days.
In the appeal of Emil Makhsudovich Kurbedinov against the decision of Kievskiy District Court of
Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea of 21 February 2017 to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea,
he requests reversal of the decision issued against V.M. Grigor in the administrative offence case under Part
1, Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation. He believes that the case
was considered in violation of the right to [judicial] protection, the principle of transparency of the proceedings
and the principle of adversarial proceedings. He claims that criminal liability was imposed on V.M. Grigor,
and it resulted in a breach of the guarantees of Articles 6, 7, 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights
during the consideration of the case. Morover, a liability based on the Code on Administrative Offences of the
Russian Federation, which was never published on the territory of the Crimea Peninsula, was imposed on V.M.
Grigor. V.M. Grigor claims that the court of the first instance violated the requirements of Article 3.8 of the
Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation concerning the conditions to implement
administrative arrest.
At the court hearing V.M. Grigor, his representative L.I. Gemedzhi maintained the arguments of the
appeal.
Having examined the materials of the administrative offence case, the arguments of the appeal,
interrogated the witnesses, I come to the conclusion that there are no grounds for canceling the court decision
issued within the case.
Part 1, Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation provides for an
administrative liability for arranging citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places
that is not a public event, public calls to citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public
places, or participation in citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places if citizens’
mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places has entailed public order disturbance or
violation of sanitary norms and rules, violation of the functioning and safety of critical infrastructure or
communication facilities, or has caused damage to greenery, or hindrance to the movement of pedestrians or
vehicles, or prevented citizens’ access to residential premises or transportation infrastructure facilities, or to
social infrastructure facilities except for the situations provided for in Parts 2 and 3 of this Article.
As follows from the case materials and found by the Judge of the district court, on 21 February 2017,
citizen V.M. Grigor was identified at the stop No. 4 in Kamenka settlement, Simferopol, who participated in
the citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering in a public place leading to public nuisance and also obstructed the
movement of pedestrians and vehicles.
V.M. Grigor’s actions are classified under Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative
Offences of the Russian Federation.
The fact that the administrative offence was committed and V.M. Grigor's guilt are confirmed by the
body of evidence the reliability and admissibility of which are beyond doubt, namely: the administrative
offence record of 21 February 2017; the report, delivery record of 21 February 2017, the testimony from
witnesses senior police lieutenant Yu.Z. Avamilev, the Senior Inspector of the Public Order Maintenance
Department of the Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol, V.A. Zadorozhnaya,
the Inquiry officer of the Department of Inquiry of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Department of Russia for
Simferopol, a video footage.
Annex 330
2
At the same time, the conclusion of the court on the admissibility of all evidence in the case must be
excluded from the Decision since the explanations of A.A. Efimenko, I.A. Chumakova, A.A. Kruglov, V.E.
Romanovskiy could not be accepted as evidence since they were not signed by the official who collected the
explanations.
In essence, the arguments of the appeal do not contain legal arguments that cast doubt on the legality
and validity of the disputed judicial act since they are aimed at re-evaluation of the evidence in the case, the
conclusions of the judge of the district court are not refuted.
The submitted testimony of E.S. Suleymanov, Ya.S. Muedinov, who confirmed that R.S. Suleymanov
was a part of the group of individuals on the intersection between Sirenevaya and Myasoedovskaya streets,
and that it was impossible to drive through Myasoedovskaya street, does not entail cancelling of the decision.
The arguments of innocence submitted in the course of the proceedings are not based on the materials
of the administrative offence case, are refuted by the aforesaid submitted evidence, do not correspond to the
factual circumstances of the case, are aimed at reevaluation of the evidence in favor of V.M. Grigor, and
therefore are not accepted by the Court. The case materials do not contain any contradictions or unavoidable
doubts affecting the conclusions about the validity of V.M. Grigor’s guilt in committing the previously
mentioned administrative offence.
The argument of the appeal that the actions of V.M. Grigor contained no administrative corpus delicti
under Part 1, Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation is based on
disagreement with evaluation made by the judge of the district court with respect to the evidence collected in
the case.
Other arguments of the applicant contain no legal arguments casting doubt on the lawfulness and
reasonableness of the disputed court decree.
The argument of the appeal that the prosecutor did not participate in the court hearing as a person obliged
to support the state prosecution, which resulted, as believed by the defense counsel, in the breach by the Court
of the principle of adversarial proceedings, cannot not serve as a ground for reversing or amending the decision
since the powers of the prosecutor as established within the framework of the proceedings on an administrative
offence case in Part 1, Article 25.11 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation do not
include the support from the state prosecution in said list.
The argument of the applicant’s appeal that V.M. Grigor may not be held liable on the basis of the Code
on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation that was never published in the territory of the Crimean
Peninsula, is refuted by the body of evidence.
According to Federal Constitutional Law of 21 March 2014 No. 6-FKZ “On the admission of the
Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation and the formation of new constituent entities within the
Russian Federation - the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol”, and Treaty between the
Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea on the Accession of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian
Federation and the Formation of New Constituent Entities within the Russian Federation signed in Moscow
on 18 March 2014, the Republic of Crimea was admitted to the Russian Federation from 18 March 2014.
By virtue of Part 1 of Article 23 of that Federal Constitutional Law, legislative and other legal acts of
the Russian Federation shall be valid in the territories of the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of
Sevastopol from the day of admission of the Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation and formation of
new constituent entities of the Russian Federation, unless otherwise provided for by this Federal Constitutional
Law.
Part 1 of Article 3 of Federal Law of 14 June 1994 No. 5-FZ “On procedure for publishing and entry
into force of federal constitutional laws, federal laws, acts of the chambers of the Federal Assembly”
determines that federal constitutional laws, federal laws are to be officially published within seven days after
the day they are signed by the President of the Russian Federation.
Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation was introduced by
Federal Law of 8 June 2012 No. 65-FZ “On amendments to the Code on administrative offences of the Russian
Federation and the Federal Law “On assemblies, rallies, demonstrations, marches and picketing”.
The text of Federal Law of 21 July 2014 No. 258-FZ “On amendments to certain legislative acts of the
Russian Federation in terms of improving the public events legislation” entered into force from the day of its
official publication (published at the Official Internet Portal of Legal Information http://www.pravo.gov.ru, on
22 July 2014).
According to the general rules for the imposition of administrative punishments under Part 1, Article
4.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, an administrative punishment for
committing an administrative offence is imposed within the limits established by the law providing for the
liability for this administrative offence under the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
Annex 330
3
When imposing an administrative punishment on an individual, the nature of the administrative offence
committed by them, the personality of the defendant, their property status, circumstances to mitigate the
administrative liability and circumstances to aggravate the administrative liability are taken into account, the
list of which is exhaustive (Part 2 of Article 4.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation).
The court of the first instance, when resolving on the imposition of an administrative punishment, took
into account all legally significant circumstances by coming to a reasonable conclusion that administrative
arrest would meet the goals and tasks of the legislation on administrative offences, with which the Court
considering the appeal agrees.
Administrative punishment in the form of administrative arrest is imposed subject to the requirements
of Articles 3.1, 3.9, 4.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation taking into account
the personality of the defendant, and also the nature of the committed administrative offence within the
sanction of Part 1, Article 20.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, is fair and
proportionate to the doing.
There were no significant breaches of the rules of material and procedural law, entailing the reversal of
the judge’s decision for the case.
Relying on the above, following Articles 30.6 - 30.8 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the
Russian Federation,
decided:
To uphold the Decision of the judge of Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea
of 21 February 2017 against Valeriy Mikhailovich Grigor in the case of administrative offence under Part 1,
Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, to dismiss the appeal of Emil
Makhsudovich Kurbedinov, defense counsel of Valeriy Mikhailovich Grigor.
The Decision can be appealed against within ten days upon reception of a copy of the decision.
Judge of the Supreme Court
of the Republic of Crimea (Signed) N.A. Terentieva
[handwritten: the Decision
entered into force on 2 March
2017
Judge (signed)
Secretary (signed)]
[STAMP: KIEVSKIY DISTRICT
COURT OF SIMFEROPOL,
THE REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA]
[STAMP: Kievskiy District Court of the Republic of
Crimea
The original of the Decision is stored in the
administrative case material No. 5-486/2017
The copy is issued on 20 May 2020
Judge (signed)
Secretary (signed)]
[STAMP: KIEVSKIY DISTRICT COURT OF
SIMFEROPOL, THE REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA]
Annex 330
Annex 331
Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea, Case No. 12-570/2017,
Decision, 6 April 2017
1
Translation
SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA
DECISION
of 6 April 2017 in case No. 12-570/2017
Judge A.S. Tsykurenko
Judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea V.V. Agin,
with the participation of E.N. Tasinov, the person against whom the administrative offence
proceedings are conducted and
E.S. Semedlyaeva and L.I. Gemedzhi, his defence counsels,
M.N. Polyansky, District Police Officer of the Police Station No. 2 “Kievskiy” of the of the
Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol,
with M.V. Lomzina, the secretary,
having examined at the open court hearing in Simferopol on
6 April 2017
the appeal of Emil Makhsudovich Kurbedinov, the defence counsel, against the decision of the judge
of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of 21 February 2017 in the administrative offence case provided
for by Part 1, Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation in relation to
Enver Nedimovich Tasinov,
established:
that by the decision of the judge of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of 21 February 2017,
E.N. Tasinov was found guilty of committing an administrative offence provided for by Part 1, Article 20.2.2
of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation and received a punishment in the form of
administrative arrest for a period of 5 (five) days.
