Moscow Court Issues Legally Incorrect Response to Telegram Representatives

Lawyers from the Agora group discovered a lack of understanding of civil procedure by employees of the Tagansky District Court of Moscow in a court decision that left their private complaint unaddressed.

The website of the Moscow City Court published the decision of the Tagansky District Court of Moscow to leave without action the private complaint filed by representatives of Telegram Messenger Limited Liability Partnership.

According to the court press release: “By the decision of the Tagansky District Court of Moscow dated April 13, 2018, the request of the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media to restrict access within the Russian Federation to information resources operated by Telegram Messenger Limited Liability Partnership was granted. In accordance with Article 320 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, decisions of the court of first instance that have not entered into legal force may be appealed in the appellate procedure. On May 10, 2018, a private complaint from a representative of the interested party, Telegram Messenger Limited Liability Partnership, was received by the Tagansky District Court of Moscow.”

In their complaint, Agora’s lawyers, representing Telegram in court, expressed their disagreement with the blocking and requested the reversal of the Tagansky District Court’s decision from April 13, 2018, specifically regarding the application of Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Code (immediate enforcement of the court decision).

The press release from the Tagansky Court further states: “After reviewing the submitted private complaint, the judge concluded that it should be left without action, and a deadline was set to correct the deficiencies by June 4, 2018.”

The judge has so far refused to consider the complaint because the state fee was not paid.

In response, as reported by Agora head Pavel Chikov on his Telegram channel, “the Telegram legal defense group decided to clarify the provisions of the law to the court”:

• Telegram filed a private complaint regarding the interim measures within 10 days after the blocking decision.
• Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The court has the right to order immediate enforcement of its decision. “3. A private complaint may be filed against the court’s order for immediate enforcement of its decision.”
• Article 333.36 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. Exemptions when applying to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, courts of general jurisdiction, and justices of the peace. “1. Organizations and individuals are exempt from paying the state fee when filing with the court: private complaints against court orders, including those regarding interim measures.”

An appellate complaint against the blocking decision will be filed within the established timeframe.

It is no secret that Moscow courts do not possess sufficient knowledge of substantive and procedural law. But to publicly demonstrate such unprofessionalism is to make the legal community laugh. The Tagansky Court has succeeded in this.

As a reminder, the Moscow Arbitration Court recently left without action the first lawsuit against Roskomnadzor over the consequences of blocking the Telegram messenger. The claim was filed by entrepreneur Alexander Vikharev, owner of LLC “Investori.” The businessman demanded compensation of 5 million rubles for losses his investment company suffered after Roskomnadzor’s “carpet bombing” actions.