Constitutional Court (CC) Justice Anatoly Kononov, known for his numerous human-rights-based-approach dissenting opinions, had to resign under the threat of being dismissed on ethical violation charges. The immediate reason was his interview entitled “There Are No Independent Judges in Russia,” where Kononov, in particular, criticized the Constitutional Court for the measures taken against another CC Justice, Vladimir Yaroslavtsev. The reason for the measures, in turn, was Yaroslavtsev’s own interview entitled “State Security Bodies Rule Russia, Like in the Soviet Times.”[1]

In his interview given to the Spanish newspaper “El País” (31 August 2009) Yaroslavtsev stated that “the judicial branch in Russia during the presidency of Vladimir Putin and his successor Dmitry Medvedev turned into an instrument on the service of the executive branch,” that “the legislative branch is paralyzed,” and “the decision-making center is in the presidential administration.” “I feel myself on the ruins of the justice,” summarized Yaroslavtsev. He also sharply criticized a recent CC decision not to consider on the merits the complaint of journalist Natalia Morar, prohibited from entering Russia by the FSB (Federal State Security Service), calling the decision “profanation of justice.”[2]

The CC Plenum (October 2009) accused Justice Yaroslavtsev of a breach of the Judges’ Ethics Code and the Law on the Status of Judges, under which judges should avoid “diminishing the authority of the judiciary” and “criticizing professional actions of their colleagues.” Yaroslavtsev was not formally dismissed or otherwise disciplined, but he had to resign as a representative of the CC in the Judges Council. He remained to be a CC Justice, though.

The Plenum was closed for the press, but Justice Kononov criticized its decision in an interview given to a Russian newspaper “Sobesednik” (27 October 2009). “Yaroslavtsev was flogged on the Plenum in the best [Soviet] traditions,” ironically commented Kononov. He also criticized the newly adopted law under which the CC Chairman is no longer elected by CC Justices, but rather appointed by the Council of Federation on a proposal of the President. Kononov also briefly mentioned some important cases in which he dissented, including the cases of Natalia Morar and Mikhail Khodorkovsky.[3]

As a result, the CC proposed Justice Kononov to resign “voluntarily” to avoid disciplinary dismissal. Kononov resigned effective 1 January 2010.

On 25 November 2009 an authorized agency (Coordination Center for TLD RU) began accepting applications for the registration of domain names in Cyrillic characters in the new domain “РФ” (RF, derived from “Russian Federation”). On 27 November, however, it had to stop accepting applications because of cyber-squatters’ activity, who filed applications for Cyrillic versions of such words as “sex,” “bank,” “cinema,” etc. The agency declared that the filed applications will be cancelled, and the registration rules revised.[1]

In fact, the agency had been careful enough to take certain precautions against cyber-squatters. The original version of the registration rules stipulated that during a transition period (25 Nov. 2009 – 25 March 2010) the applications would be accepted only from governmental agencies and registered trademark owners. However, immediately after the beginning of the process it appeared that the safeguards were insufficient.

A design studio named “CETIS” filed applications for dozens of domain names like Секс.рф (sex), Банк.рф (bank), Недвижимость.рф (immovable), Кино.рф (cinema), Ипотека.рф (mortgage), etc. The studio recently registered those trademarks, mostly in somewhat unexpected classes. For example, the mark “кино” (cinema) was registered in the class of water heaters and lamps, and “банк” (bank) – in the class of umbrellas and handles for umbrellas and suitcases. “Секс” (sex) was registered as a trademark for bags.

Notably, the design studio (CETIS) was the developer of the web site of the authorized agency (Coordination Center),[2] which may explain studio’s awareness and fast reaction.

Now the agency intends to accept applications only from trademark owners who obtained their trademark registrations before 25 March 2009. In case of a collision of identical trademarks registered in different classes, the owner of the trademark registered earlier will have priority.

The Cyrillic domain itself is expected to start working in Spring 2010.

