In April, 2006, the Head of the Russian Imperial House, H.I.H. Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, filed suit in the Tverskoi District Court of Moscow seeking the rehabilitation of Her August relatives: the Holy Royal Passion-Bearers, Nicholas II and members of His Family.
By the ruling of the Tverskoi District Court of 25 May 2006, the motion of the Head of the Russian Imperial House, H.I.H. Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, was denied. That decision was appealed in the next higher court, the Moscow Municipal Court.
By the ruling of the Judicial Board for Municipal Affairs of the Moscow Municipal Court of 7 August 2006, the ruling of the Tverskoi District Court of Moscow was overruled, and the matter “was sent back to the Court of the first instance for a new hearing with a different composition of the Court.”
In its ruling, the Judicial Board for Municipal Affairs of the Moscow Municipal Court indicated that, in its new review of the matter, the Tverskoi District Court of Moscow should correctly determine the relevant circumstances pertaining to this matter, should thoroughly verify the arguments of each side, and, depending on the information thereby obtained, should rule on the motion in accordance with the requirements of the law.
However, the Tverskoi District Court of Moscow did not carry out the above-mentioned reexamination ordered by the Judicial Board for Municipal Affairs of the Moscow Municipal Court, and ruled on 14 November 2006 in violation of the norms of procedural law.
The Court, in violation of the norms of Article 196 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation (hereafter, CPC RF) again failed to rule on the motion by the Head of the Russian Imperial House, H.I.H. Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna.
The Judicial Board for Municipal Affairs of the Moscow Municipal Court determined that the Tverskoi District Court of Moscow, in violation of Part 3, Article 196 of the CPC RF, had not ruled on the motion made by the Head of the Russian Imperial House, a fact that served as one of the foundations for the overturning of the ruling of 25 May 2006. In spite of this, the Tverskoi District Court of Moscow, ignoring the instructions to it from the higher Court, determined issues that the Head of the Russian Imperial House, H.I.H. Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, had not referred to the Court and did not ask be examined. Telltale proof of this is contained in the section of the decision of 14 November 2006 containing the text of the Court’s ruling:
“To acknowledge the suit of Maria Vladimirovna Romanova challenging the ruling refusing the rehabilitation and in the issuing of findings on the rehabilitation, as well-founded is not in accord with the Law on the reply of the Head of the office for prosecutors in the examination of criminal affairs by the Courts of the General Procurator of the Russian Federation, Oleg Timofeevich Ankudinov, of 2 February 2006, No. 12/13-3849-96, and the failure of the Procurator General of the Russian Federation to examine the case of Maria Vladimirovna Romanov of 1 December 2005 ‘concerning the rehabilitation of members of the Russian Imperial House’ on the basis of Article 8 of the Law of the Russian Federation, ‘Concerning the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression.’
“To oblige the General Procurator of the Russian Federation to examine the suit of Maria Vladimirovna Romanova filed on 1 December 2005 ‘on the rehabilitation of members of the Russian Imperial House,’ Nicholas Aleksandrovich (born 1868), Aleksandra Fedorovna Romanova (born 1872), Aleksei Nikolaevich Romanov (born 1904), Olga Nikolaevna Romanova (born 1895), Tat’iana Nikolaevna Romanova (born 1897), Maria Nikolaevna Romanova (born 1899), Anastasia Nikolaevna Romanova (born 1901), on the basis of Article 8 of the Law of the Russian Federation ‘On the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression.’
In this way, in violation of part 3 of Article 196 of the CPC RF, the Tverskoi District Court of Moscow did not rule regarding the motion of the Head of the Russian Imperial House, H.I.H. Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna (Maria Vladimirovna Romanova), which was formulated in the following way:
The filing of the motion by the Head of the Russian Imperial House, H.I.H. Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, is fully by her own will and fully within her rights and is not forbidden by law.
Federal Law (part 3 of Article 196 of the CPC RF) does not grant to the Tverskoi District Court of Moscow the possibility (the right) to go beyond the bounds of the issues raised in the motion made by the Head of the Russian Imperial House, H.I.H. Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, but, quite the contrary, forbids it to do so. Federal Law does not foresee a situation under which the Tverskoi District Court of Moscow could go beyond the bounds of the issues raised in the motion made by H.I.H. Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna.
The Tverskoi District Court of Moscow refused to comply with the pleading of the representative of the Head of the Russian Imperial House, H.I.H. Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, the attorney G. Iu. Luk’ianov, concerning the recognition of the conditions under which Emperor Nicholas II and Members of His family lost their political and civil rights and freedom; underwent execution on the orders of the Ural District Soviet (a decision that was validated by the Presidium of the VTsIK); and so on—none of these things did the Tverskoi District Court of Moscow find as being all commonly-known and not requiring any substantiation. Rather, the Court argued that the circumstances (of Nicholas II’s murder) could not be established within the framework of the subject of the given court investigation, as defined by Federal Law, but instead called for a “special procedure” to provide “clarification,” as if such procedures were provided for in the Law “Concerning the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression.”
