Independent public portal on impartial trial monitoring

Administrative Supervision Case

15.03.2023 @ 19:24 – 20:24 Europe/Helsinki Timezone
Administrative Supervision Case

About the case:

Alexey Stolbnev served his sentence in the Correctional Colony № 5. After his release, Correctional Colony № 5 filed a petition to the Kolpinsky District Court to establish administrative supervision over Stolbnev (administrative supervision is the monitoring of compliance by a person released from prison with temporary restrictions on his/her rights and freedoms). The court satisfied the claim of the colony administration – Stolbnev did not agree with the decision and appealed to the St. Petersburg City Court. The case is governed by the Administrative Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

Administrative plaintiff – the Administration of the Federal Penitentiary Institution-5 of the Federal Penitentiary Service for St. Petersburg and the Leningrad region.

Administrative defendant – Alexei Ivanovich Stolbnev.

On March 15 the St. Petersburg City Court heard the case on administrative supervision.

The administrative defendant and prosecutor Skibenko appeared at the hearing, the administrative plaintiff was absent. The prosecutor was allowed to enter the courtroom before the hearing began, and the plaintiff was left waiting in the hall.

The court session began with a delay of 11 minutes. In the courtroom the defendant Stolbnev was seated  on a seats meant for the public. The judge declares that the case is about the administrative claim of Correctional Colony № 5 against Stolbnev on the establishment of administrative supervision. Then he asked the defendant if he had any motions – Stolbnev answered in the affirmative. On March 5, he sent a motion to attach to the case file his statement that the Kolpinsky District Court had not received the documents sent by him in the case. In this regard, Stolbnev filed a complaint to the head of the Kolpinsky court – it did not respond, and in fact, it turns out that this complaint was not received by the court at all. Stolbnev asks whether the chairman of the St. Petersburg City Court has received the results of the examination of his complaint. Judge Ilyicheva replies that they have not; she also notes that Stolbnev was not represented when the case was considered by the court of first instance and asks whether a representative is needed now. The defendant says that he has no objection if he is provided with an attorney, but that he does not have the financial means to hire an attorney at the moment. Judge Ilyicheva explains that there is no provision for the appointment of an attorney funded by state budget in cases of this category.

Stolbnev states that on March 5, he sent a motion to declare inadmissible the evidence submitted by the administrative plaintiff – Stolbnev’s characterization “from the 29th”. Additionally, he requests to attach to the case files the prosecutor’s response to its motion. The prosecutor objected to the admission of the prosecutor’s office reply because it was received after the court decision. He did not comment on the other motions.

Judge Ilyicheva raises the question of the possibility of hearing the case in the absence of representatives of Correctional Colony № 5. The prosecutor does not object. Stolbnev objects, considers their presence obligatory, wants to ask questions about the circumstances of the case.

The court decides to hear the case on the merits at this appearance. The judge states the case. Federal State Institution of the Federal Penitentiary Service, Correctional Colony № 5 under the Federal Penitentiary Service of the Russian Federation (FCU IK-5 UFSIN RF, “ФКУ ИК-5 УФСИН РФ” in Russian) for St. Petersburg and Leningrad region filed an administrative claim which raised the question about the establishment of administrative supervision in respect of Stolbnev for a period of 3 years with administrative restrictions in the form of a ban on visiting mass events, participation in them, a ban on staying outside the residential premises, which is the place of residence or stay, at night, a ban on travel outside St. Petersburg, the obligation to appear twice a month in the internal affairs bodies at the place of residence or registration. The administrative plaintiff referred to the fact that Stolbnev had served a sentence for committing a serious crime. Also, he is negatively characterized, has 37 penalties, has almost no rewards, on October 12, 2021 he was recognized as a persistent violator of the established regime of serving the sentence. So it is necessary to establish administrative supervision in respect of him. By the decision of the court dated 2nd of December, 2021 the claims were satisfied: the administrative supervision was established for the period of 3 years, till 20th of February, 2025 with the establishment of all the specified restrictions.

On the above decision of the court Stolbnev filed an appeal, in which he raises the question of lifting the supervision with reference to the fact that he was deprived of the opportunity to submit a written response to the administrative claim, the court did not ensure the participation of a representative, was not appointed an attorney. Also submitted an addendum to the appeal, where he refers to the falsification of documents submitted by Correctional Colony № 5 for the study of the court. In the prosecutor’s appellate submission was raised the question of reversal of the court decision due to the incorrect imposition of travel restrictions, including those outside the Leningrad Region, and the incorrect determination of the term of administrative supervision, which exceeds a period of 3 years.

Stolbnev supports his appeal, also declares a motion to request “objective data” about himself, characteristic, from Correctional Colony № 5 in connection with the fact that at the moment an inspection is being conducted on all his statements. Stolbnev points out that 2 penalties with placement in a punitive solitary confinement cell (“ШИЗО” in Russian) from 15th of March, 2021 and 2nd of April, 2021 were canceled and recognized illegal by the specialized prosecutor’s office. He also appealed to the General Prosecutor’s Office the fact of being recognized as a habitual offender.

