Source: www.rucriminal.info
Judge Tverskoy District Court. Moscow Stekliev A.The. in July 2022, he deprived the former daughter-in-law of the retired general of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Pronin V.V. This was done in favor of the interests of the general, who urgently wants to transfer again to himself the property previously recorded on the son of Pronin A.V., who died in Cyprus. The granddaughter became an obstacle for the general in his desire to urgently seize the hereditary property of the deceased son, since she has primary rights to the property of the deceased father under Cypriot law. Details are in the material of the telegram-kahal of the Cheka-OGPU and Rucriminal.info.
General of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Pronin V.V. I decided first to get rid of the mother of a minor granddaughter - the only legal person who can officially intercede for his child.
Failing to reach an agreement in the Family Court of Limassol of the Republic of Cyprus, where the court actually denied custody of the minor granddaughter to the general, since only her mother, Gyandzhayeva E.E., General Pronin V.V., has such rights, went to the bank.
Having found loopholes from old memory in the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, where he had previously “twisted” his cases when he was the head of the Moscow Court Egorova O.A., with whom he had friendly relations, Pronin The.The. made the right decision.
The judge "closed his eyes" to the opinion of the guardianship and guardianship of the Basmanny district of Moscow, where the mother of many children Gyandzhaeva E.E. legal grounds. Without a single evidence, Judge Stekliev A.The. he was in such a hurry to “please” General Pronin V.V. that, even while being sentenced in the resonant “Landromat case”, one of the largest money laundering channels, defendants in which Korkin A.G., Sobolev A. S., Pakhomov L.V., Yusupov R.Kh., Sharipova V.R., accused under Part 1 of Art. 210, p.p. "a", "b" part 3 of Art. 193.1, p.p. "a", "b" part 3 of Art. 193.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, part 3 of Art. 210, p.p. "a", "b" part 3 of Art. 193.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, - on June 28, 2022, decided not to interrupt the civil process to deprive Gyandzhayeva E.E. of parental rights.
On January 18, 2023, after prolonged torment, the Themis of the Moscow City Court also “turned a blind eye” to the illegal decision of the Tverskoy Court to deprive Gyandzheva E.E. ), attributing even violations of the secrecy of the deliberation room by Judge Stekliev A.The. in a criminal case, to insignificant.
Ahead is the Second Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction, which will check the legality of judgments of the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow and the Court of Appeal, which will be announced later.
One should think about how long Russian citizens will tolerate such former generals of the Ministry of Internal Affairs as Pronin V.V., who have citizenship of Cyprus, hiding large sums of money there, for the possession of which they are then ready for any action.
At the disposal of Rucriminal.info was the appeal of Ekaterina Ganjaeva, where she describes in detail both all the events and Pronin's gigantic assets.
“I am the mother of three minor children, one of whom is my daughter, Pronina Stefania Alexandrovna, I have a higher legal education, I work as an assistant to a deputy of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly.
Previously, I was married to Pronin A.V., who died on April 13, 2021 in Cyprus, who was the son of Pronin V.V. - who held the position of head of the Moscow Department of Internal Affairs from 2001 to 2009.
This Pronin family, having deceitfully separated me from my daughter Stephanie, for a long time deprives me of the opportunity to fully communicate with my daughter, including by means of threats of physical violence, and now they have reached the point that, using their financial and administrative resources, they are trying to deprive me parental rights in relation to my daughter.
Since 2014, I have been fighting for the return of my child, who, bypassing my consent, Father Pronin A.V. issued citizenship of the Republic of Cyprus, and simply speaking, bought such citizenship (golden passport), and put a ban on her leaving the island.
In relation to me, civil cases were fabricated for the recovery of non-existent debts to Pronin A.V. - former spouse - and bailiffs, respectively, a ban on leaving the Russian Federation. Using for that period of time friendship with the chairman of the Moscow City Court Egorova O.A., General Pronin V.V. resolved all the issues of interest to him, including the determination of my place of residence with my father, and not with me for unmotivated reasons, and when terminating the agreement on the residence of the child with me after the dissolution of the marriage, under section on property and so on.