Disagreeing with the decision of the judge of the district court, E.M. Kurbedinov, the defence counsel,
filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea in which he requested to cancel the abovementioned
decision as unlawful and unsubstantiated. In support, he specified that the judge of the district court
incorrectly assessed the established circumstances and that there is no administrative corpus delicti in the
actions of E.N. Tasinov that is alleged to him.
Having heard E.N. Tasinov and E.S. Semedlyaeva and L.I. Gemedgi, his defence counsels, who
supported the appeal, M.N. Polyansky, District Police Officer of the Police Station No. 2 “Kievskiy” of the
Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Simferopol, who objected to satisfying the appeal,
V.A. Zadorozhnaya, Yu.Z. Avamilev, the witnesses, having reviewed the case materials in full, having
examined the appeal arguments, I come to the following conclusion.
According to Part 1, Article 2.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation,
the administrative offence is an unlawful, guilty act (inaction) of an individual or a legal entity, for which
administrative liability is established by this Code or the administrative offence laws of the constituent entities
of the Russian Federation.
As it appears from the case materials, on 21 February 2017 at 10:00 a.m., not far from 127
Myasoedovskaya Str. In Kamenka village of Simferopol, the Republic of Crimea, E.N. Tasinov was in a public
place and participated in the mass simultaneous gathering of citizens in a public place leading to public
nuisance and obstructed the movement of pedestrians and vehicles.
The disposition of Part 1, Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation provides for administrative liability for arranging citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or)
movement in public places that is not a public event, public calls to citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and
(or) movement in public places, or participation in citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement
in public places if citizens’ mass simultaneous gathering and (or) movement in public places has entailed
public order disturbance or violation of sanitary norms and rules, violation of the functioning and safety of
Annex 331
2
critical infrastructure or communication facilities, or has caused damage to greenery, or hindrance to the
movement of pedestrians or vehicles, or prevented citizens’ access to residential premises or transportation
infrastructure facilities, or to social infrastructure facilities except for the situations provided for in Parts 2 and
3 of this Article.
In its Ruling of 24 October 2013 No. 1721-O “On refusal to accept for consideration the appeal of
citizen Alexey Vitalyevich Sherstuk on violation of his constitutional rights by the provisions of Part 1 of
Article 3.5 and Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation”,
the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation explained that “mass simultaneous gathering or movement
in public places” does not include any events held in public places, but does include those mass events only
that pursue a predetermined objective, are characterized by the common design of their participants and by
free access of citizens to the participation therein, but are not public events within the meaning of the Federal
Law of 19 June 2004 No. 54-FZ “On assemblies, rallies, demonstrations, marches and picketing” (Paragraphs
1-6 of Article 2 (concepts of: public event, assembly, rally, demonstration, procession, picketing)). At that, the
incurrence of liability is coupled by this legal provision with the onset of the adverse effects specified therein.
Based on the meaning of the above provisions, Myasoedovskaya Str. In Kamenka village of
Simferopol, the Republic of Crimea, and, in particular, intersection of Str. Myasoedovskaya and Str.
Serenevaya, including the pedestrian area located thereat is a public place intended for a mass number of
people staying thereat and for meeting their various vital needs, that is free for access to the unidentified
number of people.
At that, as it appears from the administrative offence record, the reports of the police officers (case
sheets 1, 10, 11), the explanations of V.A. Zadorozhnaya and Yu.Z. Avamilev, the witnesses, as well as E.N.
Tasinov, the person in respect of whom the proceedings in the administrative offence case are administered,
who did not challenge his staying in the above public place, the staying of a group of 15 citizens who arrived
at the house of their acquaintance Marlen Mustafayev, in order to prevent the police officers from taking
precautions in relation to the latter, entailed mass gathering of citizens in the public place with the common
purpose and the common design, which testifies to the onset of public menace consequences, i.e. the crowd
that violates the public order and obstructes the movement of pedestrians and vehicles.
V.A. Zadorozhnaya and Yu.Z. Avamilev, the police officers interrogated at the court hearing stated
that they took part in precautions aimed at maintaining the public order and held at intersection of Str.
Myasoedovskaya and Str. Serenevaya in Kamenka village of Simferopol on 21 February 2017 from 9:00 a.m.
to 12:00 midday, and were members of a group of the police officers who documented the event using video
footage equipment. They arrived at that place to maintain the public order, as at the same place there was a
group of citizens of Crimean Tatar ethnicity who behaved aggressively and obstructed the movement of special
equipment, the police officers and pedestrians. E.N. Tasinov was in that group as well. After the police officer
announced on a megaphone of liability for that mass gathering in the public place in order to obstruct the
actions of the police officers, no one from the group volunteered to leave and continued to take unlawful acts.
It was after that only that some of the citizens, including E.N. Tasinov, were detained.
Previously V.A. Zadorozhnaya and Yu.Z. Avamilev, the police officers, had not been acquainted with
E.N. Tasinov, no hostile relations or any other grounds for the slander of E.N. Tasinov by those persons were
established in the case.
Giving his explanations at the hearing of the court of the second instance, E.N. Tasinov, the person in
respect of whom the proceedings in the administrative offence case are administered, did not challenge that he
was in the group of citizens at intersection of Str. Myasoedovskaya and Str. Serenevaya in Kamenka village,
Simferopol on 21 February 2017 at about 10:00 a.m. and that the purpose of his being in that group, like others,
was to protect the interests of Marlen Mustafayev when the police officers took actions against the latter.
Furthermore, the above circumstances are confirmed by the video footage provided by the body of the
Ministry of Internal Affairs Directorate of Russia for Simferopol.
Under those circumstances, the actions of E.N. Tasinov were correctly qualified by the judge of the
district court under Part 1, Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
The appeal arguments that the court of the first instance did not establish what actions were committed
Annex 331
3
by E.N. Tasinov so that they could be qualified under Part 1, Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative
Offences of the Russian Federation are unfounded and are refuted by the body of the above evidence.
Based on the provisions of Article 26.11 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian
Federation, the judge administering the proceedings in the administrative offence case is entitled to evaluate
the evidence according to his/her inner conviction based on a comprehensive, full and unbiased examination
of all facts of the case in the aggregate.
Contrary to the appeal, the actual participation in a non-public event that violates the public order and
obstructs the traffic of pedestrians, vehicles and entails mass simultaneous gathering of citizens in the public
place that is not a public event constitutes the event and the corpus delicti of the administrative offence
provided for by Part 1, Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
In this regard, the appeal arguments are not based on the law.
Taking the foregoing into consideration, taking into account the established circumstances, I come to
the conclusion that the court of the first instance came to the correct conclusion that E.N. Tasinov was guilty
of the offence alleged to him.
The administrative offence record in relation to E.N. Tasinov was drawn up in compliance with the
requirements of Article 28.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, contains all
information required to consider the case, including the full description of the event of the administrative
offence alleged to him and provided for by Part 1, Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of
the Russian Federation, and therefore it meets the criteria of admissibility of evidence in the case as well.
Taking into account the essence of the alleged offence, the appendix to the records is not a basis for revoking
the decision and recognizing those records as inadmissible evidence either (explanations of A.A. Efimenko,
I.A. Chumakova, V.E. Romanovskiy, A.A. Kruglov (case sheets 5–8), which the court of the second instance
finds inadmissible as those explanations were obtained and recorded in violation of the requirements of the
Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation). A detailed description of the essence of the
alleged offence set out in the appendix to the records (the police officers reports) is confirmed by the evidence
examined by the court of the second instance, that is not contrary to the requirements of the Code on
Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
The body of the evidence above fully and objectively describes the administrative offence event and
the guilt of E.N. Tasinov in committing the administrative offence provided for by Part 1, Article 20.2.2 of the
Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
The law does not define the minimum number of citizens for qualifying an event as a mass one and
therefore such quantitative criterion is not compulsory, as open places may be visited by the public at large.
The evidence available in the case materials, in particular, the police officers reports attached thereto,
the testimonies of the witnesses interrogated at the court hearing of the court of the second instance reliably
confirm the simultaneous gathering of at least 15 citizens in the public place, i.e. intersection of Str.
Myasoedovskaya and Str. Serenevaya in Kamenka village, Simferopol on 21 February 2017 at about 10 a.m.
that falls within the concept of mass simultaneous gathering of citizens in the public place with the common
purpose and the common design.
Other arguments of the appeal are based on other interpretation of the law, are aimed at re-assessing
the evidence examined by the judge to the advantage of the applicant and are refuted by the body of the above
evidence that testifies reliably to committing by E.N. Tasinov of the administrative offence provided for by
Part 1, Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.
