Commissioners for Human Rights - contacts of ministries and departments - robots. Open letter to the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation Open letters on human rights

On the procedure for sending complaints to the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Moscow Region

According to The Commissioner for Human Rights in the Moscow Region considers written complaints from citizens of the Russian Federation, foreign citizens and stateless persons located in the territory of the Moscow Region.

Activities of the Commissioner complements existing means of protecting the rights and freedoms of man and citizen does not cancel and does not entail a revision of the competence of state authorities, local government bodies and their officials who ensure the protection and restoration of violated rights and freedoms of man and citizen. It follows from this that, first of all, before filing a complaint with the Commissioner, a citizen must contact the body whose competence includes resolving issues of interest to the citizen

Subject of the complaint. The complaint can be submitted personally by the applicant, his legal representative or representative by proxy (the power of attorney is attached to the complaint). The powers of the representative are formalized by a power of attorney in accordance with civil law, and in cases where the applicant’s representative is a representative by law, a power of attorney is not required, but this should be clear from the complaint.

Complaints on behalf of third parties will not be considered.

How to file a complaint. A complaint can be submitted personally to the Office of the Commissioner, or sent by letter to the address:127006, Moscow, st. Sadovaya-Triumfalnaya, 10/13, building 1, and also send to the following email address: [email protected].

A complaint submitted to the Commissioner must be drawn up in accordance with the requirements established by the legislation of the Moscow Region for the written form of citizens' appeals.

A written complaint must be written in clear handwriting, or better yet, printed.

In a written complaint, a citizen must indicate the addressee, his last name, first name, patronymic (the latter - if available), the postal address to which the response should be sent, state the essence of the complaint, put a personal signature and date.

In a complaint sent by email, a citizen must indicate his last name, first name, patronymic (the latter if available), email address if the response must be sent in the form of an electronic document, and postal address if the response must be sent in writing. .

It is advisable to indicate the applicant's contact phone number in the complaint.

Collective complaints are allowed. In this case, the specific address (addresses) and the specific person (or persons) who need to be informed about the decision must be indicated.

Statute of limitations. The complaint is filed within a year from the moment the applicant’s rights were violated or from the moment the applicant became aware of the violation of his rights.

The complaint must comply with the requirements of the Law of the Moscow Region dated January 12, 2001 No. 4/2001-OZ “On the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Moscow Region” and the Law of the Moscow Region dated October 5, 2006 No. 164/2006-OZ “On the consideration of citizens’ appeals.”

Below are the provisionsand a sample complaint form.

Excerpts from the Law of the Moscow Region of October 5, 2006 No. 164/2006-OZ

Article 2. Basic terms used in this Law

For the purposes of this Law, the following basic terms are used:

1. citizen's appeal (hereinafter referred to as the appeal) - a proposal, statement or complaint sent to a state body, local government body or official in writing or in the form of an electronic document, as well as an oral appeal of a citizen to a state body, local government body; (as amended by the Law of the Moscow Region dated 03/07/2011 No. 26/2011-OZ);
2. proposal - a citizen’s recommendation for improving laws and other regulatory legal acts, the activities of state bodies and local governments, developing public relations, improving socio-economic and other spheres of activity of the state and society;
3. statement - a citizen’s request for assistance in the implementation of his constitutional rights and freedoms or the constitutional rights and freedoms of other persons, or a message about violations of laws and other regulatory legal acts, shortcomings in the work of state bodies, local governments and officials, or criticism of the activities of these bodies and officials;
4. complaint - a citizen’s request for restoration or protection of his violated rights, freedoms or legitimate interests or the rights, freedoms or legitimate interests of other persons;
5. official - a person who permanently, temporarily or by special authority exercises the functions of a government representative or performs organizational, administrative, administrative and economic functions in a state body or local government body;
6. collective appeal - an appeal by two or more citizens on a common issue for them, as well as an appeal adopted at a rally or meeting by voting (signed by the initiators of the collective appeal) or by collecting signatures.

Article 3. Written form of citizens' appeals, deadlines for consideration of citizens' appeals to the editor. Law of the Moscow Region dated 03/07/2011 No. 26/2011-OZ)

An appeal in writing or in the form of an electronic document received by a state body, local government body or official in accordance with their powers is considered within 30 days from the date of its registration with state bodies and local government bodies. If the deadline for consideration of an application falls on a non-working day, the expiration date is considered to be the working day preceding it. (as amended by the Law of the Moscow Region dated 03/07/2011 No. 26/2011-OZ).

