Natalya Vasilyeva left the judiciary. The complaint did not prevent the judge from obtaining a recommendation in

The final point on the issue of the legality of granting parole to ex-official of the Ministry of Defense Yevgenia Vasilyeva will be put by the Investigative Committee. The prosecutor's office of the Sudogodsky district of the Vladimir region instructed the investigating authorities to conduct a check against judge Ilya Galagan, who made the decision on the early release of the person involved in the criminal case of embezzlement at Oboronservis.

As Gazeta.Ru found out, the investigators will check the actions of Judge Ilya Galagan for the presence of corpus delicti under Articles 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Excess of official powers”, 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Abuse of official powers”, 292 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Forgery of official documents”. In addition, the list contains articles 303 and 305 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Falsification of evidence in a civil case” and “Issuance of knowingly unjust decisions”.

The fact that such a check will be carried out is stated in a letter from the prosecutor of the Sudogodsky district, Vladimir Orlov, to the head of the Investigative Committee of the Vladimir Region, Alexander Elantsev, which was sent on September 17, 2015.

“(...) I am sending you Osechkin V. V.’s appeal regarding the applicant’s arguments about the presence in the actions of the federal judge Galagan I. G., officials of the FKU IK No. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. I ask you to notify the applicant in writing of the results of consideration of the appeal and the measures taken, to whom a copy of this letter was sent, ”the document says.

“We received an official response from the prosecutor of the Sudogodsky district of the Vladimir region, according to which the materials against Judge Galagan have already been sent to the head of the Vladimir Investigative Committee of the Investigative Committee for an audit and a decision on the presence or absence of signs of a crime in the actions of the judge who released, contrary to the established requirements in the law, Vasiliev . At the same time, it is obvious that the decision will be political and will be made directly by the chairman of the Investigative Committee Alexander Bastrykin, since it was on his proposal that

the status of a judge can be removed from Galagan and criminal prosecution is allowed,”

According to the human rights activist, copies of this letter began to come to all other citizens who turned to the prosecutor's office of the Sudogodsky district with a demand to check the legality of granting parole to ex-official of the Ministry of Defense Yevgenia Vasilyeva.

with a demand to verify the legality of the decision of Judge Ilya Galagan to release the person involved in the case of Oboronservis. Human rights activist Vladimir Osechkin, who called on Russians to protest against the “illegal and unfair” decision in this way, told Gazeta.ru. Ru”, that the regional prosecutor's office received a total of more than a hundred requests, according to which the supervisory authority is simply obliged to conduct an inspection.

The human rights activist insists that Judge Ilya Galagan made a deliberately illegal decision to parole Vasilyeva, violated all imaginable and unimaginable requirements of the law. So, at the time of the decision on parole, the sentence of the Presnensky District Court of Moscow against Vasilyeva had not yet entered into force, which means that the Moscow Federal Penitentiary Service did not have the right to transfer the ex-official to a colony to serve the sentence. In turn, the administration of correctional colony No. 1 in the Vladimir region did not have to draw up documents and a characterization for submitting parole to an official. but

Galagan not only considered the petition, but also decided to release Vasilyeva on the day the petition was considered.

Yevgenia Vasilyeva was sentenced in the so-called Oboronservis case to five years in prison in a penal colony. The Presnensky Court of Moscow found Vasilyeva guilty of laundering proceeds from crime, fraud and embezzlement of agency fees. On May 8, 2015, she was placed in the Pechatniki pre-trial detention center. And three months later it turned out that Vasilyeva was absent from prison. Then there were reports that the ex-official was allegedly seen walking around the center of Moscow. The Federal Penitentiary Service stated that Vasilyeva was transferred from the pre-trial detention center to serve her sentence, and the Moscow City Court reported that the sentence against her had not yet entered into force.

In addition to Vasilyeva, the court of first instance sentenced other defendants in the Oboronservis case to terms of three and a half to four years in prison.

Yuri Grekhnev was sentenced to four years, Maxim Zakutailo - to three and a half, Irina Yegorova - to four years, Larisa Yegorina - to four years and three months in prison. All the defendants were credited with the terms of their detention and under house arrest. Another defendant in the Oboronservis case, Dinara Bilyalova, who testified against Vasilyeva and Serdyukov, was previously sentenced to four years in prison.

The agenda of the High Qualifications Board of Judges today included a record number of applicants for positions in the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District over the past five years - five. Three candidates are now working in the Moscow Arbitration Court, two - in the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal.

The most dramatic was the appearance before the members of the VKKS of Valentina Goloborodko from the 9th AAS. The speaker said that complaints were received to the addresses of the HQCC, Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Vyacheslav Lebedev and the Judicial Department under the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation that Nikita Belkov, who was admitted to the court from a commercial organization, worked for the applicant, and that Goloborodko considered the case, in which Belkov's father was on the defendant's side.

