2011 12/11
Аляксей Лапіцкі, Жодзіна

Aliaksiey Lapitsky, Zhodzina

Zhodzina court admitted its mistakes. That’s how you can explain the accepted comments on trial protocol made by the applicants Aliaksiey Lapitsky and Sviatlana Lapitskaya on the basis of the process recordings after getting acquainted with the protocol of October 25, 2011.

During preparation of the cassation appeal on the decision of Zhodzina court of October 17, on October 24 the applicants familiarized themselves with the reasons for judgment and on October 25 – with the protocol prepared and signed.

As a result numerous discrepancies were revealed and on October 31 15 sheets of comments on the protocol were brought to the court.

On November 3 the appeal was sent to Minsk regional court by registered mail of Zhodzina court.

On November 10 the applicants received a determination on the complaint with a request to pay the state fees up to November 14 according to the requisites mentioned.

On November 11 the state tax was paid and receipts transferred of the clerical office of Zhodzina court. When registering the receipt the applicants were given the definition of Judge T. Tratsyuk mentioned above regarding the report comments which stated: “After examining the comments on the hearing record and comparing them with the contents of the protocol, I have come to the conclusion that the comments are justified and are subject to be brought to certification.”

Next, referring to art.176 CPC, the court defined: “to certify the comments brought by the applicants… in a civil case on the complaint of Aliaksiey Lapitsky and Sviatlana Lapitskaya on the decision of Deputy Chairman of Zhodzina Executive Committee to ban the mass gathering”.

But, in this regard, despite the fact that the comments on the protocol, apparently, were found “reasonable” by the judge Tatsiana Tratsyuk and they were also “subjected to certification”, a question remains. Why the determination doesn’t have a concrete statement according to Art. 176 part 2 of CPC and a specifying that the comments on the protocol brought by the applicants were “attached to the protocol”?

Does CPC allow free interpretation on this issue? And is the definition about “certification” of the record comments brought to the court equivalent to the definition about “attaching them to the protocol”?

There are more questions. For example, why the court’s decision regarding the comments on the protocol (if it was really adopted on November 8, 2011, as it was noted) have been transferred to the applicants only on 11.11.2011 in the building of Zhodzina court but has not been sent them by mail correspondence on November 09-10 together with the definition of abandonment of their appeal without changes? Does the court, as well as the executive committee have these abusive practices of signing documents retrospectively which are considered to be a norm?

However, in any case, it is clear that the positive determination received by human rights activists for their comments on the record of the proceedings of October 13 and 17 in Zhodzina Municipal Court was:

- Made in violation of the five-day period legislated by CPC,

- Has the dubious authenticity of the date of its adoption, as well as

- Has an inaccurate formulation according to Art. 176 part 2 Code of Civil Procedural Code regarding the “attaching to the protocol” the comments on the protocol, which at the same time were considered “reasonable” and therefore “certified” by the trial court.
Attachment:

Decision of Zhodzina court with recognition of the comments on the protocol made on 15 sheets on 31.10.2011

Вызначэньне Жодзінскага суду з прызнаньнем заўвагаў на партакол, зробленых на 15 аркушах 31.10.2011

According to legal distribution,
Prepared by Ales Volny,
Belarusian Legal Portal,
by.prava-by.info

Tags:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>