The Moscow and St. Petersburg subways refused to display the ads of Russian Newsweek journal inside the subways. The ads show certain hand gestures supplemented with a short sentence, in an arguably politically sensitive combination. A number of other Moscow agencies also rejected the ads.[1]

For example, one of the ads states: “The confidence in courts increases in Russia.” The picture shows a hand holding a wooden cross with strings normally used to control a puppet. A slogan at the bottom says: “Russian Newsweek. Everybody knows. We understand.” (The ads were developed by the Ark Thompson agency.)

The Moscow subway referred, as a ground for the refusal, to the provision of the Law “On Advertising,”[2] disallowing “the usage of abusive words, obscene and offensive images, comparisons, and expressions.” (Although none of the gestures or sentences are facially obscene.) Other agencies rejected the ads without clearly stating reasons.

Russia’s Constitution provides: “Everyone shall be guaranteed the freedom of ideas and speech.”[3] However, the issue of the applicability of this provision to commercial ads has never been tested in courts.

Major Alexey Dymovskiy, a drug trafficking control police officer from Novorosiysk, placed on YouTube and his own web site several videos addressed to Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. On the videos Dymovskiy accuses his department chiefs of extorting bribes, forcing officers to “solve” fake crimes to improve statistics, and complains of overload and underpayment. Dymovskiy was immediately fired on defamation charges. After that he arrived to Moscow and declared that he has 150 hours of audio records he had secretly made in his department, containing compromising evidence on his bosses. In response the Krasnodar regional police head General Sergey Kucheruk declared that Dymovskiy may have been used by “third parties backed by western intelligence services.”

http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=1272400

Viktor Chizhikov sued TV company NTV for using in its documentary series the image of Misha the Bear, the 1980 Moscow Olympics mascot that Chizhikov authored.  In fact, Misha became a symbol of the TV program, although the program is in no relation to sports.  Chizhikov demands 20 mnl rubles (about $700,000) for copyright infringement and moral harm inflicted to him.  NTV argues that “their” Misha was not authored by Chizhikov.[1]

Chizhikov is a Soviet artist famous for his illustrations to children’s books and, especially, for the image of the 1980 Moscow Olympics mascot.  According to Chizhikov, he had licensed Misha only to the Olympic Committee, and only for four years.  After first issues of the series had been broadcasted, Chizhikov demanded explanations from NTV, but the company denied his authorship claiming that the image in the program had been created independently. 

Like in most countries, under Russian law the creation of derivative works is a part of the exclusive right of a copyright owner, as well as public display, broadcasting, etc.[2]  For an infringement the right owner may demand either damages or statutory compensation.  The statutory compensation is calculated either (1) as double fair price, or (2) 10,000 to 5 mln rubles to the court discretion (apparently, per count, although it is not stated in the Code).[3]

The Russian General Prosecutor Office in a letter to the Association of Russian Banks opined that banks may not unilaterally increase interest rates under loan agreements with individuals, even if the agreement itself permits such increase.  This General Prosecutor Office’s position is likely to result in an increased number of inspections of banks by prosecutors and in numerous judicial disputes.[1]

The position of the prosecutors does not seem to have solid legal grounds.  The Law “On Banks and Bank Activities”[2] stipulates that a bank may not unilaterally change loan or deposit interest rates “unless this is permitted by a federal statute or an agreement with the client.”[3]  The Law further stipulates that a bank may not unilaterally decrease interest rates under time deposit agreements with individuals.[4]  Moreover, such decrease has been held unconstitutional.[5]

Nothing like that, however, is said by the Law about loan agreements.  Arguably, this means that banks may unilaterally increase interest rates under loan agreements permitting such increase.  Accordingly, provisions allowing interest rate increase are quite common in long-term loan agreements. 

