Public control as a means of prevention

1

Общественный контроль как средство профилактики

Russian citizens, as rightly noted by the head of the state Vladimir Putin, revealed a desire for… of justice. And we’re still in court, because we expect a fair judgment. But the court is limited to the legality. And justice and law — this will agree, is not the same thing. And as I believe — a human rights activist, justice is more important.

In any case, hardly anyone will dispute the fact that some court decisions are manifestly unjust. This applies, in particular, determining that the judge of the Arbitration court of the Republic of Tatarstan Olga Spiridonova dismissed my case.

In arbitration court the author of these lines addressed with the requirement to establish a legal fact, namely that the obligations of the insured in system of obligatory state pension insurance — a business entity that has ceased to exist in the order of liquidation, the insured person has not passed.

This requirement I had to say, as the district Office upfr, thinking that for the liquidated insurer’s debts remained responsible for repayment of these debts was appointed… insured. Without taking the trouble to prove that the insured is the same assignee of the insured, which violates article 61 of the civil code, from my retirement pension has been held more than 50 thousand rubles.

Thus upfr caused me no material damage and moral harm, because I am a disabled retired several months in a row remained without a pension and, consequently, without means of livelihood…

The formal reason for the termination of the proceedings, as stated in the judge Spiridonova, was that “this dispute does not relate to the special jurisdiction of cases the arbitral Tribunal under article 33 of the APC”.

In subparagraph 6, paragraph 1 of this article do state that commercial courts hear cases arising from the implementation of entrepreneurial and other economic activities. However, in paragraph 2 clarifies that these cases “are considered by arbitration court irrespective of, whether are participants of legal relations from which a dispute or the requirement, legal entities, individual businessmen or other organisations and citizens.”

I’m fighting with the upfr for the money that it’s holding me back. But most of all I like the defender gets the fact that upfr did it not by law, but by “the law of the strong.” Describing these hold as robbery, I went to the police. However, she signs of crime in the actions of the upfr is not revealed.

And then I appealed to the Prosecutor of Kirovsky district of Kazan Ravil Vakhitov with a request to give the instruction to the Management of the FIU for the return of the money withheld from my pension, because they were withheld illegally. What Mr. Vakhitov noticed that the Prosecutor’s office there is only one criterion by which it is guided by taking measures of prosecutorial response. It is the illegality of certain actions, and this is encouraging…

Back to the definition of 08.08.2016 g. in the case A65-9931/2016 that the judge Spiridonov actually denied me… justice. Considering this definition unlawful and unreasonable, I appeal to the Eleventh court of Arbitration. And, demanding to cancel it, cited the following arguments.

His definition of the judge Spiridonova carried, adopting the argument of the defendant — the office of the FIU, believes that the dispute not be resolved by the arbitral Tribunal.

Yes, the bankruptcy court protect the violated or disputed rights and legitimate interests of persons performing entrepreneurial and other economic activities (article 2 of the APC).

Yes, I do not carry out economic activities and therefore do not belong to the mentioned category of persons and therefore appealed to the court of General jurisdiction. But when my business in its production was made by arbitration court, I abandoned the trial in the court of General jurisdiction. Because the establishment of legal facts relating to business entities refers to the expertise of the arbitral Tribunal.

The main function of justice — dispute resolution should be separated from the functions of the parties. If the court does not follow this rule, he loses the ability to provide an impartial resolution of the dispute (Resolution of the constitutional court of may 3, 1995, N4-P, dated July 2, 1998, N20-P).

The viciousness of the contested definition lies in the fact that the judge, relying on the arguments of the Respondent (in favor of the termination of the proceedings) because of the lack of competence or malice ignored the fact that the defendant was motivated by a specific procedure of interest.

This interest judge Spiridonov and granted by discontinuing the proceedings, for which she had to give up their independent status (the defendant) a carrier of the judiciary.

It is obvious that in adjudicating specific cases the courts should proceed from the supremacy of the Basic law, which they must follow in the first place (the Resolution of Plenum of the Supreme court of the Russian Federation of 31 October 1995 N8 “About some questions of application by courts of the Constitution in the administration of justice”).

The Constitution States that the rights and freedoms of man and citizen determine the meaning, content and application of laws. Hence the role of justice as the guarantor of protection of the said rights and freedoms, which is achieved by timely and correct consideration of specific cases (article 18).

Given that the cessation of production in the present particular case demonstrates the interest of the court, satisfied the claim of the defendant (at the expense of the plaintiff in protecting his rights), the plaintiff demanded the judge Spiridonova to cancel the case to make a different decision.

I believe that the judge condones Spiridonova Management FIU. Why is she doing this? I think she was confident that “helpless pensioner will not stand against the coordinated efforts of the court and the defendant. And probably thought that “defends” the interests of the state.

So, the purpose of Wasp lies in the fact that flawed judicial beliefs are unable to turn domestic justice to “suck”. View, however, a decision on my appeal will take the Eleventh Arbitration court. And as to my request to issue an order Management PFR will react to the Prosecutor’s office…

Point of view editor

Illusions about a successful resolution of the case colleagues Angarskogo do not cherish. Because certain knowledge that their decisions on the disputes of citizens with state institutions the judges are not fair. And not even by law. They do it on the basis of wrongly-understood “interests” of the state.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here