About the case: Alexander Eliseev filed a lawsuit in court seeking compensation for the violation of his right to a trial within a reasonable time in the amount of 5,000 rubles. Eliseev is an accused person in a criminal case, the investigation of which began in January 2007. The plaintiff has previously filed a similar lawsuit in court and is now requesting compensation in the amount of 5,000 rubles for the period from September 2021 to February 2, 2022, as he believes that no investigation was conducted during this period. He also seeks reimbursement of legal expenses in the amount of 6,000 rubles.
The case is being considered by the St. Petersburg City Court. The judge is Sergei Anatolyevich Leontyev.
On April 21, Eliseev, Eliseev’s representative, attorney Altyev, and the representative from the Investigative Committee attended the court hearing. However, the representative from the Ministry of Finance did not appear.
Judge Leontyev opened the hearing, checked the attendance, and mentioned that the Ministry of Finance representative “cannot overcome the checkpoint,” [note: meaning security screening area at the entrance of the court] presumably due to a long queue at the court’s entrance.
The participants in the proceedings did not object to proceeding with the case in her absence.
Attorney Altyev requests reimbursement of legal costs for Eliseev. The request includes a “legal assistance agreement” and receipts for payment of legal services.
The representative of the administrative defendant does not object to including these documents, and the court attaches the request and attached documents to the case materials. The consideration of the request is deferred until a decision is made on the substance of the case.
The judge reviews the materials and proceeds with the case:
Eliseev has filed an administrative lawsuit in the St. Petersburg City Court seeking compensation for the violation of his right to a trial within a reasonable time in the amount of 5,000 rubles. In his justification, he states that the criminal case has been under investigation for a prolonged period, with prosecution initiated on January 16, 2007, and it has not been ended to this day. The case has not been sent to court and remains in the pre-trial investigation stage. Previously, the St. Petersburg City Court awarded him compensation for the violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time. However, the case has still not been concluded. The prolonged duration of the case is attributed to the inefficient and disorganized actions of the pre-trial investigation authorities. After the court’s decision, the proceedings in the case were repeatedly suspended, and the orders to suspend were successively overturned by the prosecutor’s office.
At the same time, a representative of the Ministry of Finance enters the courtroom, and the judge does not interrupt the announcement but informs about her presence after the report is completed. The judge once again announces the composition of the court and asks the representative of the Ministry of Finance if there are any motions or recusals, to which she responds negatively. The court does not explain the rights and duties to the representative of the Ministry of Finance as she does not see the necessity for such an explanation.
The judge offers the administrative plaintiff to speak on the arguments presented in the lawsuit. The representative of Eliseev takes the floor.
Defense attorney Altyev states that the administrative plaintiff supports the administrative lawsuit in full accordance with the presented arguments. Sometimes, they manage to get the investigative authorities to take some actions aimed at concluding the investigation in the case. One of the incentives for the investigative body to fulfill its obligations is the appeal to the court, which is perceived by the Investigative Committee as a measure of coercion. However, the plaintiff is interested solely in reaching a final decision in the criminal case, proving his guilt, issuing a resolution on his involvement as a defendant, and directing the criminal case to court with subsequent sentencing. If the investigative authorities believe that the evidence is insufficient, as indicated in the Criminal Procedure Code, they must make a decision to terminate criminal prosecution. Eliseev does not hide from the investigative authorities, attends all summonses, and participates in investigative actions when they are conducted.
Over the past 10 years, they managed to carry out one investigative action: after filing the current administrative lawsuit, the investigative body interrogated Eliseev and, with a delay of 15 years, issued an accusation. The plaintiff seeks compensation for the period from September 2021 to February 2, 2022, as no investigative actions were conducted with Eliseev and no steps were taken to end the investigation of Eliseev, who is charged with a criminal offense. The facts of inaction are confirmed by documents obtained by the plaintiff in response to his complaints from the prosecutor’s office after filing the administrative lawsuit. The administrative respondents did not provide evidence that they were unable to conduct these investigative actions, so the violation of the reasonable time in this case is due to the inaction and failure to comply with the requirements of the law by the Investigative Committee.
The size of the compensation is considered reasonable, and the plaintiff does not view this issue as a means of enrichment; he simply wishes for the investigation in his case to be ended one way or another.
Judge Leontiev asks if the plaintiff’s side supports the previously submitted motion to obtain copies of the resolution on suspending the preliminary investigation and copies of the interrogation protocols from the prosecutor’s office. Attorney Altyev responds affirmatively. The court informs that the mentioned documents were provided by the defendants in the previous session and asks about the purpose of obtaining them. The representative of Eliseev responds that they cannot judge the provided documents without reviewing them. The defendant, when presenting evidence, was also obliged to provide copies to Eliseev. The judge, apologizing, interrupts Eliseev’s representative and notes that current legislation does not require sending copies of materials from a criminal case to the individuals involved. Eliseev also has the right to review the materials of the criminal case, and if there are any obstacles to this, he should appeal the corresponding actions.
Furthermore, “taking into account the court’s explanations,” attorney Altyev requests a postponement of the session for reviewing the case materials. This is because the plaintiff had been reviewing the case but was not aware of any additional documents submitted by the defendant, as copies were not provided to him. The defendant also did not inform him that these documents had been submitted to the court. Eliseev could not anticipate that additional evidence would be included in the case materials, so he did not take steps to review them again. Moreover, the objections from the Investigative Committee claim that during the period for which the administrative plaintiff seeks compensation, the investigation was properly conducted, and investigative actions were carried out, including the interrogation of four individuals, including Eliseev. However, he is aware that he was not interrogated. Therefore, the request also aims to verify the claims made in the defendant’s objections.
