Приложение 1 к письму
от 21 июля 2005г.
Хотя бы один раз, я – жертва по статье 34 Конвенции
1. В решении суда (приложение 86 к жалобе) сказано:
«На основании статьи 493 ЖК РСФСР…
- Выселить Синюковых Г.В., Б.П., Д.Б. из квартиры №9 дома 16 по ул. Грина в г. Москве, с предоставлением другого благоустроенного жилого помещения, расположенного по адресу: Москва, ул. Бартеневская дом 13 кв. 121.
- Прекратить право собственности Синюковой Г.В. на жилое помещение, расположенное по адресу: Москва, ул. Грина 16 кв. 9.
- Предоставить в собственность Синюковой Г.В. жилое помещение по адресу: Москва, ул. Бартеневская 13-121 с последующей регистрацией на данную площадь Синюковых Б. П. и Д.Б.
- Во встречном иске Синюковых Б.П., Г.В., Д.Б. отказать.
- Жилое помещение по адресу: Москва, ул. Грина 16, кв. 9 перевести в муниципальный фонд города Москвы».
2. Статья 493 Жилищного кодекса РСФСР: «Если дом, в котором находятся приватизированные квартиры, подлежит сносу по основаниям, предусмотренным законодательством, выселяемым из него собственникам квартир с их согласия предоставляется равноценное жилое помещение на праве собственности либо иная компенсация…» (выделено мной).
3. Нашего «согласия» никогда не было, так как мы обжаловали решение суда во второй инстанции. Получается, что суд принудил нас к «согласию»? Это же абсурд! Закон неприменим к нашему судебному делу.
4. Мы нашу квартиру не приватизировали. Мы ее – купили. Закон говорит только о бесплатно приватизированных квартирах. То есть, и по этому фактору закон неприменим к нашему судебному делу.
5. Российские власти и суд игнорируют в статье 493 формулу «снос по основаниям, предусмотренным законодательством». Во-первых, за это «основание» воспринимается «градостроительный план». Но «градостроительный план» не есть закон, так как «градостроительный план» изменяется властями почти каждый месяц, что для закона недопустимо. Во-вторых, статья 493 вступила в законную силу 6 июля 1991 года, то есть, до вступления в законную силу Конституции РФ (12 декабря 1993 года) и закона «Об основах федеральной жилищной политики» (24 декабря 1992 года). Другими словами, статья 493 обязательно должна быть проверена на соответствие Конституции и упомянутому закону. В третьих, согласно статье 6 упомянутого закона «Об основах федеральной жилищной политики» только я – собственник своей квартиры в кондоминиуме (весь наш дом) могу принять решение (не ущемляя интересов части кондоминиума, принадлежащей властям) о сносе моей собственности. Кроме меня никто не может принять такого решения, исключая правительство России (статья 35 Конституции). При этом никакая региональная власть не имеет полномочий, принадлежащих исключительно правительству России.
6. Эта моя позиция изложена подробно в моей жалобе, в частности – в Дополнении № 6 к жалобе.
7. Совокупность этих фактов показывает, что российский суд творит произвол. При этом каждый факт в отдельности (мои пункты 3, 4, 5) требует вмешательство Европейского Суда для статьи 1 Дополнительного протокола к Конвенции в части «никто не может быть лишен своего имущества иначе как … на условиях, предусмотренных законом и общими принципами международного права».
Я не уверен в «машинном» переводе этого обращения, поэтому прилагаю текст по-русски.
Б. Синюков.
The appendix 2 to the letter
From July, 21, 2005г.
Exhaustion of all internal remedies of legal protection
1 case
The appeal of the illegal decree of government of Moscow about Destroying of my property - appendix 33.
The refusal in adoption of the point of claim by the trial court - appendix 34.
The appeal of the refusal in the court of appelate jurisdiction - appendix 35.
The court ruling of the second instance about reconsideration of business - appendix 36.
Reconsideration, refusal of the trial court about satisfaction of the petition - appendix 73.
The appeal of the refusal in the court of appelate jurisdiction - appendix 38.
The court ruling of the second instance about the refusal in satisfaction of the petition - in the appendix 73.
2 case
The first claim of prefecture about ejectment of my family - appendix 39.
The court ruling about the withdrawn claim of prefecture - appendix 43.
3 case
The second claim of prefecture about ejectment of my family - appendix 44.
The decree of the first instance - to withdraw the property and to eject, is announced orally.