When the Kolpinskiy court heard the case, it completely refused to reclaim all this evidence without explanation. The defendant also points out that the plaintiff’s representative participated in the video conference session, but the case materials indicated that he was in the courtroom.

The prosecutor’s response states that the administration of Correctional Colony № 5 significantly drags the process of studying the materials, as it does not provide information in time, which may entail the adoption of an unjustified decision. Therefore, the decision taken by the Kolpino District Court was biased. 

Stolbnev believes that the administration of Correctional Colony № 5 recognized him as a habitual offender only after he appealed to the prosecutor on 24th of September, 2021. That was on Friday, and on Monday 27th of September, 2021 he was immediately penalized and placed in a punishment cell, referring to the fact that he committed about 10 violations, without presenting any photo fixation, and also pointing out that he refused to give an explanation. He had written an explanation and also immediately appealed against being recognized as a habitual offender. The prosecutor’s office returned his complaints at the end of October 2021, and in November the supervisory review began, Stolbnev gave the reviewer all the statements previously returned by the prosecutor’s office. On 17th of November, 2021 Stolbnev learned the registration numbers of these documents, “only after that some movement began”.

Judge Ilyicheva draws attention to the fact that in the appeal Stolbnev filed a motion to demand the visitors’ log of the Kolpino District Court for 2nd of December, 2021, asks whether he supports this motion. Stolbnev replies that he also filed a complaint to the chairman of the St. Petersburg City Court on this matter and is currently waiting for a reply. Stolbnev wants to prove that the administrative plaintiff – a representative of the correctional facility – was present in the courtroom via VCS, and not in person, as indicated in the trial transcript.

Judge Ilyicheva: In the appeal submission there is an argument that there are no grounds for imposing restrictions on your travel outside St. Petersburg, what can you explain about this?

Stolbnev: Well, Your Honor, geographically St. Petersburg, if you go along the roundabout, it already crosses the region. And my location is such that I am right on the border with the Leningrad Oblast, where you can cross the road, and you will already be in the Oblast.

Judge Ilyicheva draws attention to the fact that the prosecutor’s response did not remove Stolbnev’s status as a habitual offender. Stolbnev replies that the process is still underway, the inspection is not yet finished, and the grounds for recognizing him as a habitual offender are currently under appeal. Judge Ilyicheva states that this case belongs to the urgent category of cases, and Stolbnev will not be deprived of the opportunity to apply for a review of the conditions of administrative supervision.

Further, Stolbnev asks to demand the results of the inspection of his complaint dated 12.10.2021, which are both in the General Prosecutor’s Office and the head of Correctional Colony № 5. In the complaint, Stolbnev pointed out the lack of grounds for recognizing him as a habitual offender and the complete absence of supporting video recording materials, given the fact that the colony is constantly monitored by video surveillance.

The Court: What do you think it matters for?

Stolbnev: It matters for the basis of recognizing me as a habitual offender.

The Court: No, what does it have to do with the establishment of supervision?

Stolbnev: So they’re establishing supervision on the basis that I’m a habitual offender. And if there is no basis that I am a habitual offender, then what kind of supervision can there be?

The prosecutor objects to the motion on the grounds that the case in question is an urgent case, and no evidence has been presented to show that the decision to declare Stolbnev a habitual offender has been overturned.

The Court denies all motions of the administrative respondent, as the requested documents are not relevant to the merits of the pending case.

Prosecutor Skibenko supports the appeal submission of the Prosecutor’s Office of Kolpino district, believes that the court adopted mutually exclusive provisions on the ban on departure from St. Petersburg and the Leningrad region. It is necessary to establish a travel ban only outside the territory of St. Petersburg, because if two of these subjects remain, it will entail legal consequences for the administrative defendant, who will violate both administrative boundaries. Requests that the judgment of the court of first instance in this part be set aside.

The court proceeds to the pleadings stage.

Stolbnev: Your Honor, I consider the decision of the Kolpino District Court was made with significant violations of the Administrative Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and the Constitution of the Russian Federation in terms of equality of the sides, which consists in the fact that the sides are equal both in the presentation of evidence and in its refutation. For some unknown reason, the court does not take into account all the evidence I have presented, does not satisfy the motions I have made. Your Honor, based on an unlawful decision, there will continue to be an unlawful decision, and that’s not fair or just.

The prosecutor withdraws from the pleadings.

The court is adjourning to deliver the verdict.

The court returns after 12 minutes and declares part of the appellate decision: to amend the decision of the Kolpino District Court of St. Petersburg dated December 2, 2021, regarding Stolbnev’s permission to leave the city. The prosecution’s appeal in this regard is granted, establishing a ban on Stolbnev’s departure from St. Petersburg. In all other respects, the first-instance court’s decision remains unchanged, and the plaintiff’s appeal and the prosecution’s appeal are dismissed.

Post comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Support our work

© 2019-2021 Independent public portal on impartial trial monitoring