In accordance with the general rules for imposing the administrative punishment, the administrative
punishment for committing the administrative offence is imposed to the extent established by the law providing
for liability for that administrative offence in accordance with the Code on Administrative Offences of the
Russian Federation (Part 1, Article 4.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation).
When imposing the administrative punishment on an individual, the nature of the administrative offence
committed by him/her, the identity of the guilty person, his/her property status, any circumstances mitigating
the administrative liability and any circumstances aggravating the administrative liability are taken into
account (Part 2, Article 4.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation).
Annex 331
4
When imposing the punishment, the judge of the district court took into account the nature of the
administrative offence, the identity of the guilty person, the absence of any circumstances aggravating and
mitigating the administrative liability.
The extent of the imposed punishment is in line with the sanction of Part 1, Article 20.2.2 of the Code
on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation and is fair.
In the proceedings in the administrative offence case, the procedure and the limitation period for
bringing to the administrative liability, the principle of the presumption of innocence were not violated, the
burden of proof was allocated correctly.
There were no material violations of the rules of substantive and procedural law entailing the
revocation or change of the appealed decision.
Based on the foregoing, being guided by Articles 30.2–30.7 of the Code on Administrative Offences
of the Russian Federation, the judge
decided:
to dismiss the appeal of Emil Makhsudovich Kurbedinov, the defence counsel,
to uphold the decision of the judge of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of 21 February 2017
in the administrative offence case provided for by Part 1 of Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative
Offences of the Russian Federation in relation to Enver Nedimovich Tasinov.
Judge (Signed) V.V. Agin
Annex 331
Annex 332
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Case No. 12-569/2017,
Decision, 25 April 2017 (excerpts)
Translation
Excerpts
Judge: A.S. Tsykurenko /STAMP: COPY/ Case No. 12-569/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA
DECISION
on the appeal filed in an administrative offence case
The Republic of Crimea, Simferopol 25 April 2017
Judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea E.G. Pavlovskiy, having considered in an open
court hearing a case on the appeal of Emil Maksudovich Kurbedinov, the defence counsel of Seiran
Kemadinovich Murtaza, against decision of the judge of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of 21
February 2017 in respect of
Seiran Kemadinovich Murtaza, born on 27 November 1983, a native of Ketmentipsky k/s of Galabinsky
District of the Tashkent Region of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic, citizen of the Russian Federation,
registered at 9, Belogorskaya Str., Privetnoye villiage, Alushta, the Republic of Crimea,
in an administrative offence case under Part 1, Article 20.2.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences of the
Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Code on Administrative Offences),
ESTABLISHED THAT:
By Decision of the judge of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of 21 February 2017, S.K.
Murtaza was found guilty of committing of an administrative offence under Part 1, Article 20.2.2 of the Code
on Administrative Offences and an administrative punishment was inflicted on him in the form of
administrative arrest for a period of 5 (five) days.
[…]
Page 4
However, the judge did not take into account the following.
The judge refers to explanations of witnesses A.A. Efimenko, I.A. Chumakova, A.A. Kruglov, V.A.
Romanovskiy as evidence of guilt of S.K. Murtaza in committing the alleged offence. However, these
witnesses were not warned about the administrative liability under Article 17.9 of the Code on Administrative
Offences. In light of this, their explanations cannot be recognized as admissible evidence. In such
circumstances, the judge’s resolution is subject to change by deleting the judge’s reference to these witnesses.
In view of the above and guided by Article 30.7 of the Code on Administrative Offences,
DECIDED:
To change decision of the judge of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of 21 February 2017.
To delete from decision of the judge of the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of 21 February 2017
the reference to the explanation of the witnesses A.A. Efimenko, I.A. Chumakova, A.A. Kruglov, and V.A.
Romanovskiy.
To leave unchanged the rest part of the decision of the judge of the Kievskiy District Court of
Simferopol of 21 February 2017 and to dismiss the appeal of Emil Maksudovich Kurbedinov, the defence
counsel of Seiran Kemadinovich Murtaza.
Judge of the Supreme Court
of the Republic of Crimea
/Signature/ E.G. Pavlosvkii
[…]
Annex 332
Annex 333
Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Crimea,
Letter No. 15/3-2140-16, 27 April 2017
1
Translation
Prosecutor General’s Office of
the Russian Federation
Acting Head of the Department for the
Supervision of Procedural Activities of the
Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation
To Councilor of Justice E.V. Kurovsky
(Handwritten)
12 May 2017
15/1-486-2016/Nd 2383-2017
15/3-2140-16 of 27 April 2017 /Signature/
Dear Evgeniy Vyacheslavovich,
In accordance with the instructions of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation to
inform the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation G.M. Gatilov on the progress and
results of the investigation of the criminal case on the disappearance of E.U. Ibragimov, I report the following.
On 26 May 2016, the Investigative Department for the Bakhchisaray District of the Main Investigative
Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for the Republic of Crimea initiated
criminal case No. 2016627042 on the fact of kidnapping of E.U. Ibragimov on the grounds of the crime
envisaged in paragraph “a, c”, Part 2, Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
By the resolution of Deputy Head of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee
of the Russian Federation for the Republic of Crimea V.V. Arkhangelsky of 7 October 2016 this criminal case
was withdrawn from the caseload of the Bakhchisaray District Department of the Main Investigative
Committee of the Russian Federation in the Republic of Crimea and transferred for further investigation to the
First Investigative Department of the Investigative Directorate for Investigation of High-Priority Cases of the
Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for the Republic of
Crimea.
Preliminary investigation established that on 24 May 2016 between 22 hours 10 minutes and 22 hours
45 minutes, unidentified persons, being in the vicinity of the house No. 9 Mira Str., Bakhchisaray, the Republic
of Crimea, having the intention to kidnap E.U. Ibragimov, being dressed in the uniform of traffic police
officers, stopped the latter, who was passing in his personal car “Ford Focus”, license plate number E 868 CХ,
region 01, and then, acting in a group, with violence, put E.U. Ibragimov in an unidentified car and against the
will of the latter drove in unknown direction.
Information about the victim: Ervin Umarovich Ibragimov, born on 17 July 1985 in Namangan,
Andijan region, Uzbekistan, registered and residing at: 18 Mira Str., Apt. 78, Bakhchisaray, Republic of
Crimea, citizen of the Russian Federation, officially not employed, single. Graduated from the National
Academy of Public Administration under the President of Ukraine in 2014.
Before the admission of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation E.U. Ibragimov was a
deputy of the City Council of Bakhchisaray, member of the organization “Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People”,
lawyer. After the admission of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation, Ibragimov E.U. was not
officially employed, has repeatedly traveled to the territory of Ukraine in order to get education, in 2015 he
went to Turkey to participate in a congress. In January 2016, he traveled to Ukraine, presumably to find
suppliers of beef to the territory of the Republic of Crimea. During the summer period, he was engaged in the
/Stamp: Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Crimea/ /signatures/ 15 May 2017
Annex 333
2
sale of souvenir products on the beach of Uchkuevka village and Orlovka village, Sevastopol; had the
intention to organize the work of public catering facility, i.e. “cafe”, in Bakhchisaray.
During the investigation, a toothbrush and razor belonging to the latter were seized at E.U. Ibragimov’s
residence address: 18 Mira Str., Apt. 78., Bakhchisaray. Molecular-genetic forensic examination was ordered
on the seized items of personal hygiene of E.U. Ibragimov, the results of which did not establish a match with
the available genotypes in the database.
E.U. Ibragimov’s car was examined, as a result of which 5 traces of fingers and partial palm print from
the roof surface above the driver’s door, from the outer surface of the driver’s door, from the outer surface of
the driver’s door handle, from the roof surface above the rear left door of the car were seized. No matches were
found on the traces found.
U.O. Ibragimov was recognized as a victim and interrogated; he explained that he had last seen his son
E.U. Ibragimov on 24 May 2016 at about 17 hours driving Ford Focus on Simferopolskaya Str. in the direction
of Simferopol. At about 23 hours, E.U. Ibragimov called him on his cell phone, number +79780042529 via his
cell phone, number: […] and asked if he had seen the documents for the car, after which he said that he had
found them and hung up. About 10 minutes later, U.O. Ibragimov called back to E.U. Ibragimov’s cell phone,
but the latter’s cell phone was switched off. On 25 May 2016 at about 8 hours 30 minutes, he found E.U.
Ibragimov’s car not far from the house.
During the initial operative search activities, video CCTV cameras have been found, on which there is
information of interest to the investigation.
As such, when viewing the records of the CCTV camera on the building located at the address: 6-B
Mira Str., Bakhchisaray, it was established that on 24 May 2016 between 22:15:17 and 22:30:04 a car,
presumably a passenger minibus “Ford Transit” of light color left the wooded area from the side of water
reservoir and stopped on the roadside. The vehicle was equipped with a dark-colored flashing beacon on its
roof. Some time later, two men dressed in the uniform of traffic police officers got out of the car, one of whom
was holding a traffic police baton. At 22:22:20 one of the men stopped the car “Ford Focus” of white color,
driven by E.U. Ibragimov, then the traffic police officer and E.U. Ibragimov came to the luggage compartment
of the car and began to inspect the car. Then Ibragimov E.U. approached the car “Ford Transit”, near which
there were two unidentified persons, from whom E.U. Ibragimov suddenly began to run away, but 5-10 meters
later the unknown persons caught up with him and put him in the car “Ford Transit” with violence.