The appeal for review on this decision - appendix 48.
The court ruling of the second instance about reconsideration of business - appendix 64.
The calling back of the claim by prefecture at reconsideration and closing of business by the court ruling - appendix 84.
My private complaint on this court ruling - appendix 85.
The court of appelate jurisdiction - to leave the private complaint without satisfaction - appendix 85.
4 case
The third claim of prefecture about ejectment of my family - appendix 63.
The decree of the first instance - to withdraw the property and to eject - the appendix 86.
The appeal for review - appendix 70.
The court of appelate jurisdiction - to give up in satisfaction of the petition - appendix 90.
Application(declaration) in court about reconsideration on the again opened circumstances - appendix 159.
The refusal of the first instance in reconsideration - appendix 164.
The private complaint in the court of appelate jurisdiction - appendix 165.
The court of appelate jurisdiction - to give up - appendix 166.
5 case
My legal action to authorities(powers) about tortures - appendix 103.
The refusal in adoption of the claim - appendix 104.
The private complaint on this refusal - appendix 107.
The court ruling of the second instance about reconsideration of the refusal in the first instance - appendix 111.
At reconsideration in the trial court - to leave without movement - the appendix 121.
The private complaint on this decree - appendix 122.
The court ruling of the second instance - to reconsider leaving without movement - appendix 128.
At reconsideration in the trial court - again to leave without movement - the appendix 127.
The private complaint on this decree - appendix 129.
The court of appelate jurisdiction - to agree with the first instance to leave without movement - 132.
6 case
My petition in the trial court on lawless actions of the bailiff on execution of the fourth case - appendix 78.
The court ruling of the first instance - to leave the petition without movement - appendix 88.
Explanation to the judge, that it(he) is not right leaving the petition without movement - appendix 89.
The judge has agreed and began process - appendix 112.
The decree - is orally announced to give up in satisfaction of the petition.
The appeal for review in the second instance of court - appendix 117 is sent.
The court ruling of the second instance about reconsideration of business - appendix 130.
The business is reconsidered by the trial court and the appendix 152 is partially satisfied -.
The appeal for review in a part of unsatisfied demands - appendix 154.
The court of appelate jurisdiction - to give up - appendix 157.
Application(declaration) for distribution of the writ of execution on the satisfied demands - appendix 160.
By the unforeseen law the refusal - appendix 161.
The petition in Collegiate organ of the judges - appendix 162.
The refusal of collegiate Organ of the judges - appendix 163.
B. Sinyukov.
Приложение 2 к письму
от 21 июля 2005г.
Исчерпание всех внутренних средств правовой защиты
1 судебное дело
Обжалование незаконного постановления правительства Москвы о сносе моей собственности – приложение 33.
Отказ в принятии искового заявления судом первой инстанции – приложение 34.
Обжалование отказа в суде второй инстанции – приложение 35.
Определение суда второй инстанции о пересмотре дела – приложение 36.
Пересмотр, отказ суда первой инстанции об удовлетворении жалобы – приложение 73.
Обжалование отказа в суде второй инстанции – приложение 38.
Определение суда второй инстанции об отказе в удовлетворении жалобы – в приложении 73.
2 судебное дело
Первый иск префектуры о выселении моей семьи – приложение 39.
Определение суда об отозванном иске префектуры – приложение 43.
3 судебное дело
Второй иск префектуры о выселении моей семьи – приложение 44.
Решение суда первой инстанции – изъять собственность и выселить, объявлено устно.
Кассационная жалоба на это решение – приложение 48.
Определение суда второй инстанции о пересмотре дела – приложение 64.
Отзыв иска префектурой при пересмотре и закрытие дела определением суда – приложение 84.
Моя частная жалоба на это определение суда – приложение 85.
Суд второй инстанции – оставить частную жалобу без удовлетворения – приложение 85.
4 судебное дело
Третий иск префектуры о выселении моей семьи – приложение 63.
Решение суда первой инстанции – изъять собственность и выселить – приложение 86.
Кассационная жалоба – приложение 70.
Суд второй инстанции – отказать в удовлетворении жалобы – приложение 90.
Заявление в суд о пересмотре по вновь открывшимся обстоятельствам – приложение 159.
Отказ первой инстанции в пересмотре – приложение 164.
Частная жалоба в суд второй инстанции – приложение 165.
Суд второй инстанции – отказать – приложение 166.