For almost 8 years, I have been fighting every day with the Pronin family to return my child.
Pronin A.V. - Stephanie's father - died on April 13, 2021 in a house in Cyprus.
Pronin V.V. - the general of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, who lives either in Cyprus, or in Germany, or in other European countries, on the so-called general's pension, decided by any means to resolve his material issue regarding the inheritance after the death of his son Alexander, whose heir is his daughter Stephanie - my minor daughter. The General of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation Pronin V.V., acting with his barbaric methods, decided to “solve everything” in the Family Court of Limassol of the Republic of Cyprus, secretly from me to the court with an application to establish him as the sole guardian of my child.
The court preliminary considered this application, established temporary guardianship, but after a challenge from my side on January 22, 2022, it completely ruled out the participation of General of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation Pronin V.V. and his wife Pronina V.V. from guardianship of my daughter without my consent, explaining that Pronin had misled the court by pointing out his sole guardianship.
Realizing that General V.V. Pronin had his own question in the Cypriot court. will not decide on the basis of the principle “who pays, he orders the music”, he, together with his lawyer E.Yu. I have parental rights in relation to my daughter in the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, where judge Merkulov A.A. works, whose father Merkulov is friends with the former chairman of the Moscow City Court Egorova O.A. and General of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation Pronin V.V., and judge Merkulov A.A. in turn, has a friendship with Judge Stekliev A.The. (a close-minded professional, but very ambitious in every sense!).
On September 20, 2021, a claim was allegedly filed with the court from my minor daughter to deprive me of parental rights, and, bypassing the distribution of the claim by an electronic database, on September 20, 2001, it was accepted by judge A.V. Stekliev. to your production.
The number of criminal violations committed by judge Stekliev A.The. when considering the case, do not count: he considered the claim for the recovery of alimony for the second time, with the decision that came into force by law, and considered the claim, despite the fact that the Family Court of Limassol of the Republic of Cyprus began to hear this case six months before ( two civil disputes at the same time), and admitted to the case persons who were not involved in the case and did not have authority, closed the court session without thoroughly questioning General V.V. the minutes of the court sessions, including the part where the prosecutor supported the position of my side, altered the case, pinned up and tore out documents, cooked what he could according to the terms of reference of the customer Pronin V.V., and still it turned out badly. But this will be dealt with by the appellate board for civil cases of the Moscow City Court on December 14, 2022.
What did I face while protecting my rights and the rights of my minor daughter.
During the proceedings, it was established that my daughter permanently resides in the Republic of Cyprus, as she studies there.
However, the Department of Custody and Guardianship for the Odintsovo city district and the city of the Krasnoznamensk district entered the case.
In accordance with Art. 70, 78 of the IC of the Russian Federation, when considering disputes related to the upbringing of children, regardless of who filed a claim in defense of the child, the body of guardianship and guardianship must be involved in the case. The guardianship and guardianship body is obliged to conduct an examination of the living conditions of the child and the person (persons) applying for his upbringing, and submit to the court an examination report and a conclusion based on it on the merits of the dispute
According to the clarifications contained in paragraph 3 of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 44 dated November 14, 2017 “On the practice of applying legislation by courts in resolving disputes related to the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of a child in the event of a direct threat to his life or health, as well as in limiting or deprivation of parental rights” participation of the guardianship and guardianship body in cases of deprivation of parental rights is carried out at the place of residence of the plaintiff and defendant in the case.
In accordance with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the Department of Guardianship and Guardianship for the Odintsovo city district and the city of Krasnoznamensk district was also not involved in the case.
As stated above, Gyandzhaeva Ekaterina Evgenievna permanently resides at the address: Moscow, Elokhovsky pr., 1, apt. 16. This address is assigned to the guardianship and guardianship of the Basmanny district of Moscow.