A video forensic examination was conducted on the seized video footage reflecting the kidnapping of
E.U. Ibragimov, according to the results of which it was impossible to establish the license plate number of
the car “Ford Transit” and the persons who committed the kidnapping of E.U. Ibragimov.
During the preliminary investigation a list of “Ford Transit” cars registered on the territory of the
Republic of Crimea was obtained, according to which the above-mentioned car description includes 1400 cars.
Operative search activities were initiated to investigate their owners and persons who have the right to drive
them. Also, telephone connections were received at the base stations located in the area where E.U. Ibragimov
was kidnapped, and the order to carry out operative search activities with regard to these subscribers was sent.
During the preliminary investigation, the following investigative and procedural actions were carried
out:
E.I. Ametova, A.S. Abduramanov, V.N. Rudakov, E.E. Seitibragimov, M.I. Mustafayev, R.E.
Dzhanbazov, F.D. Reshetov, A.E. Tokhtarov, D.S. Bilyalov, A.L. Osipenko, I.S. Getman, F.R. Bekirov, M.N.
Skryabin, S.M. Zaichenko, G.D. Boyko, A.L. Lazhuev, M.A. Orlov, K.E. Oganesyan, L.V. Shevtsova, V.A.
Shkuta, V.V. Kosorontsev, V.V. Yengibaryan, V.A. Snitko, V.G. Neshveeva, O.P. Buganets, I.N. Malyarenko,
M.S. Abduramanov, N.R. Umerov, T.A. Bilyalov, E.A. Suleimanov, A.P. Stanislavchuk, A.V. Omelchenko,
V.N. Trigub, A.I. Matyushenko, O.A. Rudenko, R.M. Fukala, R.E. Ismailov, A.I. Sakhnyuk, E.A. Likhonin,
V.A. Mikhailuk, A.I. Kuznetsova, S.A. Osipenko were interrogated as witnesses;
Annex 333
3
On the circumstances of use of “Ford Transit” car, which was probably used by the unidentified
persons in question, 489 persons, who own or use the specified cars in the territory of the Republic of Crimea,
were questioned, 156 cars were inspected. No information of relevance for the investigation was received;
Information from law enforcement bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation on the
availability of information on bringing E.U. Ibragimov to administrative and criminal responsibility,
conducting pre-investigation checks was requested. No information of relevance for the investigation was
received;
Operative search activities were conducted in the territory of Voronezh region, where 4 “Skoda
Octavia” cars with the license plate number “...350-36” were identified, which, according to the victim
U.O. Ibragimov may have been following E.U. Ibragimov throughout May 2016. Their owners, who were
questioned as witnesses, testified that they did not give their vehicles to anyone for use, they also did not enter
the territory of the Republic of Crimea;
Instructions to conduct operative search activities with regard to the residents of Voronezh region
A.V. Kryuchkov, D.A. Stavrov and S.A. Mazurin, who at the time of the crime drove the cars "Skoda Octavia"
with license plate number “...350-36” were sent to the inquiry body;
information from Morskaya Direktsiya LLC on the crossing of the ferry crossing with the above
vehicles was requested. No information of relevance for the investigation was received;
Molecular-genetic examination was carried out on the seized items, during which the DNA profile of
E.U. Ibragimov was obtained, which was sent to the constituent entities of the Russian Federation for
verification by DNA registration system;
Forensic fingerprint examination was assigned and carried out on E.U. Ibragimov’s finger and palm
prints. These hand prints were checked using the regional and federal fingerprint registration system and the
fingerprint cards of relatives, friends and acquaintances of E.U. Ibragimov, no matches were found;
In order to find traces of the crime and determine the direction of the departure of the criminals, search
activities were initiated involving officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Department of Russia for the
Bakhchisaray district, the community and the Russian EMERCOM diving team in the Republic of Crimea.
The area where E.U. Ibragimov’s car was found, as well as the Bakhchisaray water reservoir and its coastal
area were inspected. No information of relevance for the investigation was received;
- An instruction was sent to identify a man and a woman who at the time of stopping E.U. Ibragimov’s
car on 24 May 2016 were crossing the road in the direction of residential buildings past the car “Ford Transit”,
who so far have not been identified;
An examination of social networks was carried out, during which it was established that E.U.
Ibragimov was registered in social networks such as Vkontakte and Odnoklassniki, where there are pictures of
him with the representatives of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (Dzhemilev, Chubarov and others);
The owners of the vehicles in which E.U. Ibragimov crossed the state border of the Russian Federation
throughout 2014–2016 were identified and interrogated. No information of relevance for the investigation was
received;
The inquiry body was instructed to carry out operative search activities in relation to friendship ties of
E.U. Ibragimov with I.R. Ablaev and I.R. Umerov;
T.P. Vashina was interrogated as a witness; she testified that on 27 June 2016 at about 19 hours she
was returning home from the store, passing by the bus stop “Lozovoye 1” of Simferopol district, decided to
rest and sat down on the bench. At the same time at the bus stop there was an unfamiliar woman (E.V.
Dmitrieva), who was reading a notice about the search of a young man. When T.P. Vashina looked at the
picture of the missing man, she told E.V. Dmitrieva that the search for E.U. Ibragimov was not going well, as
she had seen him recently in the suburban area in the village of Lozovoye of Simferopol district. At that, E.U.
Annex 333
4
Ibragimov had no injuries on his face, he did not ask for help and no one held him down;
E.V. Dmitrieva was interrogated as a witness, confirming the statement of T.P. Vashina;
With the participation of witness T.P. Vashina, an examination of the area adjacent to house No. 8 on
Tenistiy Lane in the village of Lozovoye, Simferopol district, where she saw a person who was presumably
E.U. Ibragimov, was conducted;
The identification with the witness T.P. Vashina was conducted, in the course of which the latter
confidently identified E.U. Ibragimov among other pictures, and testified that she had seen him in the middle
of July 2016 near her house;
In the village of Lozovoye of Simferopol district, a door-to-door inspection on Offitserskaya,
Tsvetochnaya, Nizhnyaya, Sadovaya, Vishnevaya, Yuzhnaya, Nekrasova, Kirova, Vinogradnaya, Gorkogo,
Lozovaya, Podgornaya, Kechkemetskaya, Slivovaya, Tsentralnaya Streets and Tenistiy Lane was conducted.
50 persons were interrogated as witnesses, no new information about the whereabouts of E.U. Ibragimov was
received;
18 persons whom E.U. Ibragimov contacted via phone on 24 May 2016 were identified and
interrogated. No information of relevance for the investigation was received;
Information was requested and received from the Rozisk-Magistral HSC, according to which
E.U. Ibragimov did not purchase air and railway tickets;
Responses from the banks located in the territory of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol were
attached to the files of the criminal case. It is established that E.U. Ibragimov has a current account (payment
card) opened at Genbank JSC; as of 30 June 2016, the account balance is RUB 315;
A request was sent to Genbank JSC to provide information on the cash flow on the account of
E.U. Ibragimov from 24 May 2016 to the present time. According to the reply received, there has been no cash
flow on this account to date;
According to the information received from the Directorate of the Federal Security Service of Russia
for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, the Centre for Countering Extremism of the Ministry of Internal
Affairs for the Republic of Crimea, the State Traffic Police Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for
the Republic of Crimea, there is no information about the possible whereabouts of E.U. Ibragimov.
To date, the whereabouts of E.U. Ibragimov have not been established.
The inquiry body was instructed to conduct operative search activities aimed at establishing the
whereabouts of E.U. Ibragimov, as well as the persons who committed this crime.
