On October 7, 2013 Leninsky district court of Saint Petersburg considered the appeal by the procurator’s office of Admiralty district regarding the resolution made by the Justice of Peace of 8th district Olga Glushanok, who had ruled in May 2013 that the resolution of the procurator concerning ADC “Memorial”. Leninsky district judge Olesya Buchneva decided to decline the appeal of the procurator’s office and to keep the decision of the Justice of Peace intact. Earlier Leninsky district judge Malinina has already taken the side of the Justice of Peace and left the appeal of the procurator’s office without consideration, but then Saint Petersburg city court demanded that the district court consider the appeal of the procurator’s office against the actions of the Justice of Peace. Thus, the administrative court case against ADC “Memorial” and its director Olga Abramenko has travelled through courts of various levels for half a year and became the subject of court consideration only in early October 2013. Lawyer Olga Tseitlina representing ADC “Memorial” spoke before the court and asked to leave resolution of the Justice of Peace Olga Glushanok intact, claiming that the procurator’s office should have corrected the mistakes pointed out by the Justice of Peace in three days after receiving the documents and not make an appeal against the court decision instead. The lawyer also stressed that the procurator’s office didn’t deny the mistakes in the protocols it had made concerning supposed violation of Article 19, section 34 of the Code on administrative violations.
Justice of Peace Glushanok in her resolution pointed out several violations, which were found in the actions of the procurator’s office concerning ADC “Memorial”, in particular the absence of grounds for making a check of the human rights organization by the procurators, lack of legality in the check made by the deputy procurator of Nevsky district of Saint Petersburg, incorrectly made protocols (a single protocol for prosecution was made against ADC “Memorial” concerning two parts of article 19.34, which is a violation of the Code on administrative violations, as two separate protocols are required), as well as the impossibility of charging ADC “Memorial” with simultaneous violation of two different parts of Article 19.34 (part 1 for not listing an NGO in the register of “foreign agents” and part 2 for not publishing information that an NGO is listed as a “foreign agent”). Thus, the actions of the procurator’s office were severely criticized by the judge and this was now confirmed by the decision of the district court, too.
Other arguments presented by Justice of Peace Glushanok concerned the lack of proof that ADC “Memorial” was guilty of breaking the law on NGOs. The Justice of Peace pointed to the absence of indication of the scene and time of the violation that ADC “Memorial” is charged with, as well as lack of proof for the guilt of its director and lack of clarity in stating the arguments regarding supposed violations.
Thus, in fact the district court has confirmed the correctness of the resolution issued by the Justice of Peace, which stated that the procurator’s resolution was improper, the actions of the procurator’s office were illegal and the guilt of ADC “Memorial” had not been proven.