Stefania Aleksandrovna Pronina, a minor, permanently resides in the Republic of Cyprus, Pyrgos Tourist Zone, Limassol, 171B Amathuntos Ave.
Consequently, none of the parties to the case lives in the territorial jurisdiction of the Office of Custody and Custody for the Odintsovo urban district and the city of Krasnoznamensk district. At the same time, this guardianship authority actively began to take part in the case precisely after questioning an outsider in a closed court session - Vladimir Vasilyevich Pronin, and even provided a second opinion on the case of April 27, 2022, which, in its essence and content, directly contradicts the conclusion given earlier by the same guardianship on November 11, 2021 without any justification, containing factually false information.
At the same time, from the very act of the survey of living conditions of April 27, 2022 (volume 4 pp. 2-5), conducted on April 21, 2022, it is seen that the representative of the Guardianship and Guardianship Department for the Odintsovo city district and the city of Krasnoznamensk district Drizhak G.V. conducted an inspection of the house, located at the address: Moscow region, Odintsovo, der. Podushkino, section GP-30.
Not only that, according to the data of the public cadastral map of the Russian Federation, there are no residential facilities at the address: Moscow Region, Odintsovo, der. Podushkino, plot GP-30, does not exist, but at the address: Moscow region, Odintsovo, der. Podushkino, GP-1, account. 30, does not belong to Pronina S.A. and her relatives, but to third parties, as evidenced by the extract attached to the case file at the court session on July 28, 2022, also during the inspection, the representative of the guardianship spoke with a certain citizen Sosnovsky, whose identity was not established, who, from his own words, knew deceased Pronin A.V. and considers himself a proper person who can talk about the life of a minor Pronina SA.
From the words of this particular citizen, an act of housing and living conditions of April 27, 2022 was drawn up.
At the same time, in the act itself, the representative of the Department of guardianship and guardianship for the Odintsovo urban district and the city of Krasnoznamensk district Drizhak G.V. indicated that the house itself, in which it is located, does not have a title owner.
A legitimate question arises, on what basis the representative of the Department of guardianship and guardianship in the Odintsovo urban district and the city of Krasnoznamensk district Drizhak G.V. was located in the above house, in which the minor Pronina S.A., who has no legal connection with the said property, has never been. Moreover, when conducting an inspection by a representative of the Department of guardianship and guardianship in the Odintsovo urban district and the city of Krasnoznamensk district, Drizhak G.V. in principle, there was no owner or his representative in the house, since, by virtue of the law, there is currently none.
However, all these circumstances did not prevent G.V. conduct an inspection of living conditions in some house, apparently chosen on their own initiative on the basis of the principle “I like it better here”.
Well, quite egregious is the indication in this act by the representative of the Department of guardianship and guardianship in the Odintsovo urban district and the city of Krasnoznamensk district, Drizhak G.V. false information about the presence of some kind of debt from Gyandzhaeva E.E. in the amount of 171,089 rubles. 92 kop.