Local prosecutors have always been unhappy with the loan agreement provisions permitting unilateral interest rate increase, and local courts often struk down such contractual provisions on customer protection rationale.  Now the same legal position is articulated in the General Prosecutor Office’s letter.  As a ground for the position, the letter points out that the law “does not explicitly stipulate such a right of a bank” [to unilaterally increase interest rates under a loan agreement with an individual].  The letter also refers to the above-cited Constitutional Court ruling relating to deposits: the prosecutors believe the same rationale is applicable to loans.

Bankers counter by pointing out that loan interest rate increase is economically inevitable in economic crisis conditions.  They also say that the new legal restriction will increase their costs and ultimately will result in interest rates increase under new loan agreements.

The Moscow Judge Qualification Board dismissed Judge Elena Yarlykova from her office for gross negligence.  She erroneously ordered to free a convict, mistaking him for another man.  Yarlykova is known, inter alia, for having convicted several persons in YUKOS-related criminal cases.[1]

In July 2009 Yarlykova considered a case of Vladimir Grishov, who appealed from a magistrate judgment sentencing him to six months of “corrective labor” in a “colony-settlement” (labor camp) for stealing a bottle of vodka from a supermarket.  Because of the appeal Grishov had non been actually sent to the camp; by the time of the appeal hearings he had spent 5 months and 20 days in an investigation prison.  The defendant told the judge that his mother was dying of cancer.  Judge Yarlykova reduced his punishment by ten days and ordered to release the defendant in the court room. 

Two weeks later it appeared that Grishov was still in the investigation prison.  Released in court was his cellmate, Dmitry Bazhenov, who took Grishov’s place by deception.  Bazhenov had been charged with 11 counts of fraudulently obtaining car loans in Moscow.  He was also wanted in Uzbekistan for numerous frauds.  As a result, he might get a 15-year-imprisonment sentence.  After the erroneous release he disappeared. 

Ggrishov has been released.  All decisions in his case have been annulled and he will be tried de novo.

Olga Yegorova, the Chairman of the Moscow City Court, applied to the Moscow Judge Qualification Board to dismiss Judge Yarlykova from her office.  Yegorova called Yarlykova’s actions “conscious and premeditated.”

During the Board hearings Yarlykova argued that she had taken reasonable care to identify the defendant, like asking him standard biographical questions (which he answered correctly).  She explained that she had reduced Grishov’s term because the (purported) defendant had admitted and repented his guilt in court.  However, she was unable to explain why she had reduced the Grishov sentence by ten days whereas according to the Criminal Code punishment is measured in "years and months."[2]

Yarlykova asked the Board to allow her to resign voluntarily, but the Board disagreed and dismissed her.

In 2006 Yarlykova was the chairman of the court that sentenced Vladimir Pereverzin and Vladimir Malakhovsky, former YUKOS managers, to 11 and 12 years of imprisonment, respectively, on allegations of oil theft and money laundering.  (This was in a sense a pilot case for the current case of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev).  Another defendant in that case, Antonio Valdez-Garcia, ran away amidst the trial and fled to Spain.

See also:

Former Yukos Employee: Investigators Extorted False Testimony

The Russian Organization for Intellectual Property (VOIS), a Russian right-management organization, won the competition for the right to collect royalties due to producers and performers (“neighboring rights” holders) from phonogram users, such as radio stations and TV channels.  Now the VOIS will be able to collect such royalties even without a contract with the right holder. 

Non-accredited right-management organizations may collect royalties only on the ground of a contract with the right holder.  Earlier another right-management organization, the Russian Authors Society (RAO), affiliated with the VOIS, was accredited to collect royalties due to composers and lyrics authors (copyright holders).

http://www.vedomosti.ru/newspaper/article.shtml?2009/08/05/208393 (Russ.)

The City Charter of Miass, Russia, officially published in the local gazette, was discovered to materially differ from the version adopted by the City Duma (municipal assembly).  Somebody introduced numerous amendments to the Charter in the period between its adoption and publication.  It is not immediately clear which version, if any, is now in force.