5 судебное дело
Мой судебный иск к властям о пытках – приложение 103.
Отказ в принятии иска – приложение 104.
Частная жалоба на этот отказ – приложение 107.
Определение суда второй инстанции о пересмотре отказа в первой инстанции – приложение 111.
При пересмотре в суде первой инстанции – оставить без движения – приложение 121.
Частная жалоба на это постановление – приложение 122.
Определение суда второй инстанции – пересмотреть оставление без движения – приложение 128.
При пересмотре в суде первой инстанции – вновь оставить без движения – приложение 127.
Частная жалоба на это постановление – приложение 129.
Суд второй инстанции – согласиться с первой инстанцией, оставить без движения – 132.
6 судебное дело
Моя жалоба в суд первой инстанции на беззаконные действия судебного пристава по исполнению четвертого судебного дела – приложение 78.
Определение суда первой инстанции – оставить жалобу без движения – приложение 88.
Разъяснение судье, что он не прав оставляя жалобу без движения – приложение 89.
Судья согласился и начал процесс – приложение 112.
Устно объявлено решение суда – отказать в удовлетворении жалобы.
Подана кассационная жалоба во вторую инстанцию суда – приложение 117.
Определение суда второй инстанции о пересмотре дела – приложение 130.
Дело пересмотрено судом первой инстанции и частично удовлетворено – приложение 152.
Кассационная жалоба в части неудовлетворенных требований – приложение 154.
Суд второй инстанции – отказать – приложение 157.
Заявление о выдаче исполнительного листа на удовлетворенные требования – приложение 160.
Непредусмотренный законом отказ – приложение 161.
Жалоба в Коллегию судей – приложение 162.
Отказ Коллегии судей – приложение 163.
Б. Синюков.
The application 3 to the letter
From July, 21, 2005
The limit of six-monthly term - is not outraged
Case
final judgement of the second authority of court
Is directed to the European Court
Term of representation
1
Definition Court 2 authorities from November 28, 2002 (application 73)
January 15, 2003
Less
2 months
2
The court ruling from June 28, 2002 (application 43)
November 5, 2002
4 months
and 7 days
3
Definition Court 2 authorities from January 28, 2003 (application 85)
March 20, 2003
Less
2 months
4
Definition Court 2 authorities from January 30, 2003 (application 90)
March 20, 2003
Less
2 months
5
Definition Court 2 authorities from October 28, 2003 (application 132)
January 15, 2004
Less
3 months
6
Definition Court 2 authorities from September 02, 2004 (application 157)
October 30, 2004
Less
2 months
________________________________ Б. Синюков
Приложение 3 к письму
от 21 июля 2005г.
Предел шестимесячного срока - не нарушен
Судебное дело
Окончательное решение второй инстанции суда
Направлено в Европейский Суд
Срок представления
1
Определение Мосгорсуда от 28 ноября 2002 г. (приложение 73)
15 января 2003 г.
Менее
2 месяцев
2
Определение суда от 28 июня 2002 г. (приложение 43)
5 ноября 2002 г.
4 месяца
и 7 дней
3
Определение Мосгорсуда от 28 января 2003 г. (приложение 85)
20 марта 2003 г.
Менее
2 месяцев
4
Определение Мосгорсуда от 30 января 2003 г. (приложение 90)
20 марта 2003 г.
Менее
2 месяцев
5
Определение Мосгорсуда от 28 октября
2003 г. (приложение 132)
15 января 2004 г.
Менее
3 месяцев
6
Определение Мосгорсуда от 02 сентября
2004 г. (приложение 157)
30 октября 2004 г.
Менее
2 месяцев
Б. Синюков
Приложение 4 я не привожу, так как оно – в эпиграфе.
Приложение 5 (письмо Секретарю Суда) я не привожу, так как оно приведено выше.
Приложение 5-а (ответ За Секретаря Суда) я не привожу, так как оно приведено выше.
Приложение 6 (фотокопия титульной и конечной страниц Дополнения 6 к Жалобе) я не привожу, так как оно приведено в предыдущей части VII романа.
The application 7 to the letter
From July 21, 2005г.
1. Illegal "help"
to the judges, judicial community, judicial structures and Ministry of Justice of Russian Federation
on the part of the mayor of Moscow
The mayor of Moscow has not lost any suit at law, both excited by him(it), and excited against him(it). The mayor paid attention the fellow citizens to this phenomenon in mass media.