Annex 333
Annex 334
Chekmagush Interdistrict Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan, Case
No. 1-3/2017, Decision, 30 June 2017 (excerpts)
1
Translation
Excerpts
Case No. 1-3/2017
DECISION
In the name of the Russian Federation
Chekmagush village 30 June 2017
The Chekmagush Interdistrict Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan comprised of:
presiding judge M.F. Irkabaev,
in the presence of the secretary A.M. Galeeva,
with the participation of public prosecutor A.R. Abdyushev,
criminal defendants R.Sh. Faskhiev, I.I. Makulov, I.M. Yanbukhtin, R.G. Khamidullin,
Z.M. Zuvaydov,
defence counsel – R.Z. Khatipov, O.O. Nikitina, S.S. Ilyasova, G.F. Yausheva, G.A. Avzalova,
having considered in an open court session the criminal case against
Ramiz Shamilovich Faskhiev born on 30 April 1958 in Novo-Mikhaylovsky settlement, town of
Belebey, the Republic of Bashkortostan, registered at the following address: the Republic of Bashkortostan,
Ufa, 171 Mendeleeva Str., apartment 25, residing at the following address: the Republic of Bashkortostan,
Ufa, town of Dyurtyuli, 20 Zorge Str., citizen of the Russian Federation, with higher education, married,
category 3 disability pensioner, not liable for military service, with no criminal records,
accused of a crime envisaged in Part 1 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,
Ilsur Ilgizovich Makulov born on 29 August 1971 in Staro-Kalmashevo village, Chekmagush district,
the Republic of Bashkortostan, registered and residing at the following address: the Republic of Bashkortostan,
Chekmagush district, Stariy Kalmash village, 75 Lenina Str., citizen of the Russian Federation, with secondary
education, married, with three dependant minor children, employed as a worker for an individual entrepreneur
A.A. Enikeev, liable for military service, with no criminal records,
accused of a crime envisaged in Part 2 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,
Ildus Maratovich Yanbukhtin born on 28 April 1974 in Staro-Kalmashevo village, Chekmagush
district, the Republic of Bashkortostan, registered and residing at the following address: the Republic of
Bashkortostan, Chekmagush district, Stariy Kalmash village, 19 Sovetskaya Str., citizen of the Russian
Federation, with secondary education, married, with three dependant minor children, employed as a chauffeur
for an individual entrepreneur A.A. Enikeev, liable for military service, with no criminal records,
accused of a crime envisaged in Part 2 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,
Ramil Gabidullinovich Khamidullin born on 22 January 1963 in Karazirekevo village, Chekmagush
district, the Republic of Bashkortostan, registered and residing at the following address: the Republic of
Bashkortostan, Chekmagush district, Karazirekevo village, 19 Svobody Str., citizen of the Russian Federation,
with secondary education, married, employed as a locksmith in OAO Gazpromgazoraspredeleniye Ufa (a
publicly held company under the laws of the Russian Federation), branch in the town of Dyurtyuli, with a
second job of imam khatib of Karazirekevo village, with no criminal records,
accused of a crime envisaged in Part 2 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,
Zafardzhon Mukhibuloevich Zuvaydov born on 23 July 1978 in Dushanbe, the Republic of Tajikistan,
registered at the following address: the Republic of Bashkortostan, Ufa, 25 Malaya Fanernaya Str., residing at
Annex 334
2
the following address: the Republic of Bashkortostan, Ufa district, Alekseevka village, 47 Tsentralnaya Str.,
citizen of the Republic of Tajikistan, with higher education, married, with four dependant minor children, not
officially employed, with a side job as a taxi driver, liable for military service, with no criminal records,
accused of a crime envisaged in Part 2 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,
ESTABLISHED:
R.Sh. Faskhiev organized activities of a religious association, which, in accordance with the legislation
of the Russian Federation, is recognized as extremist. I.I. Makulov, I.M. Yanbukhtin, R.G. Khamidullin, Z.M.
Zuvaydov participated in the activities of the religious organization, which, in accordance with the legislation
of the Russian Federation, is recognized as extremist, in the following circumstances.
R.Sh. Faskhiev, being, from the mid-1990s (the exact date has not been established), a member of the
international religious association Tablighi Jamaat, the purpose of which is to establish world domination by
spreading a radical form of Islam and create a single Islamic state, the World Caliphate, on the basis of regions
with traditionally Muslim population. In early 2000s (the exact date has not been established), he organized
activity of the specified IRA cell in the Republic of Bashkortostan.
Contrary to Federal law of 25 July 2002 No. 114-FZ “On countering extremist activities”, R.Sh.
Faskhiev, being aware that his actions are dangerous to the society, knowing that the decision of the Supreme
Court of the Russian Federation of 7 May 2009 on the prohibition of the international religious organization
Tablighi Jamaat in the territory of the Russian Federation came into legal force, intentionally, continued to
participate in activities of the international religious association as an organizer up to 29 April 2015.
R.Sh. Faskhiev, as a person with leadership skills, the ability to manipulate, regulate and impose
certain behavioral models, fulfilled the responsibilities assigned to him, as the leader and ideological inspirer
of the international religious association cell, to implement the goals and objectives of this international
religious association.
In order to implement programme objectives of the international religious association, R.Sh. Faskhiev,
during the above-mentioned period, involved the following persons as participants into the cell organized by
him in the Republic of Bashkortostan: I.I. Makulov, I.M. Yanbukhtin, R.G. Khamidullin, Z.M. Zuvaydov.
[…]
Page 46
In view of the foregoing, being guided by Articles 296-299, 307-309 of the Criminal Procedural Code
of the Russian Federation, the court
DECIDED:
To find Ramiz Shamilovich Faskhiev guilty of committing a crime under Part 1 Article 282.2 of the
Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and impose a punishment on him in the form of imprisonment for a
period of 4 years 7 months in a general penal colony with deprivation of liberty for a period of two years (as
amended by Federal law of 2 November 2013 No. 302-FZ, of 3 February 2014 No. 5-FZ, of 5 May 2014
No. 130-FZ, of 28 June 2014 No. 179-FZ).
[…]
Page 47
To find Ilsur Ilgizovich Makulov guilty of committing a crime under Part 2 Article 282.2 of the
Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and impose a punishment on him in the form of imprisonment for a
period of 2 years 7 months in a penal settlement with deprivation of liberty for a period of one year (as amended
Annex 334
3
by Federal law of 2 November 2013 No. 302-FZ, of 3 February 2014 No. 5-FZ).
[…]
To find Ildus Maratovich Yanbukhtin guilty of committing a crime under Part 2 Article 282.2 of the
Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and impose a punishment on him in the form of imprisonment for a
period of 2 years 7 months in a penal settlement with deprivation of liberty for a period of one year (as amended
by Federal law of 2 November 2013 No. 302-FZ, of 3 February 2014 No. 5-FZ).
[…]
To find Ramil Gabidullinovich Khamidullin guilty of committing a crime under Part 2 Article 282.2
of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and impose a punishment on him in the form of imprisonment
for a period of 2 years 5 months in a penal settlement with deprivation of liberty for a period of one year (as
amended by Federal law of 2 November 2013 No. 302-FZ, of 3 February 2014 No. 5-FZ).
[…]
To find Zafardzhon Mukhibuloevich Zuvaydov guilty of committing a crime under Part 2 Article 282.2
of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and impose a punishment on him in the form of imprisonment
for a period of 2 years (as amended by Federal law of 2 November 2013 No. 302-FZ, of 3 February 2014
No. 5-FZ).
[…]
Page 49
The decision may be appealed through the appeal procedure to the Supreme Court of the Republic of
Bashkortostan through the Chekmagush Interdistrict Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan within 10 days
from the date of announcement, and the convicts may do that within the same period from the date the copy of
the decision is delivered to them.
To explain to the convicts that, when filing an appeal, they have the right to file a motion to participate
in the consideration of the criminal case by a court of appeal, as well as to entrust their defence to a defence
counsel chosen by them or to file a motion to the court for the appointment of a defence counsel. If other trial
participants file an appeal or complaint, the convicts will have the right to file their objections in writing within
the same period from the date the copies are delivered to them.
[…]
Judge of the Chekmagush
Interdistrict Court
of the Republic of Bashkortostan signed / seal / stamps (illegible) M.F. Irkabaev
Annex 334
Annex 335
First Investigative Department of the High-priority Cases Directorate
of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee
of the Russian Federation for the Republic of Crimea, Letter No.
Otsk201-08-2017/13581, 19 July 2017
1
Translation
(Handwritten) 362
To U.O. Ibragimov, L.I. Alieva.
18 Mira Str., Apt. 78., Bakhchisaray, the
Republic of Crimea, 298400
19 July 2017
(Handwritten)
To be filed in criminal case No. 2016737036
19 July 2017 (signed)
Otsk201-08-2017/13581
Your applications of 15 June 2017 about improper investigation of the criminal case initiated on the
kidnapping of E.U. Ibragimov, received by the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee
of the Russian Federation for the Republic of Crimea (hereinafter – Main Investigative Directorate) on 19 June
2017, 10 July 2017, 12 July 2017 and 17 July 2017, were considered.
On the merits of the argumentation stated by you, I report that a significant number of investigative
activities and operative search activities aimed at establishing the whereabouts of E.U. Ibragimov were carried
out in the criminal case.
As such, the molecular-genetic forensic examination on the seized personal hygiene items of
E.U. Ibragimov was appointed and carried out in the criminal case. Upon the results of the examination, no
matches of E. U. Ibragimov’s genotype with the genotypes available in the federal database were found.
In addition, during the examination of E. U. Ibragimov’s car, five fingerprints and a partial palm print
were seized. In checking the seized prints using the federal fingerprint database, no matches were found.
During the initial operative search activities video surveillance cameras were found, on which there is
information of interest to the investigation.
A video forensic examination was conducted on the seized video, which records the kidnapping of
E.U. Ibragimov. According to the results of this examination it is impossible to establish the license plate
number of the car “Ford Transit” and the persons who committed the kidnapping of E.U. Ibragimov.
During the preliminary investigation a list of “Ford Transit” cars registered in the territory of the
Republic of Crimea was obtained. On the circumstances of use of “Ford Transit” car, which was probably used
by the unidentified persons in question, 489 persons, who own or use the specified cars in the territory of the
Republic of Crimea, were questioned, 156 cars were inspected. However, no information of relevance for the
investigation was received.
