The decision by Tverskoi District Court of Moscow has put struggle with corruption, also administrative and judicial reforms out of the law, and partially abolished the Law On the Media. 

That was done by the judge T.A.Fedosova with the secretary N.S.Prokopenkova in the presence of Novaya Gazeta representatives (the plaintiff) and representatives from the Federal Service For Supervision of Protection of Consumers’ Rights and Human Wellbeing (respondent). It shall be explained from the beginning that it is Mr. Gennady Onishchenko, the former head sanitary doctor in the country, who is responsible for the human well-being in Russia. That’s significant to note, as after becoming the head of Rosptrebnadzor Mr. Onishchenko got to be one of the most influential law enforcers in the country. He even may have more influence in terms of starting a war on the neighboring territories, if we compare him with the General Staff.   

The story of our litigation has been lasting over a year. It began with the fact that the agency of this political fighter against Norwegian salmon and Abkhazian tangerines refused responding to written enquiries made by Novaya Gazeta.  

The matter is that according to Article 39 of the Law on the Media, any media entity has the right of making an enquiry to any agency about the question related to publicly significant information, and any agency is obliged to respond.  

It’s been over a year that we work with different ministries and agencies. We ask them questions and in case we don’t get answers, we go to the court. The perspective of the courts proceedings makes even FSB respond to us, and sometimes the couriers from there come right to the court sessions, bringing the exhausting answers. 

But what is FSB compared to Mr. Onishchenko?

He has not responded to us four times. First we enquired about the Georgian and Moldavian wines. We asked who had done the expertise finding some harmful impurities in it. We also asked to see the official conclusions of those expertises and to know the names of the manufacturers and brands bringing harmful products for our people. Two letters, delivered from our office to Mr. Onishchenko’s agency, were left unanswered.   

Our next request was whether sanitary services had carried out any investigation of the mass poisoning of children at the schools of Shelkovsky district of Chechnya and what measures had been taken about all that. Once again the post office delivered next two letters in vain.  

Obviously, there is no need to prove that the both situations are of public interest and they refer to danger for life and health of many people. Obviously again, both questions are within competence by Gennady Onishchenko. Actually, he was the first to start speaking about Georgian wines and the territorial bodies of Rospotrebnadzor were to send forbidding letters to restaurants and degustation rooms, when the “wine story” began. 

We managed to win the Tverskoi Court within a year. They were obliged to consider our lawsuit in its merits after Moscow City Court (which is a higher court) decided twice they must do it.  

During the court’s proceedings, however, the Rospotrebnadzor representative made an amazing statement that Georgian wines and Chechen children have no relation to the agency; they don’t have information about any expertise done and don’t want to hear about any poisoned schoolchildren. Looked like it had not been Mr. Onishchenko to start a trade war against Georgia and Moldavia and it was not people from his organization whose responsibility is regular checking the schools and kindergartens for meeting sanitary norms. If we are not mistaken, it was Mr. Onishchenko to give an account about poisons in the summer camps this year. And finally, doesn’t the name itself of his organization speak about the range of its responsibilities: “protection of the consumer’s rights and the human well-being”?         

In the final end, the judge Fedosova decided to dismiss the case. In the court’s opinion the topic of enquiry did not have any relation to the newspaper itself. If we were selling Georgian wines, then Mr. Onishchenko could have responded to us, but it turns out that he has no obligation to respond to a media entity. 

Incidentally, in judge Fedosova’s opinion the plaintiff, i.e. Novaya Gazeta, “had all opportunities of placing a request with other organizations or agencies for getting the information it was interested in”. That means we could have applied to a neighboring vendor kiosk or Psychiatrist Association, but we did not do it, so we can thank ourselves.    

The consideration of the lawsuit above, which was actually a trifle, has established a destructive precedent not only causing a dangerous legal situation, but also explaining the whole philosophy of the existing state system and position of common citizens, media bodies and judicial power within it.  

When the court bends to the executive power even about the case of such minor importance, when it is just afraid of accepting the lawsuit against a high ranking official, then how this court is supposed to make any official obey the law? This court is not even able to oblige an official to send to a newspaper just a runaround note, and that’s not about big fines or bribery. That’s all defines perfectly, better than any GPS, the position of the courts in the Russian vertical of power: this is lower of the low limit.    

Now it is meant after the court’s decision that the state bodies really have the right of non-responding to any asking media, despite the fact it is their responsibility, according to the law. Now the state bodies may not give information, not react to any complaints, not receive applicants personally, not give accounts, and not answer the phone calls. And now any official who decides not to notice a citizen, a media entity or a public organization will be supported by the court in his/her ignoring the spirit and the letter of the law.  

Along with that the court states that such behavior by an official does not violate the rights by the media or by citizens, the right for requesting the information. Here we deal with an amazing interpretation of the rights and liberties that has established in our courts de facto. The court explains to us that we have realized our right for making an inquiry and no one will be suiting us for that and no one has been hindering us in making the request. That means we only have the right to ask for response and not to receiving it!    

If such judicial logic were passed to other kinds of human rights, then far-going conclusions might be made.   

Hostages, for example, have the right for life, and they can use this right. As for the state, it is not obliged to save those hostages.

Those dissenting have the right of speaking about their opinions at the meetings, but officials are not obliged to provide for them such opportunities.  

Citizens have the right of applying to the law enforcement bodies for getting protection, but the bodies have no responsibility of consideration such applications.

There have been many instances where human rights were interpreted exactly this way, by the court. The judge Fedosova, when delivering the decision on the Novaya Gazeta action, just followed the established legal practice. 

If we put aside the generalization and come to particulars, then the decision by the Tverskoi Court means that the Law on the Media has been partially abolished on the territory of the Russian Federation and any official is not obliged to answer questions related to his professional activities.   

In a situation where the state bodies become inaccessible with the court’s decisions even for indirect control by citizens, media and public organizations, in such a situation there is no use talking about struggle with corruption and about administrative reforms. 

The decision taken, though, might be not understood by the higher court…