Secret of this phenomenon, that the mayor of Moscow осыпает Минюст Russian Federation, courts and judges of all levels, including the Supreme Court of Russian Federation, money of the taxpayers finding at his(its) order.
Examples:
1994.
From the Order a Premiere of Government of Moscow from July 18, 1994 N 1281-РП: "To exempt the judges from a payment for the contents of their children in children's preschool establishments".
1998.
1. From the order of the Mayor of Moscow from March 25, 1998 N 282-РМ: "… in 1997 the city … appear courts the material and technical help for the sum 21.3 Billion RUR. At the expense of the remedies of city in 1997 the buildings 22 courts were under repair. … for the period with 1994 for 1997 18 buildings of courts are repaired. For these purposes for four years is spent more than 55 Billion RUR, from them more than 47 Billion RUR - remedy of Government of Moscow. With the Ministry of Justice in 1997 of the remedy on the capital repairs of courts do not allocate. In accounting year the Government of Moscow support to the Moscow municipal court in volume 2,4 Billion RUR . In 1997 the Government of Moscow effected surcharges at a rate of 35 % to wages to the judges, and also were paid a fare in urban transport, setting of home telephone numbers to the judges. On the specified purposes the money resources in the sum 11 Billion RUR are selected. In total in 1997 on support of district courts and Moscow municipal court is selected 34.7 Billion RUR . …in 1997 the Ministry of justice has not extinguished debts to Government of Moscow in the sum 7,6 Billion RUR for granted city in 1996 housing to the judges. In 1997 to all courts was rendered financial and material aid more than 2.2 Billion RUR. Actual debts of courts to urban services for the rendered services in 1996-1997 constitutes 134.3 Billion RUR, the debts the Moscow municipal court for service of a building of The House of justice constitutes 1.7 Billion RUR".
2. Between that, the federal Act from January 8, 1998 N 7-ФЗ alleges (clause 1): "The Judicial department at the Supreme Court of Russian Federation is a federal state body realizing organizational ensuring of activity …of courts of cities of federal meaning, … of district courts, … of bodies of judicial community. Organizational ensuring of activity of courts in the present Federal act is understood as measures of personnel, financial, material and technical and other character directed on creation of conditions for complete and independent accomplishment of justice". Clause 4: "Judicial department, bodies and the establishments of Judicial department are invoked to promote strengthening of independence of courts, the independence of the judges and have no right to interpose with accomplishment of justice". Clause 5: " the Financing of courts and Judicial department is realized by Judicial department at the expense of the remedies of the federal budget". Clause 6: "Judicial department: … 14) arranges on material and technical and other ensuring of activity of bodies and establishments of Judicial department; 15) organizes construction of buildings, and also repair both hardware of buildings and premises of courts, bodies and establishments of Judicial department; …18) organizes material and social ensuring of the judges, including sojourning in demission, workers of apparatuses of courts, and also arranges on ensuring by their equipped housing; organizes health services and sanatorium treatment of the judges, including sojourning in demission, members of their families and workers of apparatuses of courts … ".
3. Nevertheless, the mayor of Moscow at the order, mentioned in my item 1, writes: "to Management of justice and Moscow municipal court to take part … in 1998 … to define a set of repair work; to take into account the consent of the prefects to render material and technical support to courts in 1998 at the expense of the remedies of the urban budget". "Having taken into account the consent of the prefects ", the mayor of Moscow allocates to the prefects on these purposes money: "6. To allocate in 1998 to prefectures of administrative districts of money resources on a total sum 2.8 Million RUR. On repair of buildings and premises of courts". And personally, from the budget of city supplements: "7. To allocate in 1998 of money resources: - Moscow municipal court in the sum 3.3 Million RUR, including 2.2 Million RUR on surcharges to the judges, on payment of a fare in urban transport, 1.1 Million RUR on the capital repairs and operation of a building of a House of justice; - for Management of justice in the sum 12.95 Million RUR, including 9.5 Million RUR on surcharges to the judges, payment of a fare on urban transport, 3.45 Million RUR on end of repair of premises and repayment of creditor debts of courts". Also ends: "14. To remove from the control the order of the Mayor of Moscow from 14.04.97 N 300-РМ as executed". The application on 6 pages with concrete money further follows. It is a direct bribe of the mayor at the expense of the taxpayers of Moscow.