The unauthorized amendments cover a wide range of provisions.  They introduce new official positions; change the procedure of local ordinances publication; require a supermajority in the Duma for adopting certain legal provisions; reduce Duma deputies’ powers; etc.  Most likely, the statute was “edited” in the local department of the Ministry of Justice during the statute official registration (required by law).  On a request by deputies, the local public prosecution office started an investigation.

According to a federal law, local normative acts, properly adopted, enter into force upon their official publication.[1]  In this case one of the versions was not adopted, and the other one was not published.  Whether any of them has any legal force, may be a subject of a court case.

See also:

President Sings a Wrong Law

The Law “On Prosecutor Office” grants limited immunity to prosecutor office employees, allowing only the prosecutor office itself to investigate violations by prosecutors and prosecutor office investigators.[2]  Similar immunities are in place for judges, deputies, diplomats, etc.

Although a traffic police officer is still unable to draw a protocol or take other administrative actions against the apparent violator who is immune, the officer may now stop the drunk driver.  The traffic police officer should then offer a medical examination to the driver or call the authorized body for further proceedings.  The Ministry of Justice and the Public Prosecution Office reportedly have no objection against the new regulations. 

See also:

RF Supreme Court Allows Drunk-Driving for Prosecutors

Russian President Doesn't Buckle Up

The Federal Arbitrazh Court for the Ural Circuit, acting as a third-instance court, held that foreign donations to Russian non-commercial organizations (NCOs) were tax-exempt.  This is contrary to the position of the tax authorities that maintained that such donations should be taxed as regular commercial income.[1]

According to the Russian Tax Code, certain types of income are exempt from profit tax.  In particular, for all Russian organizations exempt is “special-purpose-financing” income, including “grants” (as defined).[2]  However, foreign grants qualify for exemption only where they are provided by foreign or international organizations specifically listed by the RF government (currently only 12 organizations are listed).[3]  Further, for Russian non-commercial organizations exempt are “special-purpose payments” they receive,[4] including “donations”[5] and “payments received for charitable purposes.”[6]  To qualify for exemption, the received money must be used for the maintenance of the NCO or for its non-commercial activities.  The Tax Code imposes no restrictions on the sources of “special-purpose payments” to NCOs. 

That is, there are separate exemptions for (1) grants from qualifying foreign grantors received by any organizations, and (2) donations/charitable payments from any sources received by NCOs.

A non-commercial organization in Ozersk, Chelyabinsk Region, named “Planeta Nadezd” (Planet of Hopes) received donations from various foreign charities and used them for such purposes as providing legal advice to people suffering from radioactive pollution (Ozersk was the site of a major nuclear incident in 1957),[7] as well as for paying NCO employees’ salaries etc.  The tax inspection demanded to pay profit tax on the donations on the grounds that the foreign charities were not on the list of government-approved foreign grantors [and, therefore, the exemption (1) is unapplicable].  The first-instance court agreed with the tax inspection.  However, the second-instance court reversed on the ground that the NCO duly used the foreign donations for its non-commercial purposes [and, therefore, the exemption (2) is applicable].[8]  Now the Ural Circuit has approved the second instance.

Although the Russian legal system is not precedent-based, decisions of third-instance courts are highly persuasive at least for their respective lower courts.  The Supreme Arbitrazh Court, being the fourth and the last instance in economic cases, has not yet opined on the issue. 

