Moscow: +7 495 234 4959 Saint Petersburg: +7 812 740 5823 London: +44 (0) 7384 418877

“Multimillion claims filed by Moscow police against the opposition may be qualified as abuse of rights,” — Vadim Klyuvgant

Multimillion claims filed by the Main Directorate of the MIA of Moscow and other structures against the opposition may be seen as abuse of rights Lawyer and Partner of Pen & Paper Attorneys at Law Vadim Klyuvgant expressed this opinion on the air of Echo of Moscow.

If we look at these claims from the legal point of view, I would qualify them as abuse of rights on the part of the claimants, specifically, of the right to file a claim with the aim to inflict damage to the opponent, rather than remedy their violated rights. Legally speaking, such actions may not be subject to judicial defence, the expert explained.

According to V. Klyuvgant, it is also obvious that the incident is of the nature of an organized campaign, since this is not the first claim of the sort. “The aim of this campaign is to exhaust the defendants economically and financially,” he believes.

As for the claims filed by the Main Directorate of the MIA of Moscow specifically, V. Klyuvgant reminded that all the activities carried out by the police are funded by taxpayers via the state budget. “The police failed to take any measures outside the scope of this activity in those specific locations on those specific days (unauthorized rallies on July 27 and August 3 — Echo of Moscow). Therefore, from the legal point of view, their attempt to turn their professional activity into a paid service is an outrage,” the lawyer stressed.

Besides, V. Klyuvgant pointed out that it wasn’t the defendant who had made the decision on what forces and in what numbers were to be involved, what exactly they were to do and how much that would cost.” “Thus, those who did make those decisions and regulatory and supervisory authorities should be the ones to figure out how justified and effective the said actions were. Making the defendants responsible for decisions on spending the taxpayers’ money that they didn't make — I don't see any reason or consistent logic in this whatsoever,” the lawyer concluded.