As the telegram channel of the Cheka-OGPU and Rucriminal.info found out, non-procedural complaints from citizens brought the leadership of the Moscow City Court to an apparatus conflict. On November 1, 2021, at the initiative of the chairman of the city court Ptitsyn M.Yu. The Moscow City Court established a department for dealing with appeals from citizens and organizations. According to the idea of the chairman of the court, the department was supposed to consider all incoming complaints about the work of the capital's courts (global, district and city), and thereby relieve other structural units, including judicial collegiums, about the work of which citizens complain in large numbers.
Kuznetsova and Shitova, two employees of the reception desk of the Deputy Chairman of the Moscow City Court, Kuznetsova and Shitova, who at that time had worked in various parts of the judicial system for more than 10 years, were elected to the positions of head of the department and deputy head, and were characterized from all previous places of work exclusively from the positive side. In 2021, each of the elected candidates was thanked by the Mayor of Moscow for their special contribution to the work of the Moscow City Court. However, work in new positions was not so rosy for the girls, they had to vacate their positions on their own initiative.
We have already published information that in July 2022 the Ryazansky District Court of the Ryazan Region received materials from a civil case filed by former civil servants of the Moscow City Court, where the defendant is the Moscow City Court. And so, not so long ago, information appeared on the website of the Ryazan District Court of the Ryazan Region that on October 12, 2022, the civil case was considered on the merits, and the claims were completely denied.
As Rucriminal.info found out, the initiator of the “event”, because of which this dispute appeared in court, and even in another region, was the same deputy chairman Ishmuratova L.Yu., who was already “ hero” of repeated publications of the VChK-OGPU channel with very interesting facts from his life and work.
In total, the staff for the new department was determined in the composition of 6 units to consider applications for the work of more than 1000 judges of Moscow. As a result, there were 4 people in the new department, 2 consultants headed by the head of the department and his deputy. Later, the employees themselves presented two candidates for the positions of the missing employees, however, the personnel policy of the court, carried out at the end of 2021-beginning of 2022, did not allow the department to work permanently in full force. One way or another, from November 2021 to April 2022, 2 consultants, the deputy head and the head of the department independently considered all complaints about the work of judges and the apparatus of the Moscow courts, including the city court, which, by the way, were received in 5 months, not a lot, not a little about 13 thousand. At the same time, working in limited conditions, civil servants (in the amount of 4 people) took all possible measures, in the absence of management of the department by the leadership of the Moscow City Court, gave motivated answers, having independently analyzed the gaps in the work of the courts, to more than 12 thousand appeals.
At the same time, without presenting to the court any evidence of the legality of the actions of the representative of the capital's temple of justice, Ishmuratova L.Yu. nevertheless brought from Ryazan to the employer the necessary result on the refusal of claims in full. At the same time, to the questions of the court and the plaintiffs in the trial, he answered “I don’t know”, “I’m not ready to explain”, “I can’t name it for sure”, “I just said it like that”, “it was discussed, but they forgot to indicate it”, he confused the dates, responsibilities and stuff like that. This only indicates that the defendant's representative was not ready for the trial, but this is not surprising, because it was probably initially expected that the consideration of the case would not be delayed as much as 4 months, but would be resolved in one or two meetings; probably the leadership announced that the case would end in favor of the Moscow City Court, and therefore it is not necessary to carefully prepare for the process. Having shown himself to be not quite a competent lawyer, Akimov V.S. received an award for himself - by a resolution of the Moscow City Duma dated October 26, 2022 Akimov V.S. was appointed a justice of the peace of judicial district No. 454 of the Bogorodskoye district of the Preobrazhensky judicial district for a three-year term of office.
As for the judicial act itself, here it is even more interesting. Despite the fact that the defendant did not present any evidence refuting the arguments of the plaintiffs, the court, guided by law and conscience, made a decision in which the text of the conclusion disputed by the plaintiffs was copied. Of all that the court managed to establish during the 4 months of the consideration of the case, this is that “disciplinary sanctions were applied to the plaintiffs” and that “the plaintiffs left the service on their own initiative.” The adopted court decision completely contradicts the judicial practice of the country in the category of cases of litigation under consideration. And why? Only because the defendant in the case is the capital's temple of justice and any of its actions and decisions should be taken without question?
But one phrase in the court decision still managed to interest: “The fact that some of the members of the commission were on vacation at the time the opinion was drawn up does not exclude their right to sign the opinion and does not raise doubts that it was they who put their signatures.” How many of the inspectors were on vacation? And who did the testing in the end? Why were persons on vacation appointed as members of the commission?
However, as it turned out, in addition to the members of the commission, during the official check, the Chairman of the commission himself was on vacation, which is by no means of little importance for resolving the issue of the legality of the drawn up and signed contested conclusion.
In addition, as it became known, at the present time the above department is headed by V.Yu. no applicants are received, almost all employees of both the city court and lower levels are involved in the work with appeals ...
According to the information posted on the website of the Ryazan District Court, a decision identical to the contested conclusion is under appeal, and accordingly, the Ryazan court, only the regional one, will also act as the next court instance.
We will follow the progress of the trial, because it is really interesting...
To be continued