He is not the owner of anything – Newspaper Kommersant No. 22 (7467) dated 02/07/2023

The Presnensky Court of Moscow refused to review the decision on the lawsuit filed by businessman Yevgeny Prigozhin against journalist Alexei Venediktov (included in the register of foreign agents). Mr. Venediktov, who two years ago called Mr. Prigozhin “the owner of PMC Wagner”, insisted on the revision. The businessman then filed a lawsuit and demanded that the journalist refute the words spoken on the air of Ekho Moskvy. In August 2022, Yevgeny Prigozhin won the case, and a month later he admitted that it was he who founded and heads the Wagner PMC. On this basis, Alexei Venediktov demanded a review of the case, to which Mr. Prigozhin stated that he “with pleasure gives victory in this court to Comrade Venediktov.” However, the journalist lost the lawsuit this time as well. Now the former editor-in-chief of Ekho Moskvy intends to appeal to the Constitutional Court, his lawyer Kaloy Akhilgov told Kommersant.

The legal dispute over the person of the head of the Wagner private military company began in the summer of 2021. Then, on the air of Ekho Moskvy (it was closed in March 2022 by a decision of the board of directors of the company), the editor-in-chief of the radio station Alexei Venediktov called businessman Yevgeny Prigozhin “the owner of PMC Wagner”. Mr. Prigozhin filed a lawsuit in response, saying that he had nothing to do with Wagner. The plaintiff demanded to refute the statement of the journalist Venediktov, to remove the relevant information from the radio station’s website, and also to fine Ekho for 200,000 rubles. In August 2022, the Presnensky Court of Moscow recognized Alexei Venediktov’s statement as “inaccurate information”, but did not oblige him to make a refutation in connection with the closure of Echo.

A month after the events described, Yevgeny Prigozhin released a statement in which he admitted that since 2014 he has been the founder of the Wagner PMC. In December 2022, Alexei Venediktov asked the Presnensky Court to reconsider the case “due to newly discovered circumstances.”

In January 2023, Yevgeny Prigozhin, through the press service, stated that he “with pleasure gives victory in this court to Comrade Venediktov.” The statement was accompanied by Echo’s accusations of “actively destroying the pro-Russian ideology” and predicting the outcome of the revision trial: “The fact that the court accepted Venediktov’s position is our great victory.” It was also reported that “justice must always triumph, even if justice is on the side of Venediktov, who for a long time was the basis for the decay of patriotism in Russia.”

However, the court did not agree with Mr. Prigozhin and “decided to refuse to satisfy the application for revision,” Judge Artem Kuzmichev announced the decision on Monday.

Mr. Prigozhin’s confession, which nullified “inaccurate information” last September, was thus left without attention. The reasons for the refusal, Kaloy Akhilgov, the lawyer of Mr. Venediktov, explained to Kommersant, are still unknown: the reasoning part of the court decision with a detailed explanation should be ready by Wednesday. It should be noted that neither Mr. Venediktov nor Mr. Prigozhin participated in the court session in Moscow. The first, according to Kommersant’s information, is now in Europe, the second, as the businessman’s press service reported, had flown to bomb Bakhmut the day before.

Kaloy Akhilgov believes that the court could have dismissed the claim “on formal grounds”, considering Yevgeny Prigozhin’s confession not “newly discovered circumstances”, but “new evidence”.

According to the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, “circumstances” are included in the list of grounds for reviewing a case, but “evidence” is not. “This is such procedural casuistry: you can cling to the terminology, although in fact it is clear that the person lied to the court, filed a deliberately false claim,” Mr. Akhilgov told Kommersant. “If he (Evgeny Prigozhin.— “b”) was initially silent, and did not deny (involvement in PMCs.— “b”), then yes, maybe this would be a new proof. But he denied, and we insist, that this is a newly discovered circumstance.

Alexei Venediktov did not comment on the decision of the Presnensky Court to Kommersant. “I think that the refusal (of the court to satisfy the claim of Alexei Venediktov.— “b”) is associated with the incredible consolidation of society, which rejects the liberal anti-Russian threat— answered, in turn, to the request of Kommersant Yevgeny Prigozhin. – Although Venediktov, of course, is a pity. Everyone fled, and he alone takes the rap for them.

The defense of the journalist now intends to appeal to the Constitutional Court.

“Because of the initial falsity of Prigozhin’s claim, Venediktov is forced to bear the corresponding losses in protecting his rights, including reputational losses,” Mr. Akhilgov explained. “There is an obvious gap in the legislation: already after the court decision, when in fact, but not legally, Prigozhin is related to this issue (to the founding and ownership of Wagner PMC.— “b”), Venediktov does not have the right to review this decision and subsequently make claims (Evgeny Prigozhin.— “b”) for damages.

Maria Starikova