In accordance with paragraphs 6,7,8 of the Procedure for conducting a survey of the living conditions of underage citizens and their families, approved by order of the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation dated January 10, 2019 No. 4 (Appendix No. 2), the survey reveals: 6.1. The level of provision of the basic needs of the child: 6.1.1. Health status: general visual assessment of the level of physical development and its correspondence to the age of the child, the presence of diseases, special needs for medical care, drug provision; the presence of signs of physical and (or) mental abuse of the child; an explanation from parents and / or persons living with the child, signs of violence in the child; having a history of child abuse. 6.1.2. Appearance: observance of the norms of personal hygiene of the child, the availability, quality and condition of clothes and shoes, their compliance with the season, as well as the age and gender of the child, and more. 6.1.3. Basic care: meeting the basic needs of the child - food, shelter, hygiene, provision of clothing, provision of medical care; daily routine of the child, sleep schedule, their compliance with age and individual characteristics. 6.1.4. Social adaptation: the presence of communication skills with others, self-service skills in accordance with the age and individual characteristics of the child's development, the adequacy of the child's behavior in different situations, and more. 6.1.5. Upbringing and education: name(s) of the organization(s) carrying out educational activities, including institutions of additional education for children, which the child attends, the form and success of mastering educational programs in accordance with the age and individual characteristics of the child's development ; organization of free time and rest of the child; the presence of a developing and learning environment. 6.1.6. Meeting the emotional needs of the child. 6.2. family okra child's condition: 6.2.1. Composition of the family who actually provides care and supervision for the child; the presence and place of residence of close relatives of the child, the degree of participation of parents and other persons living together, relatives in the upbringing and maintenance of the child; the degree of attachment and relationship of the child with parents and family members. 6.2.2. Relationships between family members, their nature; features of relations between family members, the impact of these relations on the child, changes in the composition of the family in the present and past, the distribution of responsibilities in the family. 6.3. Housing and property conditions: 6.3.1. Living conditions in which the child lives: the presence and ownership of the dwelling, its total and living area, the number of rooms, landscaping and sanitary and hygienic condition; the child has a separate equipped place (room, corner) for sleeping, games, activities; the presence of personal items (toys, books, etc.) in accordance with the age of the child and more. 6.3.2. Ensuring the safety of the child in accordance with his age (lack of access to dangerous household items, medicines, electrical appliances, gas, and the like, the risk of harm to the child both at home and outside the home). 6.3.3. Family income structure: main sources of income (income of parents and other family members, alimony, pensions, allowances, other social payments); average monthly and per capita family income; information about the property and property rights of the child; information about providing for the basic needs of the child. 6.4. The presence of circumstances that endanger the life and health of the child, his physical and moral development or violate his rights and legally protected interests; facts of neglect, cruel, rude, degrading treatment, insult or exploitation of a child, physical or mental abuse of a child, encroachment on his sexual inviolability. 7. During the survey, such forms of obtaining information as a conversation with the child, his parents and other family members are used. During the survey, the confidentiality of personal data of citizens is ensured. 8. Based on the results of the examination, an act of examination of the living conditions of a minor citizen and his family (hereinafter referred to as the act of examination) is drawn up in the form in accordance with Appendix No. 3 to this order, containing: an assessment of the circumstances identified during the examination, specified in paragraph 6 of this Procedure; conclusions about the presence of conditions that pose a threat to the life or health of the child or impede his normal upbringing and development; conclusions about the presence of circumstances indicating the absence of parental care over the child; recommendations on the form of protection of the rights and legitimate interests of the child.
None of the above points was observed by the representative of the Guardianship and Guardianship Department for the Odintsovo city district and the city of Krasnoznamensk district, Drizhak G.V., when drawing up the act of examining housing and living conditions of April 27, 2022.
Representatives of this Department of guardianship and guardianship in the Odintsovo city district and the city of Krasnoznamensk district have never seen or talked to either the minor Pronina SA or the defendant Gyandzhaeva E.E.
The question is, what is the reason for such an ardent participation of the Guardianship and Guardianship Authority, which has nothing to do with either the mother or the child. And here everything is simple again. The daughter of a lawyer from the side of the plaintiff Zabralova E.Yew. - Zabralova O.S. previously headed the Department of Education of the Moscow Region, which included the Guardianship and Guardianship Authority, and is currently a Senator.
And what a coincidence.
I turned to the Deputy of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation Khinshtein A.E., who, in turn, turned to the Governor of the Moscow Region Vorobyov A.Yu. with a request to conduct an inspection at the Ministry of Social Development of the Moscow Region for violations of the legislation of the Russian Federation by the Department of Guardianship and Guardianship for the Odintsovo city district and the city of Krasnoznamensk district
However, both me and Deputy Khinshtein A.E. letters came from the vice-governors of the Moscow region (girlfriends of Zabralova O.S.), in which information is indicated that does not correspond to reality, but is simply false.
