Memorial is required to vacate the premises

In the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, proceedings have begun on the suit of the Prosecutor General’s Office against the research and educational center (NIPTs) “Memorial”. In February 2022, the society received as a donation a room in Moscow in Karetny Ryad from the International Memorial (liquidated by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation). The Prosecutor General’s Office considered that this was an attempt to hide property in the process of liquidation of NGOs. The agency called the donation a fictitious deal and demanded that the premises be given to the state. Memorial claims that the NIPTs has been working there since the mid-1990s, and human rights activists call the lawsuit itself pressure on NGOs. According to the law on NGOs, property can be used for statutory purposes, and the lawsuit does not justify why this cannot be done, the expert says.

The subject of the proceedings was a room with an area of ​​1018 sq. m in Karetny Ryad. The suit of the Prosecutor General’s Office (Kommersant has it) explains that since 2005 it belonged to the International Memorial, but in February 2022, against the backdrop of the process of liquidation of the society, “under the guise of a donation”, it was transferred to the NIPTs “Memorial”. “Checking the donation found that it was fictitious,” the supervisory authority claims, stating that the property was transferred to a “non-functioning organization” and “does not pursue a socially useful goal” (contrary to Article 582 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on donations). The prosecutor’s office demanded that the premises be turned into state revenue. And on September 12, the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow seized the premises and accounts of the executive directors of the liquidated “International Memorial” Elena Zhemkova and the current NIPTs “Memorial” Boris Belenkin. As explained in the lawsuit, it was they who signed the agreements under which International Memorial donated 11 million rubles to Memorial Research Center.

In 2016, International Memorial was recognized as a foreign agent, and in December 2021 it was liquidated by decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. In “Memorial” the demand for the liquidation of NPOs was associated with the publication of “execution” archives and data on the involvement of KGB officers in terror. In turn, in the suit of the Prosecutor General’s Office, the reason was “demonstration of persistent disregard” for the legislation on foreign agents and “creation of a false image of the USSR as a terrorist state.” The lawsuit alleges that during the liquidation of the NPO, its property was hidden “for illegal activities”, and the donation procedure was carried out to exclude the disputed premises from the “liquidation mass”.

Note that Art. 20 of the Law “On Non-Commercial Organizations” states that creditors can first claim the property of a liquidated organization; after satisfying their requirements, it can be directed to the goals defined in the charter of the NPO. And only if the use for statutory purposes is impossible, it turns into state revenue.

International Memorial’s lawyer Marina Agaltsova claims that the NPO had no creditors, and the premises were donated in accordance with the society’s statutory goals. Ms. Agaltsova does not agree with the prosecutors’ statement about the transfer of property in favor of a “non-functioning organization.” “The Prosecutor General’s Office considers the deal imaginary. But during such a transaction, the parties do not want to create legal consequences, but formally transfer its subject. In our case, the property was used, not fictitiously transferred,” she explains. The lawyer says that NIPTs “Memorial” has existed since the 1990s, has published about 50 books and was the “brain” of the “International Memorial” in archival work. And human rights seminars and lectures were held in the building on Karetny Ryad in 2022 as well. “The lawsuit is thrown around with words about prohibited activities, it is written as an indictment. But our organization was not banned, it was liquidated for violating the activities of foreign agents,” emphasizes Ms. Agaltsova, who calls the prosecutors’ claim “intimidation” and “a mockery of the law.”

Stanislav Danilov, partner at the Pen & Paper Bar Association, finds the Prosecutor General’s claim “strange”. The expert does not understand why the premises of “Memorial” should be allocated to the state, “since the claim does not contain, by and large, any justification why this property cannot be used for statutory or charitable purposes.” “In fact, the Prosecutor General’s Office concludes that no other organization on the territory of the Russian Federation that is engaged in similar goals (with Memorial.— “b”), is not suitable in order to obtain the relevant property. This thesis, at least from the statement of claim, has not been proven,” adds Mr. Danilov.

Alexander Voronov