In addition, operative search measures were carried out in the territory of Voronezh region, where 4
“Skoda Octavia” cars with the license plate number “...350-36” were identified, which, according to your
testimony may have been following E.U. Ibragimov. The owners of the mentioned cars were questioned as
witnesses and testified that they did not give their cars to anyone for use, did not enter the territory of the
Republic of Crimea, which is also confirmed by the information from the Morskaya Direktsiya LLC on the
crossing of the ferry-line.
Stamp: Main Investigative Directorate of the
Investigative Committee of the Russian
Federation for the Republic of Crimea
No. Otsk201-08-2017/13581
Annex 335
2
In order to find traces of the crime and determine the direction of the departure of the criminals, search
activities were initiated involving officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Department of Russia for the
Bakhchisaray district, the public and the Russian EMERCOM diving team in the Republic of Crimea. The area
where E.U. Ibragimov’s car was found, as well as the Bakhchisaray reservoir and its coastal area were
inspected.
The location of E.U. Ibragimov was not established by means of the conducted activities.
Currently, the criminal proceedings have been resumed, additional investigative and procedural
activities are being carried out.
In addition, the inquiry bodies have been instructed to conduct operative search activities aimed at
establishing the whereabouts of E.U. Ibragimov.
The progress and results of the criminal investigation are under constant control of the administration
of the Main Investigative Directorate.
At the same time, no facts of delays in the criminal case have been established in the administrative
control, therefore, there is no reason to take measures against the investigator.
If you disagree with the decision, you have the right to appeal to the superior head of the investigative
body, the Prosecutor’s Office, or to the court under the procedure provided for in Chapter 16 of the Code of
Criminal Procedural of the Russian Federation.
Acting deputy head of the High-priority Cases
Directorate, Head of the First Investigative Department
Captain of Justice /Signed/ E.O. Lyulin
Annex 335
Annex 336
Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Barnaul, Case No. 1-242/16,
Decision, 26 July 2017 (excerpts)
1
Translation
Excerpts
/Stamp: COPY/
Case No. 1-242/16
DECISION
In the name of the Russian Federation
26 July 2017 Barnaul
V.F. Senchenkov, Judge of the Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Barnaul,
in presence of S.S. Shcherbitskaya, E.I. Dashko, the Secretaries of the Court,
with the participation of E.N. Serbova, Assistant Prosecutor of the Zheleznodorozhny District of
Barnaul acting as the Public Prosecutor,
U.D. Idrisov, the Defendant,
D.V. Kopylov, the Defence Counsel, presented order No. 029324, certificate No. […],
Sh. Z. o. Salmanov, B.N. Anorkulov, the interpreters,
considered in an open court session a criminal case against:
- Urmonjon Dzhumaevich Idrisov, date of birth: 24 January 1975, place of birth: Karatyupe
village, Osh Region of the Republic of Kyrgyzstan, citizen of the Russian Federation, liable for military
service, having secondary education, graduated from the 8th grade of the school named after the 26th Party
Congress of Karatyupe village, Osh Region, before the arrest he worked as the individual entrepreneur
“Idrisov U.D.”, single, registered at Altai Krai, Kalmansky District, village Kalmanka, 53 Sotsialisticheskaya
Street, and before the arrest resided at Barnaul, 34/1 Prigorodnaya Street, previously not convicted, in
detention since 2 August 2016,
- accused of a crime under Part 1.1, Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian
Federation.
Having examined the materials of the criminal case, the Court
ESTABLISHED:
U.D. Idrisov has involved persons in the activities of an extremist organization under the following
circumstances.
No later than April 2015, in the city of Barnaul, U.D. Idrisov, knowing that the activities of the
international religious organization Tablighi Jamaat were recognized as extremist and prohibited in the
Russian Federation, had a criminal intent aimed at involving persons in the activities of the said organization
in the city of Barnaul. To implement the resulting criminal intent, no later than April 2015, on the premises
of the cafe AlBaraka located at Barnaul, 22 Stroiteley Avenue, U.D. Idrisov set up a prayer room to actively
involve persons in the activities of the said religious association. From April 2015 to 1 November 2015, in
the city of Barnaul, U.D. Idrisov, for the accomplishment of his criminal intent, has invited K.M. Saidov,
I.I. Sheraliev, R.D. Gafurov, M.A. Belyalov and, deliberately, organized in the cafe AlBaraka secret
recruitment meetings with participation of the above persons with the aim of their subsequent involvement in
the activities of the international religious and extremist organization Tablighi Jamaat, by religious
counselling and rituals, using the available fundamental ideological literature of the international religious
and extremist organization Tablighi Jamaat, which is contradicting the traditional interpretation of Islam and
is included in the federal list of extremist materials.
Thereafter, in the course of the said recruitment meetings held from 1 November 2015 to 2
December 2015, in the cafe AlBaraka, U.D. Idrisov, for the accomplishment of his criminal intent and using
Annex 336
2
the forms and methods of doctrinal and preaching activities of International religious and extremist
organization Tablighi Jamaat, misled K.M. Saidov, I.I. Sheraliev, R.D. Gafurov, M.A. Belyalov into
religious delusion, convincing them of the need to undertake to acquire the allegedly true theological
knowledge about Islam from him, which in reality turned out to be programme concepts of international
religious and extremist organization Tablighi Jamaat. For this purpose, the methods of religious activity of
U.D. Idrisov aimed at involving K.M. Saidov, I.I. Sheraliev, R.D. Gafurov, M.A. Belyalov in the activities of
the international religious and extremist organization Tablighi Jamaat during the specified period included a
missionary journey (gasht), constant recalling of Allah (dhikr), performing a 5 times salāt (prayer), additional
night salāt, prayers (da‘wa), compulsory participation in meetings (mashoara), listening to sermons or stories
on the Sahāba (bayaan), studying hadith, including on the basis of the book Fazail A’maal included in the
federal list of extremist materials under No. 430 on the basis of the decision of the Abakan City Court of the
Republic of Khakassia of 11 August 2009.
Thus, on 11 November 2015 at about 3.00 p.m., being at Barnaul, 22 Stroiteley Avenue,
U.D. Idrisov, for further accomplishment of his criminal intent, taught K.M. Saidov and M.A. Belyalov the
rules and procedure for a missionary journey (gasht) and convinced these persons of the need to perform this
religious ritual. Thereafter, 1 November 2015 from 3.30 p.m. to 3.45 p.m., being in the city of Barnaul,
U.D. Idrisov jointly with K.M. Saidov undertook a missionary journey (gasht). Thereafter, on 1 November
2016 from 3.45 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. and at 5.00 p.m., being in the cafe AlBaraka at the above address, to instil
the values and attitudes of international religious and extremist organization Tablighi Jamaat into
K.M. Saidov and M.A. Belyalov U.D. Idrisov conducted a sermon on the Sahāba (bayaan) for these persons.
In fact, these religious rituals are the programme concepts of the international religious and extremist
organization Tablighi Jamaat.
Besides, on 3 November 2015 at about 3.00 p.m., being in the cafe AlBaraka at the above address,
U.D. Idrisov, for the accomplishment of his criminal intent, has taught K.M. Saidov the rules and procedure
for prayers (da‘wa), constant recalling of Allah (dhikr) and convinced him of the need to perform these
religious rituals, as well as to undertake a missionary journey (gasht). Thereafter, on 3 November 2015 from
03.30 p.m. to 03.55 p.m., being in the city of Barnaul, U.D. Idrisov jointly with K.M. Saidov undertook a
missionary journey (gasht). Besides, on 3 November 2016 at about 5.00 p.m., being in the cafe AlBaraka at
the above address, U.D. Idrisov, to instil the values and attitudes of international religious and extremist
organization Tablighi Jamaat into K.M. Saidov, conducted a sermon on the Sahāba (bayaan) for this person.
In fact, these religious rituals are the programme concepts of the international religious and extremist
organization Tablighi Jamaat.
Thereafter, on 7 November 2015, from 3.30 p.m. to 3.45 p.m., being in the city of Barnaul,
U.D. Idrisov jointly with K.M. Saidov undertook a missionary journey (gasht). Besides, on 3 November
2015 at about 3.00 p.m. and 5.00 p.m., being in the cafe AlBaraka at the above address, U.D. Idrisov, for the
accomplishment of his criminal intent, to instil the values and attitudes of international religious and
extremist organization Tablighi Jamaat into K.M. Saidov and I.I. Sheraliev, conducted a sermon on the
Sahāba (bayaan) for these persons, and also further explained the need to undertake a missionary journey
(gasht). In fact, these religious rituals are the programme concepts of the international religious and extremist
organization Tablighi Jamaat.
Thereafter, on 19 November 2015 at 6.00 p.m., being in the cafe AlBaraka at the above address,
U.D. Idrisov, for the accomplishment of his criminal intent, to instil the values and attitudes of international
religious and extremist organization Tablighi Jamaat into K.M. Saidov and I.I. Sheraliev, conducted a
sermon on the Sahāba (bayaan) for these persons, and also further explained the need to indertake a
missionary journey (gasht). In fact, these religious rituals are the programme concepts of the international
religious and extremist organization Tablighi Jamaat.