In reality, only the Court, in accordance with Part 1, Article 61 of the CPC RF, can establish that the conditions are commonly-known and not requiring any substantiation. In the Law of the Russian Federation “Concerning the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression,” there is no provision for any special process, including any such “special procedure,” for “clarification” of similar conditions, as the Court ruled. The Court, in violating Part 1, Article 61 of the CPC RF, freed itself of fulfilling its judicial duty, placed upon it by the CPC RF, to recognize the conditions as commonly-known and not requiring any substantiation. The Court in fact evaded ruling on the given motion in violation of the norms of Article 67 of the CPC RF, and in its decision gave no weight to the motion or to the conditions elaborated in the motion. In violation of Article 198 of the CPC RF, the Court did not include in the justification section of the ruling any arguments by which it rejected the proof, presented by the Head of the Russian Imperial House, H.I.H. Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna.
In the current civil matter No. 2-2195/06, the Tverskoi District Court of Moscow violated Part 1, Article 6 of the European Convention for the defense of civil rights and basic freedoms, and also Article 12 of the CPC RF, specifically the principles of the adversarial courtroom and of the equal rights of both parties concerned. The Court was not objective or impartial; it violated Article 57 of the CPC RF, when it denied the rights of the Head of the Russian Imperial House, H.I.H. Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna by requiring the collection of proof in this matter, and when it denied the motion about demanding proof—of certified copies of the orders and of the position about the section of rehabilitation of victims of political repression from the General Procurator of the Russian Federation, I. O. Kovalevskaia, who acted according to the worthless warrant of 2 August 2006, no. 12/13-3849-96. The motion by the attorney for the Head of the Russian Imperial House concerning this went without due attention or review.
The Tverskoi District Court of Moscow violated Articles 35 and 190 of the CPC RF when it did not permit the representative of the Head of the Russian Imperial House, attorney G. Iu. Luk’ianov, to offer an explanation to the Court orally and to lay out in full measure the legal position of the Head of the Russian Imperial House, H.I.H. Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna; to present evidence; to participate in the discovery of proof; to raise an objection relative to the arguments of the General Procurator of the Russian Federation, and in fact by forbidding the presentation of his arguments on all the questions that these proceedings raised; to argue without constant interruptions, and by not permitting him to ask questions to the representative of the General Procurator of the Russian Federation and disallowing the attorney’s questions; to present fully in pleadings and to complete oral arguments, in which there would have been elaborated the legal analysis of the matter and the legal position of the Head of the Russian Imperial House, H.I.H. Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, on the question of the rehabilitation of the Royal Family. The court also deprived the right of the representative of the Head of the Russian Imperial House G. Iu. Luk’ianov to offer a rebuttal of these things said in Court.
The Tverskoi District Court of Moscow was not impartial. The evidence that most demonstrates this lack of impartiality is the fact that, when the representative of the Head of the Russian Imperial House, attorney G. Iu. Luk’ianov, used in his presentation the generally known and generally recognized term characterizing the Communist Soviet regime as “atheistic,” Judge A. A. Kniazev immediately issued a warning to him for using this term.
The Tverskoi District Court, in violation of Articles 112 and 225 of the CPC RF, by a ruling of 18 December 2006, restored to the Head of the Office of Prosecutors in the review of the criminal affairs by the Courts of the General Procurator of the Russian Federation, to O. T. Ankudinov, a period for preparing an appeal from 13 December 2006, No. 12/13-3849-96 to the decision of the Tverskoi District Court of Moscow of 14 November 2006 without the establishment of authentic will of Procurator O. T. Ankudinov (that is, without the motion of the interested party) and without the participation in the judicial hearing of the representative of the Head of the Russian Imperial House, attorney G. Iu. Luk’ianov, which, in the most rude way, trampled on the principal of impartiality and equality of both sides, which is guaranteed in Article 123 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation (paragraph 3). The examination of the matter was not open, which violated the principle of openness of legal proceedings (Part 1, Article 10 GPK RF).
The General Procurator of the Russian Federation on 14 November 2006 in Court again demonstrated his adherence to a double standard, having stated in Court the following (an exact quotation): “The documents which the attorney cites—telegrams, the resolutions of the VTsIK and the SNK—do not prove repression. The fact that the executions took place is established, but the reason for the executions is not given. These documents are not official documents nor decisions made by official organs of the government” (Transcripts of the judicial session, Vol. 7, l.d. 176).
The General Procurator of the Russian Federation in Court also stated: “Nicholas II at the time of his execution was not a class enemy of the Bolshevik regime because he had abdicated his throne” (Transcripts of the judicial session, Vol. 7, l.d. 177). As to the question posed to him, whether Emperor Nicholas II had been a class enemy of the Bolshevik regime before and up to the moment of his execution, the General Procurator of the Russian Federation answered: “As to the time before his execution, I cannot say” (Transcripts of the judicial session, Vol. 7, l.d. 177).