The Russian Ministry of Justice updated its official list of “extremist materials,” prohibited for production and distribution, by including to it a “flag with a cross.”  While the Ministry has probably had in mind the Nazi Germany flag, the wording is broad enough to cover, e.g., the Russian Navy flag, the Red Cross flag, or national flags of Switzerland, Finland, Greece, Georgia, etc.[1]

The official list of “extremist materials” is kept under the Law “On Counteracting to Extremist Activity.”[2]  According to that law, the “extremist activity” includes, in particular, “stirring up social, racial, national, or religious hostility.”[3]  “Extremist materials” are those urging to participate in extremist activity or grounding it.  The works of German Nazi and Italian Fascist leaders are “extremist materials” by definition.[4]  The official list of other “extremist materials” comprises materials recognized as “extremist” by court decisions from time to time.[5]  The production, distribution, and “possession for distribution purposes” of extremist materials are prohibited.[6]  Specifically, the “mass distribution” or “production or possession for the purposes of mass distribution” of extremist materials, as officially listed, is an administrative offence, punishable by a fine or an administrative arrest for up to 15 days.[7]  Further, public “stirring up hatred or hostility” on the basis of the sex, race, nationality, language, ethnic origin, religion, or social group is a criminal offence (up to five years of imprisonment).[8]  Although possessing or distributing “extremist materials” is not a crime by itself, it may serve as evidence in a criminal case.

Since the federal list of extremist materials consists of items banned in scattered court cases, it looks vague and uncoordinated.[9]  A banned “material” may be a book, a newspaper issue, a leaflet, a digital file, or a whole web site (e.g., Ingushetiya.ru, see Item 276).  Despite the strong legal effect of the list, the banned materials are often virtually unidentifiable (e.g., “Leaflet ‘Proclamation Call,’” see Item 315). 

The most recent item (414) added to the list is based on a court case in Ufa, Bashkiria.  The item is itself a long list of materials, apparently seized from a neo-Nazi group.  It includes various newspaper issues, leaflets, texts, and pictures, e.g., a “poster with an image of Winnie-the-Pooh with bared teeth and a swastika on the sleeve.”  Inter alia, the list includes a “flag with a cross,” without any other identification details. 

Since the term of appeal in all (or most) underlying cases has passed, there seems to be no obvious way to challenge the inclusion of a specific item to the federal list of banned materials.

See also:

“South Park” is not Extremist After All

Police Shuts Down History Website

Magazine May Be Shut Down for Quoting Hitler

News Service May Be Shut Down for Customer’s Extremism

Moscow Court Bans a U.S.-Hosted Web-Site

Morar is a Moldovan citizen.  However, in 2002-2007 she lawfully lived, studied and worked in Moscow, Russia, and expected to obtain Russian citizenship in 2008.  Morar is an investigative journalist.  She published highly critical articles about certain Russian top officials accusing them of illegal campaign financing, money laundering, etc.  In December 2007, when Morar was returning from a business trip to Israel, she was stopped on the Russian border and denied entry.  She had to return to Chisinau, Moldova.  Although she married a Russian citizen in 2008, she has never been allowed to Russia again. 

On Morar’s request, the Russian Embassy in Moldova notified her that she was disallowed to Russia on the grounds of Section 27(1) of the law “On the Procedure for Leaving the Russian Federation and Entering the Russian Federation.”[2] That statute stipulates that a foreign citizen is disallowed to Russia if “this is necessary for the purposes of ensuring the defence capacity or security of the state, or the public order, or the protection of public health.”  The statute does not require any explanation to be presented to the foreign citizen disallowed to Russia.  Morar challenged the prohibition in a Russian general-jurisdiction court, but to no avail. 

Morar filed a complaint with the Russian Constitutional Court, challenging the constitutionality of the above-quoted statutory provision.  The Court denied consideration on the merits opining that the legislature was constitutionally allowed to impose such a restriction of entry for non-citizens.  In support of its position the Court cited to judgments of the European Court of Human Rights that had held that the European Convention of Human Rights did not guarantee entry to a country for non-citizens of that country.  However, the Constitutional Court pointed out that “in each particular case a court should evaluate the actual existence of circumstances serving the grounds for the denial of entry.”  (Notably, on the general-jurisdiction court hearings officials had reportedly taken the position that they were not obliged to present any grounds at all for the prohibition.)

