On December 24, Syktyvkar City Court will review the case of a board member of Komi "Memorial" Vladimir Zubkov to Syktyvkar State University. A lawyer and human rights activist applied a retrial due to the discovery of new facts.

 

Let us recall, the litigation began on April 2013. On January 24, Vladimir Zubkov was dismissed from teaching on the faculty of law; on February 1, a discharge order was issued and signed by the vice-rector, at that time — ad interim head of university Alexander Pavlov.

 

The reason was the "arising of limitations on certain types of labour activity, excluding the possibility of employee performance of obligations under the employment contract". Under the "arising limitations" university management implies the existence of criminal record of V. Zubkov, "for crime against public security". The sentence was served.

 

On June 6, the Court of First Instance dismissed a claim of human rights activist Vladimir Zubkov.

 

In mid-November, the appeal petition of Vladimir Zubkov on the case of his dismissal from SyktSU was excluded from consideration in the Supreme Court of the Komi        Republic upon the application of the plaintiff. The approach of the lawyer was reviewed in the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.

 

At the beginning of today's session of the Syktyvkar City Court Vladimir Zubkov raised the question regarding the participation of a prosecutor in the process, asking to expel him from the courtroom.

 

“I don’t need any prosecution support with the assumption that it can hardly be called a support. The prosecutor in the Court of First Instance was engaged with other matters: he studied the supervisory review of another person and also supported the position of the defendant. Moreover, the representative of supervision body also supported the position of my opponent in the Court of Appeal, presenting petitions which were directly related to the arguments declared by the representative of Syktyvkar State University.”

 

In addition, the plaintiff asked to pay attention to the code of the European Court practice, which pointed to the inadmissibility of the prosecutor's participation in cases of such disputes.

 

“According to the court, there is a preclusive list of applicants on disputes unrelated to the criminal law with the possible participation of the prosecutor. I have no relevance to any of the participants in this list,” Vladimir Zubkov explained his position.

 

The defendant's representative Yevgeny Cheranev said that SyktSU is a budgetary institution, not a body of executive power; so according to him, the participation of the prosecutor in the judicial process is lawful and justified.

 

The court determined to withhold a satisfaction of alleged petition of V. Zubkov for expelling the prosecutor from the court-room.

 

On the merits, the plaintiff explained that on December 10 the Constitutional Court of Russia rendered the following determination: judicial acts against Zubkov should be reviewed, wherefore he has filed an application.

 

Later Yevgeny Cheranev mentioned that decision under appeal was set for June 6, 2013.

 

“When considering the case in the appeal instance, the Constitutional Court rendered a determination, according to which the court stated what kind of circumstances must be considered in relation to the plaintiff to determine whether he is dangerous to the mental and moral development of minors. The appeal instance took into account these circumstances, however, the plaintiff withdrew his complaint. It is clear that this was done in order to obtain a review of the decision,” Y. Cheranev began.

 

“Do you believe that the determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated October 20, signed by Mr. Zorkin, shouldn’t be executed?” Zubkov asked.

 

“The appeal instance has already examined these circumstances, but this is my opinion, the court will deal with this case. It must be executed; but it was stated in the operative part that the decision is liable to retrial as applicable, unless there are other obstacles.”

 

“Name them…”

 

However, the defendant's representative held back from indications of obstacles of retrial.

 

“Dear Court, according to the representative, in fact, the court expressed its position regarding investigation of the circumstances at the appeal instance. Maybe some judicial act was passed which wasn’t brought to my knowledge?” V. Zubkov said.

 

“You are trying to push through only those decisions that you need. I said that the court hadn’t passed a judgment in its final form,” Y. Cheranev answered.

 

“You said that the court estimated...”

 

“Of course, if you didn’t withdraw the complaint, it would estimate. Perhaps there could be another outcome.”

 

“So estimated or would estimate? You are a professional lawyer!”

 

“In this case, there was no final act. You shouldn’t talk about my professional abilities now...”

 

“It’s my turn to speak,” V. Zubkov reminded.

 

“I ask you not to disparage the others, you can give any comments in your tabloids,” the representative of the university Y. Cheranev threw off (apparently referring to the online-journal «7x7» — the only media illuminating the history of uneasy relations between lawyer and university leadership — Ed.).

 

“I am making a remark, please be correct to each other,” the judge Tatyana Popova appealed to the contestants.

 

“Well, I am very pleased that, as it turned out, I owe a "tabloid". I haven’t heard about this fact till this session,” Vladimir Zubkov couldn’t resist. “Your Honor, it is obvious that the appeal instance hasn’t done and couldn’t have done any conclusions due to my rejection of the application. The retrial of the case was only possible in the Court of First Instance. Judicial decision of the Constitutional Court will be impossible to cross even for Marina Dmitrievna (Istikhovskaya — head of SyktSU — Ed ) with her vast opportunities. I think that I have the right to defend my position the way I do it now.”

 

Before the judge retired to the jury room, the prosecutor had stated that, in her opinion, the case should be reviewed due to the discovery of new facts.

 

As a result, the court determined to cancel the decision of Syktyvkar City Court of June 6 and to assign a retrial on December 24.

 

Yaroslava Parkhacheva. Photo: Maxim Polyakov, «7x7»

 

Original: http://7x7-journal.ru/item/35293?r=komi