4. After 5 months the mayor writes the Order of the mayor of Moscow from August 5, 1998 N 804-РМ, in which increases the sums of money, but main not in it. Main that is written: "4. To take into account, that the remedies of the Ministry of Justice of Russian Federation in the sum 200 thousand RUR will be directed … ".
In comparison with the specified many millions RUR of the mayor these "200 thousand" of Ministry of Justice of Russian Federation look "avaricious man's tears".
1999.
1. From the order of the mayor of Moscow from August 9, 1999 N 858-РМ: " I accept in attention deficiency of the remedies selected to the Supreme Court of Russian Federation from the federal budget and direction of the constructed area on improvement of housing conditions of the judges and workers of the Supreme Court of Russian Federation. To release the Supreme Court of Russian Federation from transfer to Government of Moscow of the remedies on development of a social and engineering infrastructure of city at construction of apartment houses …".
It, naturally, "gift", but only he - illegal, (see item 2 for 1998).
2. From the Order of the mayor of Moscow from August 23, 1999 N 912-РМ: "According to the annually accepted orders of the Mayor and Premiere of Government of Moscow (in the same person - I) is conducted with job on material and technical support of courts of city. In 1998 with city is selected 42.4 Million RUR (I ask again to compare with 0.2 Million RUR from The Ministry of Justice Russian Federation! – I) including on the capital repairs, construction and reconstruction - 27 Million RUR on social support of the judges and employees of courts – 11.7 Million RUR in conditions of inadequate financing from the federal budget, from the remedies of administrative districts and areas on ensuring of activity of courts was selected 4 Million RUR. With the purposes of the further strengthening of material and technical base and decision of social questions of district courts, Moscow municipal court, Management of judicial department at the Supreme Court of Russian Federation and judicial authorities of Moscow: «… 2. To take into account the consent of the prefects about conducting in 1999 of the capital repairs of courts and to allow them to pay the specified jobs at the expense of the remedies outside of the budget of funds of districts. 3. At formation of the investment program for 2000 together with Management of Judicial department at the Supreme Court of Russian Federation the questions of the further rendering of the material and technical help to courts will be construed. 4. To recommend to the prefects together with Management of Judicial department at the Supreme Court of Russian Federation to consider questions of strengthening of material and technical base of district courts by preparation of the investment programs of districts for 2000. 5. To take into account, that by Judicial department at the Supreme Court of Russian Federation in 1999 on arrangement of district courts of Moscow the budgetary remedies in the sum 2650 thousand RUR are selected. 6. To allocate to Management of judicial department at the Supreme Court of Russian Federation in II half-year of money resources in the sum 8450.9 thousand RUR, including: 6250.9 thousand RUR on surcharges to the judges, workers of the apparatus of courts and Management; 2200 thousand RUR on the capital repairs of buildings of courts and repair of premises of Management of Judicial department at the Supreme Court of Russian Federation. 8. To allocate to the Moscow municipal court in II half-year of money resources in the sum 2288.1 thousand RUR, including: 1788.1 thousand RUR on surcharges to the judges; 500 thousand RUR - on repair and operation of a building of a House of Justice. 9. To allocate to senior Management of justice of money resources in the sum 1387.2 thousand RUR on surcharges to the workers of the apparatus of senior Management, and also payment of a fare in urban transport to the workers of the apparatus of senior Management. 10. To department of the finance to pay expenses specified in items 6, 7, 8 and 9 present orders, at the expense of the remedies of a reserve stipulated in the budget on rendering of financial support to the law-enforcement agencies and military structures".
I add that the courts as a matter of fact do not refer to the law-enforcement agencies, such as police and militia. Besides I ask to pay attention to money of the mayor (8450.9) and money of the Ministry of Justice (2650.0).
3. From the Order of the Mayor of Moscow from September 28, 1999 N 1068-РМ: "1. Department of municipal housing and housing policy to grant to Judicial department at the Supreme Court of Russian Federation a possibility of acquiring in 1999 350 sq. м of common living space with payment under the cost price".
2000.
1. From the decree of Government of Moscow from May 16, 2000 N 360: "the Application 13: Under the rent contracts with the call future: advice of the rectors of high schools of Moscow 1.47 thousand sq. m of flats. The application 16: volumes of allocation of municipal living space in 1999 for free-of-charge grant under the separate circumspect documents of Government of Moscow, including: The Moscow municipal court - 5 flats on account of money resources of Russian Federation (the debts of The Ministry of Justice for the earlier selected area has constituted 17.7 million RUR); the application 10: judicial department at the Supreme Court of Russian Federation - 0,06 thousand sq. m (all under the order of the mayor from 28.09.99 № 1068-РМ - 0,35 thousand sq. m) ".
