Moscow City Duma divided along judicial lines – Picture of the Day – Kommersant

On October 26, the Moscow City Duma (MGD) preliminarily approved the candidacies of seven “public representatives” applying for vacancies in the Moscow Judicial Qualification Board (QCJ). At the same time, the Duma minority had questions both to individual applicants and to the procedure as a whole. In particular, the oppositionists were worried about the lack of publicity of the announced competition and, as a result, a small number of candidates, from which some deputies concluded that there was a conscious attempt to resolve the issue behind the scenes. However, these doubts did not affect the majority vote represented by United Russia (ER) and the My Moscow association.

Half of the issues considered at the plenary meeting of the Moscow City Duma on October 26 concerned judicial appointments. Thus, the Duma approved in the first reading the resolution on the appointment of nine justices of the peace for three years and 11 more – without limiting the term of office. The proposed candidates practically did not raise any questions from the deputies. Unless the head of the Just Russia – For Truth (SRZP) faction, Magomet Yandiev, asked why one of the new judges was “good” and not “excellent”, and communist Yevgeny Stupin was embarrassed by the complete absence of acquittals among the reappointed judges in 2022. To this, the deputy chairman of the Moscow City Court, Lyubov Ishmuratova, replied that individual “fours” do not affect the qualifications of a judge, and acquittals generally take place, although reappointed judges really do not have them.

However, most of the discussion was occupied not by the candidates themselves, but by the topic of mobilization.

For example, Elena Shuvalova, expelled from the Communist Party faction, advised the judges to be more attentive to illegally mobilized citizens. She recalled that a month ago, the secretary of the district committee of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the municipal deputy of Moscow, Roman Klimentyev, who studied at the magistracy and was supposed to receive a deferment, were called to the front.

Instead of the judges, deputy Lyudmila Stebenkova (ER) reacted to this parting word, who declared “the inadmissibility of speculation” on the topic of mobilization and spoke about the return of 14,000 illegally mobilized Muscovites to their families.

At the same time, Ms. Stebenkova expressed the opinion that the opposition is using the mobilization “as blackmail and for hype,” while she herself, visiting the wounded at the Burdenko hospital, did not hear any discontent from the mobilized.

They assured her that they “know what they are fighting for,” meaning the fight “against Satanism.”

After that, the MHD moved on to the issue of appointing members of the public to the QCJ. Alexander Semennikov (ER), who represented this resolution, explained that the collegium could include seven such candidates who must meet a number of conditions, for example, have a higher legal education and not commit discrediting acts. He also recalled that members of the QCJ consider applications from persons applying for the position of a judge, check media information about the behavior of judges, participate in making decisions on their punishment, etc.

The opposition again had questions.

Elena Shuvalova noted that the announcement of recruitment to the KKS was published at a time when the plenary meetings of the Moscow State Duma were not held, and the deputies did not know about it.

She also suspected the candidates of being biased, since exactly seven applications were received for seven vacancies.

Daria Besedina (Yabloko) added that the news about the vacancies was published only in one source – Vestnik Moskvy, which did not allow the general public to get acquainted with it and, probably, led to the fact that the candidates were elected by a “behind-the-scenes decision”. And Mikhail Timonov (SRZP) noted that due to the lack of publicity, the conditions for holding a real competition did not develop, and suggested holding a secret ballot for each candidate.

In addition, the opposition stated that they had no official information about the candidates, but suspected some of them of a possible conflict of interest. For example, Magomet Yandiev found out from judicial databases that one of the applicants for the QCJ is an “active participant in trials,” which means that he may have a conflict of interest with the judges who conduct these trials.

Alexander Semennikov, however, had answers to these questions as well.

Mr. Semennikov assured his colleagues that the coincidence of the number of applicants with the number of vacancies is pure coincidence, and the form and time of publication of the competition were chosen in strict accordance with the law.

According to United Russia, the deputies could get acquainted with the data on the candidates in the office. And if they did, they would easily be convinced that the public activists nominated to the KKS meet all the necessary criteria and will not allow a conflict of interest, summed up Mr. Semennikov.

However, the protracted squabble between United Russia and the opposition did not affect the results of the vote: all the proposed candidates were approved by a majority of votes.

Kira Heifetz