Lawyers handling criminal cases, as well as ordinary citizens dealing with inaction by the militia/police, may find it useful to read the Constitutional Court’s ruling on my complaint. You probably remember the "VTB drilling rigs case." The full story is available under the "VTB" tag. We’ve been working on it for more than two years now and have even successfully exposed all the crooks, but our dear militia still categorically refuses to open a criminal case against the effective managers of this state-owned bank. What’s more, the corrupt cops (I honestly can’t find any other word for them in this situation) have for many months flatly refused to let us review the pre-investigation inquiry materials on the basis of which numerous decisions were issued refusing to open a criminal case. It’s obvious why: the materials—and there are 40 volumes of them—clearly contain information that could easily get these effective managers about six years of "rest." But since the EMs are no fools and dutifully send UBEP (the police economic crimes unit) briefcases stuffed with papers bearing the portraits of dead presidents, they won’t let us anywhere near those materials, which is completely illegal. UBEP refuses us access on the grounds that the documents contain 1) some vague VTB secrets and 2) citizens’ personal data. Obviously, that’s nonsense: of course personal data appears in any police materials, so what now—nobody can review anything at all? crooks will declare absolutely anything a commercial secret, because that’s in their interest. That should not limit the rights of the victim. We got nowhere in the ordinary courts, so we went to the Constitutional Court to challenge the relevant provisions of the laws "On Police" and "On Personal Data."
It refused to consider my complaint, but at the same time officially clarified all the points we were interested in in our favor. 1. On information in general
...
2. On personal data in particular
You can read the full Constitutional Court ruling here. What does this mean in practice for each of us? A typical situation: you discover that the management of your DEZ (a municipal housing maintenance office) is stealing from you or from your homeowners’ association. You gather evidence. You file a complaint. The militia/police or the Investigative Committee conducts a check. But since the head of the local OVD (district police department) is effectively on the DEZ chief’s payroll, you’re told: no criminal case will be opened, and we won’t show you the inquiry materials because they contain someone’s passport number. And then you have nothing to take to court with you: all you have in hand is the "decision refusing to open a case." Now you take this Constitutional Court ruling, wave it around, and most likely force the cops through the courts to let you review the materials. And so on. This ruling matters in all those many cases where you have the right to demand that a case be opened, but the militia/police ignore the victim’s rights because they can’t be bothered to work—or because someone paid for their laziness. So make use of it. As for us, we’re starting a new round of trying to shake the materials in the "VTB drilling rigs case" out of those corrupt UBEP buffoons. Let’s hope it works this time. P.S. The Constitutional Court case was handled by Vadim Kobzev
Tags