An appeal in writing or in the form of an electronic document is subject to mandatory registration within three days from the date of receipt by a state body, local government body or official. (as amended by the Law of the Moscow Region dated 03/07/2011 No. 26/2011-OZ)
In exceptional cases, as well as in the case of sending a request for information necessary for consideration of an application to another state body, local government body or official, the head of a state body or local government body, official or authorized person has the right to extend the consideration period appeal for no more than 30 days, notifying the extension of the period for consideration of the citizen who sent the appeal.

Consideration of citizens' appeals containing issues of protecting the rights of the child, proposals for preventing possible accidents and other emergency situations is carried out without delay. The paragraph is no longer valid. - Law of the Moscow Region dated July 10, 2009 No. 84/2009-OZ.

Heads of state bodies and local self-government bodies have the right to establish shortened deadlines for considering individual appeals from citizens.

In the executive bodies of state power of the Moscow region, state bodies of the Moscow region, state institutions of the Moscow region that carry out certain functions of public administration of the Moscow region, executive and administrative bodies of municipalities of the Moscow region, regulations for the consideration of citizens' appeals are approved and their implementation is ensured. (as amended by the laws of the Moscow region dated May 30, 2008 N 77/2008-OZ, dated November 17, 2011 No. 197/2011-OZ).

Article 7. Leaving an appeal without consideration (as amended by the Law of the Moscow Region dated November 26, 2014 No. 152/2014-OZ)

If the written appeal does not indicate the name of the citizen who sent the appeal or the postal address to which the response should be sent, a response to the appeal is not given. If the said appeal contains information about an illegal act being prepared, committed or committed, as well as about the person preparing, committing or committing it, the appeal must be sent to a state body in accordance with its competence.

An appeal in which a court decision is appealed is returned to the citizen who sent the appeal within seven days from the date of registration, with an explanation of the procedure for appealing this court decision.

A state body, local government body or official, upon receipt of a written appeal that contains obscene or offensive language, threats to the life, health and property of the official, as well as members of his family, has the right to leave the appeal unanswered on the merits of the questions raised in it and report to the citizen who sent the appeal about the inadmissibility of abuse of rights.

If the text of a written appeal cannot be read, a response to the appeal is not given and it is not subject to forwarding for consideration to a state body, local government body or official in accordance with their competence, which is reported within seven days from the date of registration of the appeal the citizen who sent the appeal, if his name and postal address can be read.

If a citizen’s written appeal contains a question to which he has been repeatedly given written answers on the merits in connection with previously sent appeals, and the appeal does not present new arguments or circumstances, the head of a state body or local government body, an official or an authorized person has the right to decide that the next appeal is groundless and to terminate correspondence with the citizen on this issue, provided that the said appeal and previously sent appeals were sent to the same state body, local government body or the same official. The citizen who sent the appeal is notified of this decision.

If an answer on the merits of the question posed in the appeal cannot be given without disclosing information constituting a state or other secret protected by federal law, the citizen who sent the appeal is informed of the impossibility of giving an answer on the substance of the question posed in connection with the inadmissibility of disclosing the said information. information.

If the reasons why an answer on the merits of the questions raised in the appeal could not be given were subsequently eliminated, the citizen has the right to again send the appeal to the relevant state body, local government body or the relevant official.

Article 7.1. The right of citizens to return documents attached to the application (introduced by the Law of the Moscow Region dated 03/07/2011 No. 26/2011-OZ)

Documents, materials and their copies submitted by the citizen when considering his appeal are subject to return to the citizen upon his request. In this case, the state body or local government body has the right to make and keep at its disposal copies of the returned documents and materials.

Article 9. Appeal of a decision taken on an appeal

A citizen has the right to appeal a decision made based on the results of consideration of his appeal to a higher authority, a higher official or to the court in the manner prescribed by law.

Complaint to the Commissioner for Human Rights. The complainant is a citizen of the Russian Federation and is forced to turn to the Commissioner for Human Rights for help, since he cannot help but respond to such a negligent attitude towards his duties and rude attitude towards his management employees and asks the Commissioner for Human Rights to take all necessary measures to respect the rights and legitimate interests .

To the Commissioner for Human Rights in the city of _________

From: _____________________________________

Dear _ ____________ !