At the same time that these statements were made in Court, the General Procurator of the Russian Federation further stated: “The decision concerning the ceasing of the criminal matter has not been disaffirmed; the matter is still on going” (Transcripts of the judicial session, Vol. 7, l.d. 177).
In the meantime, in the “Memorandum on Questions Connected with the Investigation into the Deaths of the Former Imperial Russian Emperor Nicholas II and of Members of his Entourage, who were killed on 17 July 1918 in Ekaterinburg,” which was sent to the government of the Russian Federation on 23 January1998, and which was the basis for making important government decisions, in the section “Historical Materials Connected with the deaths of the Royal Family,” the complete opposite is established: “In the course of this work, the fundamental corpus of documents and literary sources were studied. 1. Official documents, which provide information on the circumstances of the shooting of Nicholas II and members of his family, contemporary to the events in question…Official documents provide the foundation for the conclusions about the matter of the shooting of the entire family of the former Emperor Nicholas II and persons in his entourage. ” Among the official documents mentioned in the aforementioned “Memorandum” sent to the Procurator General of the Russian Federation are documents which were cited in Court by the representative of the Head of the Russian Imperial House, attorney G. Iu. Luk’ianov, including also the “Minutes of the meeting of the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee on 18 July 1918, Protocol No. 1, a report on the shooting of Nicholas II, the approval of the decision of the Ural Regional Soviet, and the examination and publication of personal documents of Nicholas II” and “Protocol No. 159 of the meeting of the Soviet of People’s Commissars on 18 July 1918, with information from Ia. M. Sverdlov on the execution of Nicholas II and the confirmation of this decision by the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee ” (vol 2, l.d., 25-27). That is, formerly the General Procurator of the Russian Federation had recognized the official status of these documents establishing the political repression of the Royal family, documents to which Attorney G. Iu. Luk’ianov was constantly making reference in Court; and now, for some reason, the General Procurator no longer recognizes them.
The representative of the General Procurator of the Russian Federation’s use of the terms class struggle and “class enemy” is, obviously, completely different from how the Bolshevik regime understood these terms. However, this very regime in 1918, as well as before this date and afterward, divided society up into classes, between which, from the point of view of Marxism-Leninism, there was a constant state of warfare, and the regime absolutely placed all members of the Russian Imperial House in and among the class of exploiters, to which was due “merciless repression,” that is, political repression for class-based and for social reasons (Declaration of Rights of Workers and of Exploiters of the People, January 1918). The legal evaluation of the facts of political repression in relation to the members of the Royal Family should not be analyzed in current terms, but should be based exclusively on the reality of the time when this repression took place.
Recognizing that “The decision concerning the ceasing of the criminal matter has not been disaffirmed; the matter is still on going,” the General Procurator of the Russian Federation should, in accord with his own statement, come to recognize the truth of the established facts: “as a result of investigations, it is established that in the period 1917-1919, members of the Russian Imperial House—Nicholas Aleksandrovich Romanov (Emperor Nicholas II); Aleksandra Fedorovna Romanova (Empress Aleksandra Fedorovna); Olga Nikolaevna Romanova; Tat’iana Nikolaevna Romanova; Maria Nikolaevna Romanova; Anastasia Nikolaevna Romanova; Aleksei Nikolaevich Romanov; Mikhail Aleksandrovich Romanov; Grand Duchess Elizabeth Fedorovna Romanova; Prince Ivan Konstantinovich Romanov; Princess Elena Petrovna Romanova (wife of Ivan Konstantinovich Romanov); Prince Konstantin Konstantinovich Romanov; Prince Igor Konstantinovich Romanov; Grand Duke Sergei Mikhailovich Romanov; Grand Duke Pavel Aleksandrovich Romanov; Grand Duke Nicholas Mikhailovich Romanov; Georgii Mikhailovich Romanov; and Dmitrii Konstantinovich Romanov—were recognized as socially dangerous to the government and to the political structure for class-based, social, and religious reasons, and suffered political repression; for motives purely political, they lost their rights and freedom and then even their lives, and are deserving of rehabilitation in accordance with the Law of the Russian Federation “Concerning the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression” (vol. 4, l.d. 95-96). But in the current situation, the General Procurator of the Russian Federation employs a double standard that involves violating the rights and legal interests of the Head of the Russian Imperial House.
The obvious application by the General Procurator of the Russian Federation of a double standard was not taken into consideration by the Tverskoi District Court of Moscow in making the decision of 14 November 2006.
All of the above-mentioned factors clearly prove the Tverskoi District Court of Moscow violated the rights of the Head of the Russian Imperial House, H.I.H. Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna to a legal hearing.
The decision of the Tverskoi District Court of Moscow of 14 November 2006 was appealed in the Moscow City Court. The hearing of the appeal of the Head of the Russian Imperial House, H.I.H. Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna will be heard on 15 January 2007 at 10:00am.
| A. N. Zakatov | G. Iu. Luk’ianov |
Moscow, 1/14 January 2007