2. From the Order of the Mayor of Moscow from June 5, 2000 N 594-РМ: "in 1999 the job on material and technical and social support of district courts of city and Management of Judicial department was continued at the Supreme Court of Russian Federation. On these purposes was selected only 33.8 million RUR. Accepting in attention inadequate financing of courts from the federal budget and with the purposes of the further strengthening of material and technical base of courts of Moscow: 1. To take into account the consent of the prefects of administrative districts about rendering in 2000 financial and material and technical support to district courts (application: 17435.5 thousand RUR) and to allow them to pay the specified jobs at the expense of the remedies of target budgetary funds of districts. <…> 3. To allocate to Management of Judicial department at the Supreme Court of Russian Federation on a returnable basis of money resources in the sum 3146 thousand RUR for end of capital repair of premises …for placing Management. 4. To department of the finance of. Moscow to pay expenses specified in item 3 of the present order, at the expense of a reserve stipulated in the budget of city of Moscow for 2000 on rendering of financial support to law-enforcement and military structures ".
About "to a returnable basis" see is higher about the not returned debts of the Ministry of Justice.
3. From the order of the mayor from 18.09.2000 № 993-РМ: "2.1. It give to the civil officers of city of Moscow of living quarters from housing fund finding in the property of city of Moscow, in the order and on conditions established by the normative legal acts of Russian Federation and city of Moscow. 3. To department of housing policy and housing fund of city of Moscow: 3.1. To provide in the annual programs of realization of living space volumes of living space for legislative, executive boards of state authority of city of Moscow … 3.2. To allocate to public authorities of living quarters with the purpose of ensuring with them the civil officers of city of Moscow". To this order the Provision about the order …", and to it - "the Table of the size of the discount applied at acquiring of living quarters "by the civil officer is applied":
The common experience of a state service, years
1-3
4-6
7-9
10-12
12-14
15-19
20 и более
The size of the discount in %% to the price residential Premises
5
10
20
30
40
50
70
Taking into account, that the civil officers buy flats not on a market price, and under the cost price, which constitutes no more than thirds of price, and also rent with the call future that is (see higher), for example, the judge can buy to itself a flat on the average for 10 percents from its real price.
2001.
1. Under the application 5 to the decree of government of Moscow from 27.02.01 № 184-PP is allocated: "to prosecutor's Office of Moscow - 1000 sq. m of flats, The Moscow municipal court - 300 sq. m. of flats, Moscow arbitration court - 500 sq. m of flats, Federal arbitration court of the Moscow district - 100 sq. m of flats, all - with by the call future. Besides - " to Advice of the rectors of high school - 900 sq. m of flats and Under the various circumspect documents of government of Moscow - 1700 sq. m of flats".
Certainly, number of the exempts includes also faculty of legal faculties of high schools. And last two items in the decrees of government of Moscow leave regularly.
2. From the Order of Government of Moscow from September 21, 2001 N 96-РП: "With the purposes of strengthening material and technical base of the Moscow municipal court and according to the Agreement on joint cooperation between Government of Moscow, Moscow municipal court and Management of Judicial department at the Supreme Court of Russian Federation in one from July 5, 2001 N 4-22-10020/1: 1. To allocate in IV quarter of 2001 to the Moscow municipal court of money resources at 1600000 RUR on executing of jobs on equipment of court with the equipment of system of a videoconferencing. 2. To department of the finance of. Moscow to pay expenses specified in item 1 of the present order, at the expense of the remedies of target budgetary fund of crime control".
First, "videoconferencing" between the judges and government of Moscow not only excess, as this "communication" from the point of view of justice should be as small as possible, but also - direct harm to justice. Secondly, "crime control" is not a direct task of court.
3. From the Order of the first deputy of the Mayor of Moscow from October 31, 2001 N 164-РЗМ: "To affirm 1. The civil-engineering design 5-floor with a cellar in monolithic designs of an extension to a building Moscow municipal court under the individual draft with technical and economic parameters: building volume 65342 cubes. m, common area 15428.8 sq. m; 2. Summary budget final pays to the draft in the sum 23653.02 thousand RUR".