Besides, on 20 November 2015 at 7.00 a.m., being in the cafe AlBaraka at the above address,
U.D. Idrisov, for the accomplishment of his criminal intent, additionally explained to K.M. Saidov and
I.I. Sheraliev the need to undertake a missionary journey (gasht), prayers (da‘wa), constant recalling of Allah
(dhikr), the mandatory nature of the participation in meetings, and convinced them of the need to perform
Annex 336
3
these religious rituals. Thereafter, 20 November 2015 from 8.00 a.m. to 8.15 a.m., being in the city of
Barnaul, U.D. Idrisov jointly with K.M. Saidov and I.I. Sheraliev undertook a missionary journey (gasht).
Later, on 20 November 2015 at about 4.00 p.m., being at Barnaul, 22 Stroiteley Avenue,
U.D. Idrisov, for further accomplishment of his criminal intent, taught R.D. Gafurov the rules and procedure
for performing a missionary journey (gasht) and convinced this person of the need to perform this religious
ritual. Thereafter, on 20 November 2015 from 4.00 p.m. to 4.20 p.m., being in the city of Barnaul,
U.D. Idrisov jointly with K.M. Saidov and R.D. Gafurov undertook a missionary journey (gasht). Thereafter,
20 November 2015 at about 4.30 p.m., being in the cafe AlBaraka at the above address, U.D. Idrisov, for the
accomplishment of his criminal intent, to instil the values and attitudes of the international religious and
extremist organization Tablighi Jamaat into K.M. Saidov and R.D. Gafurov, conducted a sermon on the
Sahāba (bayaan) for these persons. In fact, these religious rituals are the programme concepts of the
international religious and extremist organization Tablighi Jamaat.
Besides, on 2 December 2015 at about 4.00 p.m., being in the cafe AlBaraka at the above address,
U.D. Idrisov, for the accomplishment of his criminal intent, to instil values and attitudes of the international
religious and extremist organization Tablighi Jamaat into K.M. Saidov conducted a sermon on the Sahāba
(bayaan) for this person. In fact, these religious rituals are the programme concepts of the international
religious and extremist organization Tablighi Jamaat.
Besides, from April 2015 to 2 August 2016, U.D. Idrisov deliberately kept in the cafe AlBaraka at
Barnaul, 22 Stroiteley Avenue, and at the place of residence, at Barnaul, 34/1 Prigorodnaya street, at the
place of registration at Altai Territory, Kalmansky District, village Kalmanka, 53 Socialisticheskaya street,
Fazail A'maal books by Shaykh al Hadith Maulana Muhammad Zakaria Kandehlevi, which are the
ideological basis of the international religious and extremist organization Tablighi Jamaat and are included in
the federal list of extremist materials. At the same time, in the period from November 1, 2015 to
December 2, 2015, in the city of Barnaul, U.D. Idrisov was making K.M. Saidov, I.I. Sheraliev,
R.D. Gafurov, M.A. Belyalov aware of the content of these books, as the ideological basis and cult practices
of the international religious and extremist organization Tablighi Jamaat.
From 1 November 2015 to 2 December 2015, in the city of Barnaul, U.D. Idrisov, realizing the
illegal nature of his actions and understanding that law enforcement authorities are taking measures aimed at
suppressing the activities of the international religious and extremist organization Tablighi Jamaat,
deliberately prepared K.M. Saidov, I.I. Sheraliev, R.D. Gafurov, M.A. Belyalov to undertake secrecy
measures commonly implemented by the organization, i.e. he prohibited disclosure of the information on the
circumstances of participation in illegal recruitment meetings arranged by him. To ensure secrecy measures
and avoid criminal liability, U.D. Idrisov omitted to notify K.M. Saidov, I.I. Sheraliev, R.D. Gafurov,
M.A. Belyalov on the belonging of the religious concepts and rituals explained by him to the programme
concepts of the international religious and extremist organization Tablighi Jamaat, on the extremist
orientation of this organization, and on the prohibition of its activities by the decision of the Supreme Court
of the Russian Federation.
Thus, from April 2015 until 2 December 2015, being in Barnaul, U.D. Idrisov, for the
accomplishment of his criminal intent, involved K.M. Saidov, I.I. Sheraliev, R.D. Gafurov, M.A. Belyalov
into activities of the international religious and extremist organization Tablighi Jamaat by means of
propaganda of the activities and ideology of the said religious organization, including positioning it as the
only true doctrine, while realizing that the activities of the international religious and extremist organization
Tablighi Jamaat are recognized as extremist and prohibited in the Russian Federation.
The Defendant U.D. Idrisov, who was questioned at the hearing, pleaded guilty to the charge in full,
acknowledged the offence, motioned for mitigation of punishment, however, in accordance with Article 51
of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, he refused to testify.
According to the testimony of the defendant U.D. Idrisov read out at the hearing subject to the
consent of the parties, given by him during the preliminary investigation, it is clear that while visiting
mosques he saw how many citizens of Kyrgyzstan, in addition to performing traditional Muslim rituals, also
perform “gasht”, the essence of which is to do “the work of Allah”, i.e. call on other people to attend the
Annex 336
4
mosques, call to pray to Allah, praise Allah. During “gasht”, “da‘wa” is performed — the invitation, a call,
work among Muslims. During “gasht”, “dhikr” must be performed (constant recalling of Allah, praising,
pronouncing the phrases “Subhan Allah”, “Alhamdulillah”, “Allahu Akbar”) and praising Allah. These
actions should be performed only in accordance with the established procedure and rules, which are also
known as “tartibes”. Also in Kyrgyzstan, he learned that if everyone did “gasht”, then “Jamaat”, which is a
society of Muslims, would appear on Earth. After performing “gasht”, it is necessary to read a religious
sermon, which is “bayaan”. Thus, as a rule, the morning “mashoara”, which is a discussion on the daily
schedule, the effectiveness of the sermon, about the directions and routes of “gasht”, should be performed
before “gasht” every day. According to the imam of the mosque, during the defendant’s stay in Kyrgyzstan
in 2012, he realized that these rituals are not characteristic of traditional Islam. Rituals (gasht, mashoara, etc.)
are performed by adepts of the Tablighi Jamaat religious organization. In 2012–2013, staying in Kyrgyzstan
he also became an adept of Tablighi Jamaat.
[…]
Page 14
Being guided by Articles 299–310 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation,
the Court
DECIDED:
To recognize Urmonjon Dzhumaevich Idrisov guilty of committing a crime under Part 1.1,
Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law of July 13, 2015
No. 145), and impose upon him a sentence in accordance with the said Article, applying Article 64 of the
Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in the form of 1 year of imprisonment, with serving the sentence in
a general penal colony, with restriction of liberty for a period of 1 year 4 months, set a restriction to leaving
the municipality where the convicted person will live after release; not to change the place of residence,
place of work without the consent of a competent authority supervising the service of sentence of restriction
of liberty; to impose the obligation to appear for registration with the competent authority supervising the
service of sentence of restriction of liberty once a month.
[…]
Judge /Signature/ V. F. Senchenkov
/Stamp: The original of the Sentence, Ruling,
Decision) filed in case file No.____/20___
Zheleznodorozhny District Court of the city of
Barnaul/
/Seal:
ZHELEZNODOROZHNY
DISTRICT COURT OF THE
CITY OF BARNAUL * Primary
State Registration Number
(OGRN)(illegible)/
/Stamp: TRUE COPY/
/Signature/ JUDGE
/Signature/
SECRETARY
Annex 336
Annex 337
Investigative Department of the Zheleznodorozhny District of
Simferopol of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative
Committee of Russia for the Republic of Crimea, Order No. 1002-17
on carrying out certain investigative activities, 17 August 2017
Translation
(Coat of Arms of the Russian Federation)
Investigative Committee of Russia
Main Investigative Directorate for the
Republic of Crimea
Investigative Department of the
Zheleznodorozhny District of Simferopol
60 Karla Marksa Str., Simferopol, the Republic
of Crimea, Russia, 295006
17 August 2017 No. 1002-17
To the Head
Of the Directorate of the Ministry of Internal
Affairs of Russia for the city of Simferopol
Police Colonel
S.V. Nikolaev
ORDER
on carrying out of certain investigative activities (operative search, search activities)
I am the investigator for the inspection material of the Crime Reports Registration Book No. 1001 of
31 December 2014.
On 31 December 2014, the Investigative Department for the Zheleznodorozhny District of Simferopol
of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of Russia for the Republic of Crimea
received from 534th Military Investigative Department for the Black Sea Fleet the inspection materials on the
report of E.A. Zakrevskaya on abduction and illegal deprivation of liberty of M.V. Vdovchenko, citizen of
Ukraine, by unidentified persons.
At present, there is a need for a set of operative search measures aimed at identifying the officials of the
internal affairs bodies who patrolled Karla Marksa Street of Simferopol on 11 March 2014.