Eliseev supports his representative’s request for a postponement. The representative of the Investigative Committee objects to granting the request because the properly notified plaintiff did not attend the previous session, and copies of the case materials were provided appropriately.
The court asks why copies of the interrogation protocols were presented in an incomplete form. The representative of the Investigative Committee explains that they provided the first and last pages but did not provide the actual text of the protocols because the preliminary investigation has not yet concluded. Access to the case materials will be possible through the established procedure after the investigation is completed.
The representative of the Ministry of Finance also objects to granting the request without providing a specific rationale for their position.
Judge Leontiev denies the request, stating that the plaintiff had enough time to familiarize themselves with the case materials since the previous session.
In response to the court’s question, Mr Eliseev confirmed that he supported the explanations of his representative and added that he had repeatedly requested to familiarize himself with the expert examinations and rulings on their conduction; the Investigative Committee had granted them, but had not yet provided an opportunity to familiarize himself with them.
The representative of the Investigative Committee objects to granting the request, citing that the plaintiff was properly informed of the previous hearing and failed to attend. They also argue that the requested compensation for legal expenses is “clearly inflated.”
Counsel Altyev asks a number of questions to the representative of the Investigative Committee about the dates of investigative actions (interrogations), the interrogation records of which were presented in the previous hearing.
Counsel Altyev: When was the interrogation of Dergazov conducted?
Representative of the Investigative Committee: Honourable court, it means that at present the Attorney Altyev in the criminal case is withdrawn by the decision of the investigator, in this case he is trying to find out the circumstances of the criminal case, including the dates of interrogations.
Judge Leontiev leaves this replica without attention and does not remove the question.
Attorney Altyev: Your opinion is on the record, I understand, answer the question that the court did not remove.
Representative of the Investigative Committee: I don’t remember.
The defendant’s representative answers the rest of the questions by giving the dates of the interrogations: 16 and 18 February 2022.
The representative of the Ministry of Finance supports the position stated in the written objections, also supports the position of the Investigative Committee, and asks to refuse the claims in full. Regarding the motion for reimbursement of court costs, he objects in full, as it has not been submitted on the basis of which receipts were paid, in which case, the contract on the basis of which these amounts were paid has not been submitted, and it is unclear why, perhaps, the Attorney Altyev also conducts other civil cases with Eliseev.
Attorney Altyev asks the representative of the Ministry of Finance whether there is a legal assistance contract dated 01.02.2022 in the annexes to the copy of the lawsuit, which was sent to the defendant by the court, or whether the court did not provide it. The representative of the Ministry of Finance leafed through the documents and then replied that it was not available.
Attorney Altyev: Have you had any obstacles to familiarize yourself with the case materials in the period from the beginning of the proceedings, i.e. from February of this year to the present?
Representative of the Ministry of Finance: No, I have not.
Attorney Altyev: No, well, neither did I.
Judge Leontyev puts up for a discussion whether the parties consider it possible to conclude the case. Representative of Eliseev responds that they consider it impossible, as the plaintiff’s side is not familiar with the materials submitted on April 7, 2022. In addition to the previously stated arguments, he explains that this was a preliminary court hearing, and Eliseev had informed the court in advance that he requested it to be held in his absence. Eliseev supports this position. Others do not object to concluding the case.
Judge Leontyev reviews the case materials, quickly flipping through them and announcing only the names of the documents: administrative lawsuit with attachments, copies of decisions of the St. Petersburg City Court dated July 01, 2021, and October 19, 2021, a contract for legal assistance, objections from the administrative respondents, copies of materials from the criminal case, explanations, a request for the recovery of court costs, evidence of incurring these expenses.
Representative of Eliseev addresses the court with a request to properly examine the presented evidence, disclose copies of materials from the criminal case provided by the Investigative Committee, as a mere reference to their existence is unclear to the plaintiff. As a result, Altyev is also deprived of the opportunity to argue and prove his case adequately. In fact, no examination has been conducted because the content of the documents has not been disclosed.
Judge Leontyev: The court clarifies that current legislation does not provide for the disclosure, reading…
Altyev’s lawyer: No, I’m not asking for reading, I asked to study the case materials…
Judge Leontyev: Understood, the court has studied it.
The court proceeds to the stage of arguments, which begin with the presentation by the representative of Eliseev, mainly reiterating the arguments already stated in the lawsuit. Regarding the information provided by the administrative respondent about the questioning conducted after February 2, 2022, it is noted that only the filing of the lawsuit in court compelled the investigative authority to initiate investigative actions. There is no evidence that any investigative actions were carried out between September 2021 and February 2, 2022. Concerning the request for the reimbursement of court costs, it is explained that the plaintiff is a pensioner, and yet, due to the violation of his rights, he incurred expenses for paying the state fee, postage costs for sending documents to the court, and expenses for legal representation, which the plaintiff tried to minimize and did not always insist on the lawyer’s participation in the court hearing. The amounts of these expenses are reasonable and comparable to the payment for the lawyer’s work as stipulated by the Government of the Russian Federation’s Resolution.
The representative of the Ministry of Finance requests to note that the lawyer’s level of involvement was minimal, and the amount of court costs is unreasonably inflated. The other participants in the process decline to participate in the arguments.
The court adjourns for deliberation.
Judge Leontyev returns from the deliberation room after one and a half minutes and announces the operative part of the decision: to satisfy all the claims of Eliseev’s administrative lawsuit in full, to charge from the Russian Federation, represented by the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, compensation for the violation of the right to legal proceedings within a reasonable time in the amount 5,000 rubles from the federal budget in favor of Eliseev, trial expenses in the amount of 5,747 rubles and 16 kopecks, and to deny the remaining claims for the recovery of court costs. The decision is subject to immediate execution.