At the same time, before the Governor of the Moscow Region Vorobyov A.Yu. These appeals also did not reach.
There was also an appeal to the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation Krasnov I.V. from Deputy Khinshtein A.E. on the issue of ensuring the appearance in a civil case of the Tver prosecutor, as well as conducting an audit and taking prosecutorial response measures in relation to the guardianship and guardianship department of the Guardianship and Guardianship Department for the Odintsovo city district and the city of Krasnoznamensk district, which is clearly acting in violation of the requirements of the law outside its territory, however, these appeals were sent to the prosecutor's office of the Moscow region, and there they gave replies on a different subject, not related to the text of the appeals.
The only one who responded to this message In connection with this, on July 28, 2022, after 12 court hearings missed by the Tver District Prosecutor, an assistant prosecutor appeared in court, who in conclusion asked the court to make a decision in the interests of the child, without giving its conclusion on the merits.
But, the disgrace on the part of guardians did not end there.
By order of the Acting Head of the Department of Social Protection of the Population of the Tverskoy District of the Department of Social Protection of the Population of the Central Administrative District of Moscow No. 271-r dated August 10, 2022, provisional guardianship was established for the minor Pronina Stefania Alexandrovna, born on August 13, 2005, and a temporary guardian was appointed for a period of up to six months child Pronin Vladimir Vasilyevich, born on September 21, 1948, the place of residence of the minor Pronina SA was determined. for the period of stay on the territory of the Russian Federation together with the trustee at the address: Moscow, st. Zoological, 26, building 2, apt. 73, taking into account that the minor actually resides at the address: Republic of Cyprus, Pigos Tourist Zone, Limassol, 171B Amathunthos Ave.
In the Ordinance, Guardianship refers to the illegal decision of the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow dated July 28, 2022 on the claim of the minor Pronina S.A. to Gyandzhaeva E.E. on deprivation of parental rights, recovery of alimony, determination of the place of residence with the Pronins, which has not entered into force, if there is an appeal against the said court decision, which will be considered by the court of second instance, and also taking into account the fact that the court decision that has not entered into force by virtue of the current legislation, it does not bear legal consequences for the parties to the case, as well as for other persons, including state bodies (Article 3, 210 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation), and at all testifies to the illegality of the grounds for issuing the above Order.
In addition, the complex lawlessness is aggravated by a letter - a petition from the Department of Social Protection of the Population of the Tverskoy District of the Central Administrative District of Moscow, filed with the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, in which this body asks to be released from participation in the case of deprivation of parental rights by Gyandzhaeva E.E., in Due to the fact that neither the minor plaintiff Pronina SA, nor the defendant Gyandzhayeva E.E. do not live in the territory of action of these bodies, that is, in the apartment ..., located at the address: Moscow, Veskovsky per., d. ...
That is, having full information, possessing material in relation to the minor Pronina S.A., refusing to even inspect the living quarters and draw up an act of living conditions in the framework of the case of deprivation of parental rights (2021-2022), August 10, 2022 Department social protection of the population of the Tverskoy district of the Central Administrative District of Moscow suddenly discovered a minor Pronina S.A. on the territory of his jurisdiction. and even considered it possible to "take part in her fate" at the administrative level in favor of persons who have a clear interest in the hereditary property of the latter.
Among other things, neither Pronin V.V., nor the minor Pronina S.A., do not live in Moscow, as indicated in the contested Order, which in itself testifies to the nature of this document.
I would especially like to cancel the fact that when the representative of Gyandzhaeva E.E. department of social protection of the population of the Tverskoy district of the Department of social protection of the population of the Central Administrative District of Moscow, in particular the head of the department of guardianship, guardianship and patronage Posnikova E.V. October 04, 2022, the last to the legal requirement to provide a copy of the above-mentioned order No. 271-r dated August 10, 2022, as well as on familiarization with the personal file of the minor Pronina S.A. - refused.