The judge was very emotional about these complaints. “The secretary applies to the entire judicial staff, it is not only my secretary. He sat in all cases, she said. - The appointment of secretaries and assistants is not in my competence. I can't be held accountable for that." According to her, there is a high workload in the court, “personnel shortage”, and no one noticed Belkov’s biased attitude, except for the complainants. Belkov continues to work in court.

Goloborodko was so indignant at what she considered to be unfair and far-fetched complaints that when she left the hall for the duration of the meeting of the collegium, she continued to be rather loudly indignant. A colleague soothed her in a whisper. But five minutes later the board announced that she was recommended, and the judge's mood improved: she began to smile. But Goloborodko refused to comment to the correspondent on the website of the complaint, information about which was announced at the meeting.

With Natalia Koltsova from the 9th AAS, they talked about the cancellation of judicial acts, without naming, however, their number. “One of the main reasons is the incomplete investigation of the circumstances of the case and the inconsistency of the conclusions with the circumstances of the case. The reasons for this? - that was the question.

“Probably, most likely, a high workload,” Koltsova answered, then added, “sometimes they blame that it was necessary to take measures to ensure that the applicant, for example, clarified his positions. And yet, the appellate instance cannot always clarify the claims ... ”The judge assured the members of the HQCC that all cancellations are analyzed in court. “We try not to make such mistakes again,” she said. There were no more questions for her. Her words, apparently, satisfied the board - they recommended Koltsov unanimously.

There were even fewer questions for the other two contenders. Yulia Matyushenkova from ASGM was specified with whom her husband's apartment is jointly owned. She replied that she was with her son. Elena Filina was asked why she indicated a higher income in the questionnaire than in the tax certificate. “Probably I made a mistake and didn’t deduct 13%,” Filina replied. The Qualification Board decided to recommend both judges.

Another candidate received neither recommendation nor rejection today. Irina Vasilyeva from ASGM has a daughter, according to the speaker, who now works as the chief legal adviser at the Main Department for the Arrangement of Troops OJSC (GUOV), and before that she worked at Oboronstroy OJSC, organizations whose names were heard many times during the embezzlement trial to the Ministry of Defense, where the main defendant was the ex-director of the Department of Property Relations of the military department Evgenia Vasilyeva. In the questionnaire, Irina Vasilyeva indicated that the ASGM considered 10 cases of Oboronstroy, when her daughter worked there, the judge did not conduct them, but there were still three cases where the GUOV was one of the parties, and they were registered with Irina Vasilyeva.

Was your daughter working for the company at that moment? Timoshin asked.

“I do not have this information,” the speaker replied, and Irina Vasilyeva assured that there was no conflict of interest and promised to provide comprehensive information at the next meeting.

The infamous assistant judge of the Khamovniki District Court of Moscow, Natalya Vasilyeva, wrote a letter of resignation on Monday.

“I do not refuse a single word in an interview. However, I understand that I can’t work in such an environment with such an attitude towards myself. This showed one hour in court last Monday. Therefore, I decided to write a letter of resignation of my own free will, ”according to the statement distributed by the human rights association Agora, which provides legal support to Natalya Vasilyeva.

As a reminder, Natalya Vasilyeva, an assistant to one of the judges of the Khamovnichesky Court, acting as press secretary, gave several interviews in which she stated that the chairman of the court, Viktor Danilkin, was allegedly pressured when he wrote the verdict in the case of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev . The press service of the Moscow City Court, and then Viktor Danilkin himself denied the statements of Natalia Vasilyeva. As it turned out, she had nothing to do with the second YUKOS case at all - she was not a secretary of the court session, and, according to Mr. Danilkin, she did not even attend a single session in this case. After the completion of the process, the secretary of the meeting, Milentina Kapustina, returned to her duties as the press secretary of the court, and Natalya Vasilyeva was removed from work with the press. Ms. Vasilyeva herself, having spent her vacation in Thailand, did not go to work in court, citing sunburn received on vacation. After a week on sick leave, Ms. Vasilyeva decided to resign from the judiciary. Her statement was signed by one of Mr. Danilkin's deputies.

It should be noted that Viktor Danilkin earlier promised to bring Natalya Vasilyeva for slander. However, if this happens, it will be only after the Moscow City Court considers the appeals of the defense and the convicts themselves in the second YUKOS case. In the meantime, the trial is not scheduled, Viktor Danilkin himself went on vacation, which, as Ms. Kapustina stated, was not on for two years due to the consideration of this high-profile case.

