First deputy chair of Supreme Arbitration Court testifies
Olga Pleshanova, Kommersant, 13.05.2008

For the first time those who head the Russian judicial system have acknowledged that the Presidential administration exerts pressure on the courts. On Monday Yelena Valyavina, first deputy chair of the Supreme Arbitration Court, testified to such pressure. She was called to give evidence at the Dorogomilovsky district court in Moscow where Valery Boyev, an official in the administration, is demanding the retraction of allegations by radio and TV presenter Vladimir Solovyov that he interfered in the work of the courts. 
An adviser in the presidential department that deals with personnel issues and State awards, Boyev submitted a claim in April that his honour and dignity had been impugned. (The work of this department is overseen by presidential aide Victor Ivanov.) Boyev’s lawsuit demanded that Solovyov retract assertions published on the treli.ru website and broadcast on the Silver Rain radio station. The plaintiff considered the following phrases to be libellous: “The same Boyev who is in charge of the Supreme Arbitration Court”, “There are no independent courts in Russia. There are courts that depend on Boyev”, “That’s what we call Russian justice, which is under Boyev’s control”. 

Yesterday the Dorogomilovsky court began to consider the details of the case. Lawyers for both sides were in attendance, as was Vladimir Solovyov. In response to the defendant’s request, the court called the witness Yelena Valyavina, first deputy chair of the Supreme Arbitration Court. After signing a statement acknowledging her liability in the event of perjury, Valyavina replied to questions from Solovyov and his lawyer Shota Gorgadze. Appointed to her post with the Supreme Arbitration Court in October 2005, Valyavina described how Valery Boyev approached her with instructions how to act in the dramatic case concerning shares in Togliatti Azot plc. (On 22 November 2005 the presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court revoked the decision concerning the sale of the State’s shareholding in the company, introduced in favour of the Russian Federal Property Fund.) 

Yelena Valyavina also explained the role that Boyev, as adviser to the personnel department, might play in the appointment of judges: “As a representative of the presidential administration he attended the sittings of the Supreme Credentials Collegium of Judges where certain materials might be made public. The speed with which judges were appointed also depended on him.” Furthermore, judges might be concerned, in her words, that they would not receive honorary State awards if they stood up for certain principled positions. There were no questions to the witness from the plaintiff’s lawyers. 

After Ms Valyavina had left the courtroom Shota Gorgadze asked the court to summon three more witnesses: Yevgeny Ilin, chairman of the Moscow Region Arbitration Court; Boris Kanevsky, chairman of the Nizhny Novgorod Region Court; and Artur Absalyamov, chairman of the Tenth Arbitration Appellate Court. The court gave its agreement to hear the witnesses at its sitting on 26 May. 

Meanwhile, the hearing continued. Valery Boyev’s lawyer said that his client was an official who only prepared documents concerning the appointment of judges and could not take an interest in the millions of cases being heard by Russian courts. The defendants asked that Mr Boyev himself be called to appear. According to their information he was an FSB colonel. “If what Yelena Valyavina says proves to be true, then we shall be facing not a civil but a criminal case,” Solovyov concluded. 

Legal experts consider that there may well be grounds for instigating a criminal case. “The prosecutor’s office must follow up the testimony of the witness and if her statements are proved true then a criminal case of pressure on the courts must be opened. Liability for interfering in the activities of the courts is envisaged by Article 294 of the Criminal Code and carries a maximum punishment of two years’ imprisonment,” says Vadim Vinogradov, who heads the faculty of state, international and European law at the Ministry of Justice’s legal academy. Defence attorney Yuly Tay of the Bartolius legal firm agrees that if a high-ranking officer of State accuses a highly-placed state official of committing what is, in essence, a crime, the State must respond. 

There have already been scandals in the Russian judicial system. Olga Kudeshkina, a judge with the Moscow City Court, told the media how Olga Yegorova, the Court’s chairwoman, supposedly exerted pressure on her during the case of Pavel Zaitsev, an investigator with the Investigative Committee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. He had been accused of abuse of office when investigating the smuggling of furniture sold through the Three Whales store. As a result, Olga Kudeshkina was barred from serving as a judge. Russian courts declined to consider her appeal against the decision but in 2006 the European Court of Human Rights agreed to examine her case (a decision has not yet been reached). 

At the end of 2006 the head of the Supreme Arbitration Court Anton Ivanov publicly declared that the court was being put under pressure by the Federal Tax Service. In that year the Tax Service successfully secured the dismissal of several judges who were examining tax demands on TNK-BP. 

Legal specialists describe Yelena Valyavina’s testimony as unprecedented. “It is unique to have someone of that stature appearing as a witness in [a Russian] court, although there would be nothing extraordinary about it in a law-governed state,” comments Vadim Vinogradov. “It is the first time that the assertion has been publicly made, and at such a high level, of attempts by the presidential administration to influence leading figures within the judiciary,” says Yuly Tay. The Russian judicial system, in his words, is usually very closed and does not make public such facts. 

Excerpts from the testimony of Yelena Valyavina, first deputy chair of the Supreme Arbitration Court, at the Dorogomilovsky district court in Moscow, 12 May 2008. 

Question from lawyer representing Vladimir Solovyov: During your work at the Supreme Arbitration Court have you come into contact with Valery Boyev? Were these encounters of a purely professional character? 

Reply: I often met him, since I was officially responsible for our relations with the Supreme Credentials Collegium of Judges. He was often there. There was one instance, however, which, in my view, was beyond the limits of his official responsibilities. At the very beginning of my activities in autumn 2005 I received a case from the chair of the panel of judges, who said that they did not want to consider it because they feared complications. It was linked to the shares of Togliatti Azot plc. I took charge of the case. I ruled that the measures linked to a ban on holding a general meeting of the shareholders should be lifted, which was wholly in accord with the law and the Court’s policy. Then I issued another ruling, requiring that the case be closed. Almost immediately after this Valery Boyev rang me up and came to see me. I thought, naturally, that this was to do with an issue affecting personnel. However, he talked about State interests and that I, evidently, did not have an unambiguous and proper understanding of them. When talk turned to a specific case I reminded him that I was the judge in charge of the case and he had no right to give me any orders. However, he asked me to change my rulings on that case. 

Question: Were his requests to change the rulings in that particular case insistent in character? 

Answer: He said, “Yelena Yuryevna, you’ll need to be appointed again to this post!” The deputies of the Court chairman are appointed for six years and have the right to work two terms of six years in succession. I was being told that if I was appointed again in six years’ time, I would face problems. At which I told him that I could work as an ordinary judge. 

Question: Did you tell anyone about this conversation with Boyev? 

Answer: Naturally, I told the chair of the panel of judges who had given me the case and the chairman of the Supreme Arbitration Court. 

Question: What was the reaction? 

Answer: I was not told what measures were taken. After that, however, Valery Boyev did not approach me again. 

Question: He didn’t approach you personally or he ceased coming to the Supreme Arbitration Court? 

Answer: I often saw him at the Court, in the offices of the chairman and the deputy chairman. What the reason was for his visits I don’t know. I can say that after one of Vladimir Solovyov’s broadcasts a judge came to my assistant and said that Valery Boyev had approached her about a particular case as well. She refused his request and was also given to understand that she might face problems. 

Question: He applied to her again with an attempt to exert pressure on the court? 

Answer: I did not take part in that conversation. Probably.