Based on the foregoing and being guided by para. 4 of Part 2 of Article 38 and (or) Part 1 of Article 152
of Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation,
I HEREBY REQUEST:
To order the officials of the Police Station No. 1 “Zheleznodorozhny” of the Directorate of the Ministry
of Internal Affairs of Russia for the city of Simferopol, subordinated to you:
1. To perform a set of operative search measures aimed at identifying the officials of the internal affairs
bodies who patrolled Karla Marksa Street of Simferopol on 11 March 2014.
2. After the persons specified in paragraph 1 of this Order are found, to ensure their appearance before
the investigator to participate in the questioning, under the procedure provided for in Articles 144-145 of the
Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation.
For the execution of this order, please keep in touch with the initiator at the specified contact phone
number.
Due to the limited time frame for the inspection, I ask you to execute this order, as soon as possible.
Senior Investigator
Of the Investigative Department
Lieutenant of Justice (signed) E.A. Kozlova
Phone number […], […]
Annex 337
Annex 338
Investigative Department of the Zheleznodorozhny District of
Simferopol of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative
Committee of Russia for the Republic of Crimea, Letter No. 1001-17,
17 August 2017
Translation
(Coat of Arms of the Russian Federation)
Investigative Committee of the Russian
Federation
Main Investigative Directorate for the
Republic of Crimea
Investigative Department of the
Zheleznodorozhny District of Simferopol
60 Karla Marksa Str., Simferopol, the Republic
of Crimea, Russia
17 August 2017 No. 1001-17
To the Head (Regiment Commander)
Of the State-funded Institution of the
Republic of Crimea “Crimean Republican
Headquarters of the People’s Militia – the
People’s Guard of the Republic of Crimea”
S.N. Dimov
In the context of the necessity according to the inspection material of the Crime Reports Registration
Book No. 1001 of 31 December 2014, on the basis of Part 4 of Article 21 of the Criminal Procedural Code of
the Russian Federation, Article 7 of the Federal Law “On the Investigative Committee of the Russian
Federation”, you are kindly asked to provide us with information about the employees of the people’s militia
who on 11 March 2014 patrolled Karla Marksa Street of Simferopol and streets adjacent to it.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation!
Senior Investigator
Of the Investigative Department
Lieutenant of Justice (signed) E.A. Kozlova
Phone number […], […]
Annex 338
Annex 339
Directorate for Supervision of Criminal Procedural and Operative
Search Activities of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of
Crimea, Letter No. 15/1-382-2016/On4261-2017, 29 August 2017
Translation
Amnesty International Gruppe
(to be declared to all applicants)
[email protected]
(handwritten: 382-16)
29 August 2017 No. 15/1-382-2016/On4261-2017
The Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic considered the collective application from the supporters of
the Amnesty International regarding the results of investigation of the criminal case in connection with
E.U. Ibragimov’s disappearance.
It was established that an inspection was carried out by the Investigative Department for the
Bakhchisaray District of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of Russia for the
Republic of Crimea in connection with E.U. Ibragimov’s disappearance, following which a decision was made
to initiate a criminal case.
Preliminary investigation in the criminal proceedings is being carried out by the Main Investigative
Directorate of the Investigative Committee of Russia for the Republic of Crimea.
E.U. Ibragimov’s whereabouts have not been established.
No specific facts suggesting that a crime was committed in relation to E.U. Ibragimov in connection
with his political views or ethnicity were obtained in the course of the investigation.
The preliminary investigation is ongoing, a range of investigative and operative search activities are
being carried out to establish E.U. Ibragimov’s whereabouts and the circumstances of the incident.
There are no grounds for any response measures based on the arguments set out in the application.
You have the right to appeal against the decision adopted to a superior prosecutor or in court.
Head of the Directorate
for Supervision of Criminal Procedural
and Operative Search Activities
of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic /Signed/ A.S. Morozov
[Illegible; Ibragimov]
/Signed/ /Signed/
[Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Crimea
No. 15/1-382-2016/On4261-2017]
Annex 339
Annex 340
Simferopol Clinical Hospital of Emergency Medical Care No. 6 of the
Republic of Crimea, Letters No. 1499/01-11, 29 August 2017
1
Translation
(Coat of Arms)
MINISTRY OF HEALTHCARE OF THE REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA
State Budgetary Healthcare Institution of the Republic of Crimea
“Simferopol Clinical Hospital of Emergency Medical Care No. 6”
(Simferopol Clinical Hospital of Emergency Medical Care No. 6)
15 Gagarina Str., Simferopol, 295026, phone number: 0(3652) 22-03-22,
e-mail: chief medical’s officer’s office [email protected]; accountant department [email protected]
OKPO 00807180, PSRN 1149102170854, TIN 9102963951, KPP 910201001
29 August 2017 No. 1499/01-11
to Ref. No. 1001-17 of 17 August 2017
To the Senior Investigator of the Investigative
Department for the Zheleznodorozhny District of
Simferopol
E.A. Kozlova
Information on request for the citizen M.V. Vdovichenko
Mikhail Valeryevich Vdovichenko born on 10 August 1972 did not apply to the trauma polyclinic
during at the specified period in March 2014 up to the present.
Chief medical officer (signed) A.S. Dyakov
Executed by Isaev
[phone number]
/Seal:
Ministry of Health of the Republic of Crimea
State Budgetary Healthcare Institution of the Republic of Crimea
“Simferopol Clinical Emergency Hospital No. 6”
PSRN (Primary State Registration Number) 1149102170854
TIN (Individual Taxpayer Number) 9102963951/
/Stamp:
MAIN INVESTIGATIVE DIRECTORATE OF THE
INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
FOR THE REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA
Investigative Department for the
Zheleznodorozhny District of Simferopol
REGISTERED IN THE INCOMING DOCUMENTS
RECORD BOOK
3 October 2017
No. (illegible)-2456-2017/
Annex 340
2
(Coat of Arms)
MINISTRY OF HEALTHCARE OF THE REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA
State Budgetary Healthcare Institution of the Republic of Crimea
“Simferopol Clinical Hospital of Emergency Medical Care No. 6”
(Simferopol Clinical Hospital of Emergency Medical Care No. 6)
15 Gagarina Str., Simferopol, 295026, phone number: 0(3652) 22-03-22,
e-mail: chief medical’s officer’s office [email protected]; accountant department [email protected]
OKPO 00807180, PSRN 1149102170854, TIN 9102963951, KPP 910201001
29 August 2017 No. 1499/01-11
to Ref. No. 1001-17 of 17 August 2017
To the Senior Investigator of the Investigative
Department for the Zheleznodorozhny District of
Simferopol
E.A. Kozlova
Information on request for the citizen M.V. Vdovichenko
Mikhail Valeryevich Vdovichenko was not hospitalized in the period from 1 January 2014 to the
present.
He did not request medical help at the hospital reception during the specified period of time.
Chief medical officer (signed) A.S. Dyakov
A.A. German
[phone number]
/Seal:
Ministry of Health of the Republic of Crimea
State Budgetary Healthcare Institution of the Republic of Crimea
“Simferopol Clinical Emergency Hospital No. 6”
PSRN (Primary State Registration Number) 1149102170854
TIN (Individual Taxpayer Number) 9102963951/
/Stamp:
MAIN INVESTIGATIVE DIRECTORATE OF THE
INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
FOR THE REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA
Investigative Department for the
Zheleznodorozhny District of Simferopol
REGISTERED IN THE INCOMING DOCUMENTS
RECORD BOOK
3 October 2017
No. (illegible)-2457-2017/
Annex 340
Annex 341
Crimean Republican Headquarters of the People’s Militia – the
People’s Guard of the Republic of Crimea, Letter No. 02-04/823,
29 August 2017
Translation
(Coat of Arms)
THE STATE-FUNDED INSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA
“CRIMEAN REPUBLICAN HEADQUARTERS OF THE PEOPLE’S MILITIA – THE PEOPLE’S
GUARD OF THE REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA”
26 a Kirova Str., room 27-49, Simferopol, the Republic of Crimea, 295011, phone number: (3652) 60-
70-60, email: [email protected]
29 August 2017 No. 02-04/823
to Ref. No. 1001-17 of 17 August 2017
To E.A. Kozlova, the Senior Investigator
of the Investigative Department for the
Zheleznodorozhny District of Simferopol,
Lieutenant of Justice
The State-Funded Institution of the Republic of Crimea “Crimean Republican Headquarters of the
People’s Militia – the People’s Guard of the Republic of Crimea”, in response to your request Ref. No. 1001-
17 of 17 August 2017, inform you that, as at the date of 11 March 2014, the Institution did not exist. The
Institution has no information on employees of the people’s militia who on 11 March 2014 patrolled Karla
Marksa Street of Simferopol and streets adjacent to it.
Head (Regiment Commander) /Signed/ S.N. Dimov
Executant O.I. Ovsyany
[phone number]
/Stamp:
MAIN INVESTIGATIVE DIRECTORATE OF THE
INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
FOR THE REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA
Investigative Department for the
Zheleznodorozhny District of Simferopol
REGISTERED IN THE INCOMING DOCUMENTS
RECORD BOOK
1 September 2017
No. (illegible)-2222-2017/
Annex 341
Volume V - Annexes 244-341