Six claims about the illegality of the Moscow regime of self-isolation rejected for one meeting.
the Moscow city court dismissed six lawsuits against mayor Sergey Sobyanin about the illegality of his decrees on high alert, and digital badges. The plaintiffs insisted that the mayor prohibits unlawful to move around the city in the absence of published regulations health doctors. The mayor said that the regional authorities are entitled to impose high alert and restrictive measures in case of danger of infection.
the Moscow city court on 28 April rejected six claims of opposition politicians and ordinary Muscovites consolidated into one case. In particular, the opposition, headed by the municipal Deputy of area Kuntsevo Denis Shenderovich and assistant policy Dmitry Gudkov, Alexei Obukhov, has filed two lawsuits. In the first, they have challenged imposed by the mayor March 29, paragraph (in the old version is 9.3, now — 12.3) of the decree on high alert, according to which living in Moscow citizens do not have the right to leave home except for trips to work (which is not suspended by decree) or to the hospital, walking the dog, taking out the garbage, going to the store or pharmacy. They note that, according to article 27 and article 55 of the Constitution, a citizen has the right to freedom of movement and limit it may Federal law “only to the extent that this is necessary in order to protect the foundations of the constitutional system, morality, health,” , etc.
March 30, “Kommersant” reported that the order of the chief sanitary doctor of Moscow Elena Andreeva was placed in only one of the Telegram channels. Document capital management of Rospotrebnadzora did not comment, and its authenticity was then confirmed only in the city hall.
In response, the plaintiffs cite article 15 of the Constitution: “Unpublished legal acts do not apply, do not entail legal consequences, such as not entered into force”. In the Federal regulations of the CPS at that time also nothing was written about the prohibition to leave place of residence, say the plaintiffs (on 2 March, the head of Rospotrebnadzor suggested that the governors “in a timely manner to introduce restrictive measures,” but without specifics). In addition, indicate opposition, the regional legal acts concerning the rights and freedoms of a citizen, the law should enter into force not earlier than ten days after their official publication, but not immediately.
the Opposition also challenged the introduction in Moscow of digital badges.
In the lawsuit, it was noted that permits need to provide personal data and information about private life, violating the right to inviolability (article 23 of the Constitution).
Introduced for offenders of the regime of punishment, the plaintiffs believe the PRinorganism to the transfer of such data without the consent of the (article 24 of the Constitution). The decree of the mayor of Moscow on the introduction of electronic passes the opposition considered “taken by outside powers” because it is a by-law and is not based on Federal law.
the Plaintiffs also refer to described in the Constitution powers of the constituent entities (together with Russia), which includes the protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens, but their regulation is permissible only with the Federal government.
the lawsuits Shenderovich and Obukhov joined several dozen Muscovites, wishing to become co-plaintiffs, was separately filed four similar complaints to the mayor.
Written objections Sobyanin, signed by his counsel C. A. Gogol, not to mention legislation of the decisions of the chief sanitary doctors. Citing numerous Federal and regional laws and regulations Gogol notes that the regional authorities are entitled to impose high alert and restrictive measures in case of danger of infection. In addition, the representative of the mayor mentions the presidential decree of April 2, which requires the governors to establish a special order of movement (but the decree of the mayor was adopted earlier.— “B”).
with regard to the entry of the capital’s decrees in force, then, according to Mr. Gogol, “they create a new regulation of relations on protection of rights and freedoms”, so you can start to act immediately after its official publication. He also believes that the plaintiffs are not restricted in moving around the city, if they have a “base”. The lawyer does not agree that the decree violated the secrecy of private life, since the permits are issued “on application principle” and checked selectively. Third party access to this data is possible, says lawyer, as in the pass do not contain personal information and cancellation of pass occurs through specified in the application communications with the applicant. Mr. Gogol also stressed that at check in mos.ru the citizen gives consent to the processing of personal data.
the Same reference is made to the act sanitary-epidemiological welfare and the European Convention for the protection of human rights.
the plaintiffs And the defendant used “the law in force with necessary parties,” the court therefore faced the task to make an informed and reasoned decision explaining the action of the laws, told “Kommersant” managing partner of the legal company “the right Position” Egor Redin. At the same time, his colleague, a partner of the International centre for the protection of the rights Globallaw Anton Mamaev believes that the administrative arguments of the plaintiffs “to a much greater extent based on the provisions of the law than the arguments of the authorities”: “��AK, in the opinion of the municipality, the prohibition to leave the house without a digital pass is not a limitation of the rights of citizens to freedom of movement”.
Moscow is not the only region whose residents are trying to challenge the regime of isolation and introduction of digital badges, Recalling the provisions of the Constitution. Similar class-action lawsuits, and lawsuits from lawyers and local deputies served in St. Petersburg, Bryansk, Lipetsk, Vologda, Orenburg, Tyumen, Rostov, Sverdlovsk, Irkutsk regions and in the Komi Republic, Udmurt Republic, Tatarstan and Perm region. Most of them have already rejected: the courts have recognized the legitimate actions of the regional authorities with the introduction of mode isolation guided by “the Supreme value of the Constitution” — the health of citizens. Part of the claims returned to the applicants or suspended for violations in the document. Some lawsuits, the courts will consider this week. So, the meeting in St. Petersburg will be held on April 29. Like the plaintiffs in Moscow, the St. Petersburg opposition politicians of “Open Russia” and “Yabloko” believe that the imposed restrictions may exist only in a state of emergency (state of emergency) or emergency (emergency).
Vladimir Heifetz, Kira Duryagina, Elena Rozhkova, Marina Tsareva, St. Petersburg, Ekaterina Eremenko, Irkutsk.