These circumstances significantly once again violated the rights of the sole legal representative of the minor Pronina SA. - her mother Gyandzhaeva E.E., and similar behavior of guardianship, guardianship and patronage employees of the Tverskoy district of Moscow, led by the head Posnikova E.V. once again approved Gyandzhaeva E.E. in thoughts about the obvious and direct interest of the selfish nature of these officials in decision-making.
I would also like to mention the senior bailiff of the department of bailiffs for the Balashikha district and the city of Zheleznodorozhny of the Federal Bailiff Service for the Moscow Region, Gasanov R.A., who distinguished himself in the indicated lawlessness, and his bailiffs.
Having no evidence to deprive Gyandzhayeva E.E. parental rights, lawyer Zabralova E.Yu. decided to interest the bailiffs-executors to commit illegal actions, carrying out the protection of the interests of Pronin The.The.
June 09, 2022 and June 14, 2022 to the representative of Gyandzhaeva E.E. a certificate was issued stating that the materials of enforcement proceedings No. 154753/00/50001-IP dated July 29, 2019 on the recovery of alimony from Pronina (married - Gyandzhaeva) E.E. in favor of Pronin A.V. alimony for the maintenance of a minor child - Pronina Stefania Alexandrovna, Born on August 13, 2005, completed, are in the archive and no enforcement actions have been taken within the framework of this enforcement proceedings.
At the same time, on June 14, 2022, the senior bailiff of the department of bailiffs of executors in the Balashikha district and the city of Zheleznodorozhniy Department of the Federal Bailiff Service for the Moscow Region Gasanov R. A. canceled the decision to end the enforcement proceedings of March 26, 2020.
When considering an administrative claim Gyandzhayeva E.E. The Balashikha City Court of the Makovskaya Region found that this decision of March 26, 2020 on the completion of enforcement proceedings was canceled, since the deceased Pronin A.V. The department received a certificate of his own death. At the same time, the bailiffs were not embarrassed that the allegedly deceased sent this death certificate. On the contrary, the bailiffs continued to send correspondence to the deceased. At the same time, during the proceedings in the case, the representative of the senior bailiff explained that the deceased had his representative by proxy, and he carried out all the instructions of the deceased Pronin A.V., which, in her opinion, does not contradict the law.
No one was embarrassed that the only legal representative at the moment of her minor child Pronina S.A., who exercises her parental responsibilities in relation to her daughter, is her mother - Gyandzhaeva E.E., which is objectively confirmed by the birth certificate of a minor.
The above follows from the systematic interpretation of the family legislation of the Russian Federation, in particular, paragraph 1 of Art. 64 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation, according to which parents are the legal representatives of their children and act in defense of their rights and interests in relations with any individuals and legal entities, including in courts, without special powers.
Consequently, the violation of the rights of a minor by a single parent does not occur, since by virtue of the law the child is in the care of the mother.
In such a situation, it is not clear in connection with which the interest of the senior bailiff of the department of bailiffs for the Balashikha district and the city of the Zheleznodorozhny Office of the Federal Bailiff Service for the Moscow Region, Roman Avazovich Gasanov, was shown interest in the materials of this enforcement proceeding, or he considered the application from deceased creditor, to whom he sends a copy of the decision.
Further, through the website of the public service, Gyandzhayeva E.E. an accompanying letter was sent under the number 487808143/5001, from which it is seen that the SPI Aleshina E.V. sends a copy of the resolution on the calculation of the determination of the debt for alimony, while the resolution itself was not sent to the debtor.
At the same time, Gyandzhaeva E.E. there is no arrears in the payment of alimony payments to Pronin A.The. and even more so in front of her daughter.
