About the case: Egor Igorevich Semenov (the inmate) and Tatyana Ivanovna Semenova (his mother) filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for material and moral damage caused by the actions of the administration of SIZO-3 (Pre-Trial Detention Center No. 3) for the Rostov Region (the town of Novocherkassk). Semenov, who is being held in SIZO-3, did not receive a parcel sent by his mother, even though the parcel had been collected from the post office. The plaintiffs therefore believe that a SIZO employee may have appropriated it.
The case is being heard by the Novocherkassk town court, with Judge Svetlana Dmitrievna Styazhkina presiding.
The plaintiff Semenova is present in court. The plaintiff Semenov is connected via videoconference from IK-18 (Penal Colony No. 18) in the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug (the screen is behind the audience and cannot be seen). The defendant’s representative, V.A. Fileeva, is also present.
The plaintiffs move that requests be sent to the central office of Russian Post asking who sent the parcel to SIZO-3 and when, and who collected it and when, since they suspect that the SIZO employee who collected the parcel appropriated it.
The plaintiffs also move that the court contact Roskomnadzor (Russia’s federal communications regulator) to obtain an opinion on storage periods and on reconstructing the time the parcel was handed over.
When the judge asks on what grounds a request to Roskomnadzor should be made, the plaintiffs explain that they consider the responses from Russian Post and SIZO-3 to be unreliable and misleading to the court. The judge replies that the court relies on the information provided by the relevant authorities.
The plaintiff Semenov states that he has not received all of the case materials, and that some of those he did receive are illegible. He asks that they be sent again and that the proceedings be suspended until he has reviewed them.
The defendant’s representative, Fileeva, leaves the decision on the motions to the court’s discretion, except for the request to Roskomnadzor, which she opposes because its role in the matter is unclear.
The court grants the motion for a request to the central office of Russian Post in Moscow and also orders that the missing case materials be sent to the plaintiff. The court refuses to involve Roskomnadzor in the case.
The defendant’s representative moves to add to the case file a request to Russian Post for information on the declared value of the parcel, together with the response to it. The court grants the motion.
The court raises the possibility of joining the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia (FSIN) as a third party, as the body that makes payments if administrative claims are granted. The parties do not object. The hearing is adjourned.