For contrast. From the Order of the Mayor of Moscow from November 29, 2001 N 1096-РМ: "the Item 6 of the order of the Mayor of Moscow from 22.03.99 N 234-РМ stipulates financing from the urban budget of jobs under the capital repairs of Theatre - studio Gesture of the All-Russia society of deaf persons (VOG). The theatre is not the property of city, in this connection the allocation of the remedies from the urban budget on the specified purposes will result in infringement of standards of the budgetary legislation. Considering, that from VOG is not received of the consent to transfer of theatre to the property of city, the realization of item 6 of the above-stated order is not obviously possible for carrying out. On the basis of the order, worded item 6, of the Mayor of Moscow from 22.03.99 N 234-РМ to exclude".
In other words, for the invalids the mayor of Moscow to offend against the law does not want, and for courts - the law regular offends against, (see my item 2 for 1998).
For contrast: by the application to the order of the Mayor of Moscow from March 17, 1997 N 214-РМ "the rate of the rent charge below minimal can be established for the following organizations: - bodies of justice, court, prosecutor's office …", and even to reach 1 RUR for sq. m per one year (Supreme Court of Russian Federation). Whereas according to the Application to the Decree of Government of Moscow from March 5, 1996 N 204 for "trade, execution, research activity, management of the enterprises - 300 dollars USA for sq. m per one year".
2002.
1. Under the application 12 to the decree of government of Moscow from 09.04.02 №277-ПП: "an Apartment composition under the contracts of purchase with the installment plan of payment in 2002: advice of the rectors of high school - 1,208 thousand sq. m; МGU by him Lomonosow - 1,002 thousand sq. m". Under the application of 14 same decrees: " an Apartment composition for the judges recognized municipal court – 0.701 thousand sq. m; arbitration court – 0.347 thousand sq. m".
Certainly, all this living space the judges can redeem for 10 percents of the real price.
2. From the Decree of Government of Moscow from November 5, 2002 N 922-ПП: "1. To establish to Management of Judicial department at the Supreme Court of Russian Federation for 2002 the rate of the rent charge 17.66 RUR for 1 sq. m per one year on premises borrowed by management and the borough courts, according to the application. 2.2. To take into account losses under the rent charge at a rate of 39763848 RUR at summarizing executing of the plan of department in 2002 in connection with a given privilege (item 1)".
The difference between ($ 300 х 30) 9000 RUR and 17.66 RUR behind 1 sq. meter per one year - is enormous (500 times).
2003.
From the law of. Moscow from December 17, 2003 N 75: "Clause 9. Volume of expenses of the budget on directions. To affirm expenses of the budget of city of Moscow for 2004 on sections of functional classification in the following sums: the judicial authority - 784800, including federal judiciary - 784800".
2004.
From the law of Moscow from June 16, 2004 N 41: "To affirm expenses of the budget of city of Moscow for 2004 on sections of functional classification in the following sums: management of execution of punishments of the Ministry of Justice of Russian Federation till one to Moscow - 130299; surcharges to the pecuniary contents and wages to the employees of Management of execution of punishments of the Ministry of Justice of Russian Federation on city to Moscow - 51327". (Allocation of the text everywhere - mine).
Main in all it:
- Duration since 1994 till the present time both system of "help" to the judges and courts of all levels, including the Ministry of Justice of Russian Federation;
- Deliberate interception of the initiative at the Ministry of Justice of Russian Federation in sphere of execution by it of the direct tasks connected to independence of the judiciary;
- Lodging in the management of the Ministry of Justice of Russian Federation of dependant moods. Creation of real and irresistible dependence of all system of justice from the mayor of Moscow;
- Consolidation of the judicial case and in general of all representatives of justice by means of "systems of a videoconferencing " (see my item 2 for 2001) in unnatural and illegal "excessive respect" to the mayor of Moscow.
2. Habitation and constant stay Mr. A. Kovler - Moscow
From the moment of reception on study in the Moscow institute of the international relations in 18-year's age in 1966 and before election by the Judge of the European Court constantly lived at Moscow, including - in environment of privileges of the Moscow mayor for the judicial case and judiciaries finding in Moscow. Therefore he could not be away from all that I have stated above.
I am not sure in "machine" translation of this reference, therefore I apply the text in Russian.
B. Sinyukov.
Приложение 7 к письму
от 21 июля 2005г.
|