By the decision of the Balashiikha City Court of the Moscow Region of September 16, 2022, the actions of the bailiffs of the bailiff of the department of bailiffs for the Balashikha district and the city of Zheleznodorozhniy of the Federal Bailiff Service for the Moscow Region were declared illegal, the decision on the calculation of the debt of June 14, 2022 was declared illegal.
However, when considering the case, it turned out that the bailiff-executor of the department of bailiffs of executors in the Balashikha district and the city of Zheleznodorozhny Department of the Federal Bailiff Service in the Moscow Region Aleshina E.A., issued some other decisions dated April 7, 2022 and August 31 2022 on the calculation of debt.
At the same time, at the hearing on August 31 - September 16, 2022 SPI Aleshina E.A. explained that she issued all the decisions due to inexperience, these decisions are illegal, and the enforcement proceedings were completely terminated on July 22, 2022. To the questions of the representative of Gyandzhaeva E.E., who advised and forced the SPI Aleshina E.A. to commit such actions, the latter replied that she received all orders from the senior bailiff Gasanov R.A.
After the appeal of Deputy Khinshtein A.E. to the director of the FSSP of Russia Arestov D.V. according to the statement of Gyandzhaeva E.E., at a personal reception, the senior bailiff Gasanov R.A. to the questions of the representative Ganjaeva E.E. about that, in connection with which interest was shown in the above-mentioned enforcement proceedings, which have been in the archive for many years, he referred to the head of the GUFSSP of Russia in the Moscow Region Nikishin I.A. and Pronina V.V.
And of course, one cannot ignore the actions of the First Secretary of the Embassy in the Republic of Cyprus Baikin A.Yu., who holds the position of head of the consular department, who, together with a group of people (Second Secretary Artamonov I.A., Secretary-Referent Shalak E.A.) drew up an inspection report housing conditions dated October 18, 2021, which he conducted by phone, without leaving his office in Nicosia, in a house located in Limassol, and also allegedly interviewed Prinina S.A. Not only that, this official violated the provision of the Federal Law of July 05, 2010 No. 154-FZ (as amended on June 11, 2021) “Consular Charter of the Russian Federation”, and a number of provisions of Russian legislation, including the Family Code of the Russian Federation, based on analysis of which no consul - First Secretary of the Embassy in the Republic of Cyprus Baikin A.Yu. together with the employees of his department (consular), no other person is endowed with such powers in accordance with the law, and cannot replace the Guardianship and Guardianship Authority, and also submitted these illegal documents to the court.
On the basis of the above,
I BEG:
In order to protect the rights and legitimate interests of the mother of many children Gyandzhaeva Ekaterina Evgenievna and her minor child Pronina Stefania Alexandrovna, born on August 13, 2005, I ask you to take control of the following issues that are not resolved by state bodies in the execution order:
1. The issue of checking the illegal actions of the Guardianship and Guardianship Department for the Odintsovo city district and the city of Krasnoznamensk district on the participation in the case of the minor Pronina Stefania Aleksandrovna, born on August 13, 2005, supervised by the Government of the Moscow Region represented by Governor A.Yu. Vorobyov.
2. The issue of checking illegal actions of the Department of Social Protection of the Population of the Tverskoy District of the Department of Social Protection of the Population of the Central Administrative District of Moscow and the Department of Labor and Social Protection of the Population of the City of Moscow, which are supervised by the Government of Moscow represented by the Mayor of Moscow Sobyanin S.S.
3. The issue of checking the actions of the prosecutor of the Moscow region Zabaturin S.V. on inaction in the framework of consideration of complaints by Gyandzhaeva E.E. and Deputy of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly Khinshtein A.E., supervised by the Prosecutor General Krasnov I.V.
4. The issue of verification of illegal actions of the First Secretary of the Embassy in the Republic of Cyprus Baikin A.Yu.
To be continued
Timofey Zabiyakin
Source: www.rucriminal.info