Interestingly, in April 2009 Morar was accused by the Moldovan authorities of masterminding Moldova’s “Twitter revolution” (she had sent out alerts to demonstrators through Twitter etc.).  The “revolution” turned violent and ultimately failed.  Morar was placed under house arrest for ten days, but then released.[3]

See also:

Journalist Looses a Case over a FSB Prohibition for Her to Enter Russia

In the Finance Ministry Storchak was responsible, in particular, for foreign state loans, including bad debts settlement.  Algeria owed money to Russia from the Soviet times.  In 1996, as a part of a settlement scheme, a Russian company named Sodexim deposited $26 mln with the Ministry of Finance.  Sodexim was supposed to receive certain goods from Algeria, sell them, and transfer the proceeds to the budget.  However, Algeria failed to deliver any goods to Sodexim.  In 2006 Russia forgave the Algerian debt, thus leaving Sodexim without any hope to receive the Algerian goods.  The Ministry of Finance agreed to return the deposited money plus interest (in the total amount of $43 mln) to Sodexim.  For that purpose an amendment to the 2007 federal budget law was developed by the Finance Ministry and later adopted by the Federal Assembly (Russian parliament) and signed into force by then President Vladimir Putin.[2]  According to the amendment, the Russian Government is authorized to decide on paying compensations to legal persons having suffered losses as a result of the Russian-Algerian debt settlement.  Storchak was responsible for developing the amendment.[3]

In November 2007 the investigative arm of the General Procurator Office detained Storchak on charges of an attempt to steal the $43 mln from the federal budget.  Eleven month later he was released pending trial.  On April 2009 investigators formally indicted[4] Storchak, together with two other persons, of a fraud attempt.[5]

Finance Minister Alexey Kudrin has always insisted that the prosecution of Storchak is unfair and ungrounded.  Storchak has not been dismissed from the ministry despite his long absence: he is still a Deputy Minister.[6]

Refusing to consider Storchak’s constitutional complaint on the merits, the Constitutional Court pointed out that the applicant effectively challenges the criminal charges brought against him, whereas the control of lawfulness and validity of law-enforcement decisions is outside of the Constitutional Court jurisdiction.

Interestingly, high-ranking investigator Dmitry Dovgy, who originally led the investigation against Storchak, in June 2009 was sentenced to nine years of imprisonment for bribery.

See also:

Senior Investigator Sentenced for Bribery

Meanwhile, the Russian Ministry of Defence accused Georgia of “armed provocations” on the South Ossetian border and promised to “use all means and resources available to protect the citizens of the republic of South Ossetia and the Russian servicemen.”  Russia recognized the independence of South Ossetia, a breakaway Georgian province, in August 2008, in the wake of a Russian-Georgian military clash over that region.[2]

According to the Law “On Advertising,” beer ads must not “use images of humans and animals, including animated cartoons.”[2]

According to the FAS interpretation of the statutory provision, also disallowed are offscreen dialogues and monologues on behalf of a specific character; imitation of beer consumption, such as clinking glasses or offscreen drinking toasts; close-ups of cars or other objects moved exclusively by humans; etc.  Although the FAS has not put its interpretation in a written form, on an informal meeting with beer companies it demanded to withdrew questionable ads by August 1. 

In case of non-compliance the FAS may institute administrative proceedings against the beer company.  The administrative fine is 40,000 to 500,000 rubles (cr. $1,300-17,000) per count.[3]  A FAS decision may be challenged in court.

On 27 April 2009 Major Evsyukov, the head of the Tsaritsino Police Department in Moscow, unprovokedly started shooting in a supermarket.  Reportedly, he shot dead a taxi driver who had given him a lift, and a cashier; seven customers were wounded.  Evsyukov was detained red-handed; the investigation is in progress.[2]

At least two of the wounded, Ilya Gerasimenko and Liza Mukhametdinova (Salikhova), filed civil suits against the Moscow and Russian governments, asking to compensate their medical expenses and “moral harm.”  The Nagatinsky District Court in Moscow dismissed Gerasimenko’s claim (in the amount of 5 mln rubles, or about $160,000) on the grounds that Evsyukov acted off-duty and used an unregistered gun.  (Although the plaintiff argued that Evsyukov was uniformed and used police-owned cartridges.)  The plaintiff was recommended to sue Evsykov himself.  Mukhametdinova’s suit is pending.  [3]

Despite investigators’ warnings, Mukhametdinova expressed willingness to testify in court hearing her claim.  “After what has happened, I have nothing to be afraid of,” she said.  However, her attorney Igor Trunov recommends her not to testify, because of the danger of possible prosecution.