Nikolai Sergeev

"It was just clear that it would be better if I left"

Now the former press secretary of the Khamovniki Court, Natalya Vasilyeva, spoke live on Kommersant FM about the reasons for her dismissal and plans for the future.

Natalya Vasilyeva, press secretary of the Khamovniki Court, who resigned today, told Kommersant FM live that no pressure had been put on her.

Earlier, Vasilyeva said that Judge Viktor Danilkin wrote the second sentence in the Yukos case at the direction of the Moscow City Court. Today she resigned of her own accord. The host of Kommersant FM, Margarita Polyanskaya, spoke live with Vasilyeva.

- Hello. You were on sick leave. How are you feeling?

- Now I'm healthy.

But we decided to write a statement anyway. What was the reason?

“The reason is that it’s impossible to work after what happened.

- I understand that these are the reports of news agencies where you said that you were given to understand that, in principle, they were not ready to work with you. And that was the reason.

- The reason is yes. I thought about everything, I thought that it would simply be impossible.

— Natalia, did you feel any pressure? Or was it more silence on the part of colleagues, on the part of management?

“There was no pressure as such. It was just clear that it would be better for me to leave.

How did your colleagues react to your resignation?

- No way. Usually.

- Have you commented?

- Not. Nobody commented. Nobody asked any questions, nobody asked anything.

— Are there any plans? Where are you going to work? Maybe another court or some other area of activity.

- I can't help but ask. What is it called, this is a scandalous interview about pressure on Danilkin - do you still think and think so? Or is this whole story...

- Yes. I still think and think so. And I don't go back on any of my words.

- That is, disappointment in the judicial system still remains.

As Gazeta.Ru found out, investigators will check the actions of judge Ilya Galagan for the presence of corpus delicti under Art. 285 "Exceeding official powers", art. 286 "Abuse of official powers", art. 292 "Forgery of official documents" of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In addition, the list includes Art. 303 and 305 "Falsification of evidence in a civil case" and "Issuance of knowingly unjust decisions" of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

“... I am sending you the appeals of Osechkin V.V. in terms of the applicant's arguments about the presence in the actions of the federal judge Galagan I.G., officials of the FKU IK No. 1 UFSIN of the Vladimir Region of the elements of a crime under Art. 285, 286, 292, 303, 305 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. I ask you to notify the applicant in writing of the results of consideration of the appeal and the measures taken, to whom a copy of this letter was sent, ”the document says.

“We received an official response from the prosecutor of the Sudogodsky district of the Vladimir region, according to which the materials regarding Judge Galagan have already been sent to the head of the Vladimir Investigative Committee of the Investigative Committee for an audit and a decision on the presence or absence of signs of a crime in the actions of the judge who, contrary to the established requirements in the law, released Vasiliev . At the same time, it is obvious that the decision will be political and will be made directly by the chairman of the Investigative Committee Alexander Bastrykin, since it was on his proposal that

the status of a judge can be removed from Galagan and criminal prosecution is allowed,”

Please note that at the beginning of September

Russians, dissatisfied with the early release of the ex-official, filled up the prosecutor's office of the Vladimir region with complaints

with a demand to verify the legality of the decision of Judge Ilya Galagan to release the person involved in the case of Oboronservis. Human rights activist Vladimir Osechkin, who called on Russians to protest against the “illegal and unfair” decision in this way, told Gazeta.ru that the regional prosecutor’s office received more than a hundred requests in total, according to which the supervisory authority is simply obliged to conduct an inspection.

The human rights activist insists that Judge Ilya Galagan made a deliberately illegal decision to parole Vasilyeva, violated all imaginable and unimaginable requirements of the law. So, at the time of the decision on parole, the verdict of the Presnensky District Court of Moscow against Vasilyeva had not yet entered into force, which means that the Moscow Federal Penitentiary Service did not have the right to transfer the ex-official to a colony to serve the sentence. In turn, the administration of correctional colony No. 1 in the Vladimir region did not have to draw up documents and a characterization for submitting parole to an official. but

Galagan not only considered the petition, but also decided to release Vasilyeva on the day the petition was considered.

in violation of h. 5 Article. 173 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Whereas, according to the law, prisoners are released on the 11th day after the decision on parole is made.

In addition to Vasilyeva, the court of first instance sentenced other defendants in the Oboronservis case to terms of three and a half to four years in prison.

Yuri Grekhnev was sentenced to four years, Maxim Zakutailo to three and a half years, Irina Yegorova to four years, and Larisa Yegorina to four years and three months in prison. All the defendants were credited with the terms of their detention and under house arrest. Another defendant in the Oboronservis case, Dinara Bilyalova, who testified against Vasilyeva and Serdyukov, was previously sentenced to four years in prison.