What a magnificent legal maneuver the authorities have come up with to shield Prosecutor Chaika from an ACF lawsuit.
As you may recall, when he first mumbled, “This was commissioned, and I will name who commissioned it,” we immediately sued him, demanding that he name this sinister figure.
Today, the sinister name was finally named, but that changes nothing in substance: in court, we will demand proof for the laughable claims that the film was made not by ACF, but by “Browder on behalf of the intelligence services.” We are presenting evidence that Chaika’s deputies had dealings with the Tsapok gang (a notorious criminal group from southern Russia), so let him prove his claims as well.
Under the law, a lawsuit to protect honor, dignity, and business reputation may be filed only at the defendant’s place of residence—in this case, Chaika’s. Clearly, this is a matter of territorial jurisdiction, since such claims are filed neither in commercial arbitration court (ACF is a non-profit organization) nor in the Supreme Court.
Yury Chaika’s financial disclosure lists one apartment. Half of it belongs to his wife, while he is listed as having the right to use it.
That apartment is located at 12 Rochdelskaya Street, Building 1—according to an extract from Rosreestr (Russia’s state real estate registry):
We see the wife owning half the apartment, just as stated in the disclosure, which means this is where the elder Chaika has the “right to use the apartment.”
The address 12/1 Rochdelskaya Street falls within the jurisdiction of Moscow’s Presnensky District Court.
Even if we were mistaken about Chaika’s residential address, the claim could still be filed under Article 29 of the Russian Code of Civil Procedure at the location of the property—which is the very same address.
Nevertheless, the court’s press office informed us that our claim would not be considered… on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.
“We simply returned it” is categorically unacceptable to us.
Part 2 of Article 135 of the Russian Code of Civil Procedure, on returning a statement of claim, says: the judge must issue a reasoned ruling stating which court the applicant should apply to if the case is outside that court’s jurisdiction, or how to remedy the circumstances preventing the case from being initiated.
If Prosecutor Chaika has another place of residence, then he is lying in his disclosure. If he is not lying in his disclosure, then the court is lying to us.
What we are seeing are plainly unlawful tricks by the judicial system to prevent ACF from suing Chaika.
Basically: he doesn’t live here, and we don’t know where he does live—go find out yourselves.
Maybe they are simply hinting that we should go to some municipal court in Halkidiki (in Greece) or the district court of the canton of Vaud (in Switzerland)—jurisdictions supposedly closer to the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation?
ACF believes there still must be some place in Russia where a lawsuit can be filed against the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation. We will find it.