According to the Civil Code, the harm inflicted to a person by “illegal acts of governmental or municipal bodies or their officers” should be compensated from the funds of the federal, regional, or municipal government.[4]

According to the Criminal Code, the disclosure of preliminary investigation data by a person officially warned by the investigator not to disclose them is a criminal offence punishable by a fine or up to a three-month arrest.[5]

According to the Russian Civil Code, parties to the contract may (with certain exceptions not relevant here) agree on the venue of cases originating from the contract.[4]  On the other hand, according to the law “On Consumer Protection”[5] in case of a consumer right dispute the consumer may at her option file a claim either at the defendant’s location, or at the consumer’s place of residence, or else at the place of concluding or performing the contract.[6]  There does not seem to be a conflict rule. 

In support of its position, Rospotrebnadzor cites the recommendations of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, suggesting to “prohibit or make null and void the following clauses in consumer credit contracts: . . . clauses which grant jurisdiction to courts in areas distant from the consumer's place of residence.”[7]

According to the Russian Constitution: “Citizens of the Russian Federation shall have the right to assemble peacefully, without weapons, hold rallies, meetings and demonstrations, marches and pickets.”[2]

The Law “On Meetings and Demonstrations…”[3] require demonstration organizers to notify local authorities 10 days beforehand and obtain from them an agreement.[4]  The authorities may deny giving the agreement and propose an alternative place and/or time for the demonstration.[5]  If the organizers do not accept the proposal, the demonstration is not allowed.[6]

In practice local authorities often routinely prohibit any pro-opposition meetings and demonstrations in central streets on such grounds as “transportation concerns” and propose demonstrators to gather in some remote city area, obviously unacceptable for them.  The claimants argued that both the procedure of negotiation between demonstration organizers and the local authorities and the criteria for a refusal must be established by law, otherwise the system is “authorization-based,” which is unconstitutional.  The Court disagreed.  On the positive side, the Constitutional Court pointed out that the organizers may challenge the authorities’ decision in local court, and the court should consider the claim before the demonstration date.

Only dissenting Justice Kononov agreed that “defects of the challenged provision preclude its uniform systematic constitutional interpretation and application.”  According to Kononov, the legal uncertainty of the provision has resulted in “cynical and unlimited lawlessness.”

Irkutsk Region Court sentenced former Mayor of Ust-Ilimsk, Russia, Viktor Doroshok to nine years of imprisonment for organizing assassination of his commercial competitor.  According to the judgment, in 1996 Doroshok, then a businessman, hired for $25,000 a killer to assassinate the CEO of a company that challenged in court the ownership of some industrial assets (woodworking workshop) controlled by Doroshok.  

Alexander Purtov (the CEO) was assassinated with two shots from a Kalashnikov.  The immediate murderer and an intermediary were found and sentenced but they refused to disclose the organizer.  Meanwhile, in 1997 Doroshok became the Mayor of Ust-Ilimsk.  In 2007 the intermediary agreed to disclose the organizer, and the Mayor was detained.  However, in 2008 a court dismissed the case on the statuteof limitation grounds (12 years).  The Russian Supreme Court reversed and remanded, pointing out that that the crime is “especially serious,” therefore the statute of limitation is inapplicable (RF Criminal Procedure Code art. 302).  Now Doroshok has been found guilty and sentenced.

http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=1209024&NodesID=6