I am my full name. I am a citizen____ of the Russian Federation, I am forced to turn to you for help, since I cannot help but react to such a negligent attitude towards my duties and rude attitude towards my employees by the management of ________________________________, located at the address: ____________________________.
Labor legislation, namely Art. 99 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation stipulates that an employer’s involvement of an employee in overtime work is possible only with the written consent of the employee.
This circumstance violates my rights and legitimate interests as an employee of the organization.
Moreover, the incitement of interethnic conflict by the senior teacher-methodologist is regularly observed.
By virtue of Art. 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the state guarantees equality of rights and freedoms of man and citizen, regardless of gender, race, nationality, language, origin, property and official status, place of residence, attitude to religion, beliefs, membership in public associations, as well as other circumstances. Any form of restriction of the rights of citizens on the basis of social, racial, national, linguistic or religious affiliation is prohibited.
This provision is also enshrined in labor legislation, namely Art. 3 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, according to which everyone has equal opportunities to exercise their labor rights.
No one can be limited in labor rights and freedoms or receive any advantages, regardless of gender, race, skin color, nationality, language, origin, property, family, social and official status, age, place of residence, attitude to religion, political beliefs, membership or non-belonging to public associations, as well as other circumstances not related to the employee’s business qualities.
The situation that has arisen due to the fault of the management of ___________________________ educational institution ______________ has a negative impact on my mental and emotional state.
I constantly experience psychological pressure and am in a state of nervous stress.
Despite the fact that I perform my job duties properly, unfortunately, I had to deal with the callous attitude of the employer towards its employees, where there is no sense of responsibility and no desire to organize good-natured relationships within the team for the purpose of a common cause - to work with children.
To me, in turn, it remains unclear how and how such callous and rude people can and have the right to work with children if they allow such rude treatment of their employees.
According to Art. 21 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the dignity of the individual is protected by the state. Nothing can be a reason to belittle him.
There is currently a violation of my rights and legitimate interests.
According to Art. 15 FKZ of February 26, 1997 No. 1-FKZ “On the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation” The Commissioner considers complaints from citizens of the Russian Federation and foreign citizens and stateless persons located on the territory of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as applicants).
By virtue of Art. 21 of the Law, if there is information about massive or gross violations of the rights and freedoms of citizens or in cases of special public importance or related to the need to protect the interests of persons who are unable to independently use legal remedies, the Commissioner has the right to take, on his own initiative, appropriate measures within his competence .
Based on Art. 26 of the Law on the results of consideration of the complaint, the Commissioner is obliged to notify the applicant.
If it is established that the rights of the applicant have been violated, the Commissioner is obliged to take measures within his competence as defined by this Federal Constitutional Law.
I believe that Russia is a rule of law state and the norms enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation on the dignity and personality of a citizen of the Russian Federation are fundamental principles.
At the moment, I am forced to turn to you for help in order to restore violated rights and legitimate interests ___________

Based on the above, -

As the Commissioner for Human Rights in the city of ______, take all necessary measures to respect the rights and legitimate interests________________________

Please send the answer to my complaint to the following address: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Full name_________
"" _________ 201_

As a last resort - a complaint to the Human Rights Ombudsman. It needs to be compiled competently, reasonably and without unnecessary “water”.
Here is a beautiful example of a complaint to the Commissioner for Human Rights regarding the illegal seizure of a device for producing special light and sound signals and the imposition of an administrative penalty.

Commissioner for Human Rights
in the Russian Federation to V. P. Lukin
107084, Moscow, st. Myasnitskaya, 47.
Applicant: Xxxx Xxxx Xxxx
In defense of the rights of Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov
Address: Moscow, st. _________ house __, apt. __.
Tel/fax: ____________; index: _______

COMPLAINT
(in accordance with Article 16 of the Federal Law "On the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation")
regarding the unlawful actions of the magistrate of court district No. 375 of the Arbat district of Moscow and the federal judge of the Presnensky district court of Moscow on the violation of rights that came into force by a decree and decision in the case of an administrative offense

On November 26, 2007, the magistrate judge of court district No. 375 of the Arbat district of Moscow issued a ruling against Ivanov I.I. under Part 4 of Art. 12.5. Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, on deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle for a period of one year.
This decision was appealed by Ivanov I.I. in accordance with Art. 30.3. The Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, however, was left unchanged, and the complaint was not satisfied. The deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle for a period of one year was made in violation of his rights to defense, testimony and explanations, in absentia without proper notification, provided for in Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 48 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Articles 25.1; 26.2; Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, since when issuing a resolution and subsequent decision on a complaint against the resolution, the procedure established by law for considering the case was violated, which is confirmed by the following circumstances:

1) . The person brought to administrative responsibility was not properly notified of the place and time of the consideration of the administrative offense case. In accordance with the requirement of Part 2. Art. 25.1. of the Administrative Offenses Code of the Russian Federation, a case of an administrative offense is considered with the participation of a person in relation to whom proceedings are being conducted on a case of an administrative offense. In the absence of the specified person, the case can be considered only in cases where there is evidence of proper notification of the person about the place and time of the consideration of the case. The arguments of the courts of both instances, reflected in the ruling and decision that Ivanov I.I. was properly notified, are untenable.
25.10.07 A traffic police officer of the 2nd department of the Main Internal Affairs Directorate (on the special highway) of the Moscow State Traffic Safety Inspectorate opened an administrative case against Ivanov I.I. under Part 4 of Article 12. 5. Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, as evidenced by the protocol, on administrative offense 77 AE No. 0287973 of October 25, 2007. In accordance with Part 1, Article 23.1. The Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation places consideration of this category of cases within the competence of justices of the peace. Simultaneously with signing the protocol, he was asked to sign on the spine of a paper (not in a prescribed form, without a stamp, internal affairs body, magistrate, or other details) about the place and time of the case being considered by the magistrate. The traffic police officer explained that he personally, under an agreement with the magistrate of court district No. 375 in Moscow, appoints the place and time for the consideration of the case in the specified court district. Considering that the legislation of the Russian Federation does not provide for the consideration of cases in court, before the court accepts the case, the traffic police officer does not provide for it, Ivanov I.I. refused to receive the specified paper.
26.11.07 The magistrate of the court district No. 375 of Moscow, in absentia without improper notice, in his absence, issued a ruling against him in the above case under Part 4 of Art. 12. 5. Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation on deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle for a period of one year.

Contrary to the requirements of paragraphs 2.4, part 1 of Article 29.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the magistrate did not check the proper notification of the person brought to administrative responsibility, and no measures were taken to establish the circumstances precluding proceedings in the case.
The magistrate did not comply with the requirement to ensure a summons to the court hearing, and did not find out whether the participants in the proceedings were notified in the prescribed manner in accordance with clause 4. part 1. art. 29.7. Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. The court made an attempt to notify the person of the place and time of the consideration of the case by sending a subpoena. However, these measures failed to summon I.I. Ivanov to the court hearing. A postal envelope returned to the court, after the expiration of the storage period at the post office, cannot be a confirmation of proper notification of the person against whom proceedings for an administrative offense are being conducted, since it did not reach the addressee and does not contain information about the receipt of information by the person, about the place and time of consideration of the case. In connection with this, the magistrate judge of court district No. 375 of Moscow violated paragraphs 2.13. and 6.4. “Instructions for record keeping in the district court, approved by Order 36 of the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court on April 29, 2003,” according to which the judge is required to send subpoenas by registered mail, and a notice of service of information to the addressee (established by his signature) must be included in the case file.
According to the explanation of paragraph 6 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 24, 2005 No. 5 “On some issues that arise for courts when applying the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences”, in order to comply with the established Art. 29.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the timing of consideration of cases of administrative offenses, the judge must take measures to quickly notify the persons involved in the case about the time and place of consideration of the case.
The fact of service of the summons is certified by the signature of the person in respect of whom the proceedings for an administrative offense are being conducted, on the counterfoil of the summons, which is returned to the court. Since the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation does not contain any restrictions associated with such a notice, depending on the specific circumstances of the case, it can be made using any available means of communication that make it possible to control the receipt of information by the person to whom it was sent by subpoena, telegram, telephone message, fax etc.
There is no evidence in the case materials confirming that Ivanov I.I. received information about the time and place of consideration of the case of an administrative offense.

2) . Having assessed the evidence collected in the case, both authorities came to the conclusion that Ivanov I.I.’s actions contained the elements of an administrative offense provided for in Part 4 of Art. 12.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, his guilt was confirmed by a body of appropriate, sufficient evidence. However, such conclusions cannot be based on law.
In accordance with Part 1; Part 2; Art. 26.2. Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, evidence is established by the protocol on an administrative offense, other protocols provided for by this Code, explanations of the person against whom proceedings are being conducted for an administrative offense, testimony of the victim, witnesses, expert opinions, other documents, as well as testimony of special technical means, material evidence.
As can be seen from the protocol on administrative offense 77 AE No. 0287973, it contains explanations of the person against whom proceedings are being conducted for an administrative offense, as well as a petition for consideration of the case in the presence of a defense lawyer or lawyer. However, both authorities, for unmotivated reasons, ignored these grounds, since in the appealed decision in the case of an administrative offense and in the decision on the complaint against the decision in the case of an administrative offense there is no information that they were taken into account at all. In this connection, based on the requirements of Art. 1.5. Part 2. Art. 26.2. Art. 26.11. Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, both authorities came to this conclusion without being based on the law.

3) . The protocol on the case of administrative offense 77 AE No. 0287973 was improperly drawn up. So, in particular, it does not contain any information about the clarification of the rights of a person brought to administrative responsibility, upon receipt of explanations enshrined in Art. 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
According to clause 18. Resolution of the Plenum No. 5 of March 24, 2005, when considering a case of an administrative offense, the evidence collected in the case must be assessed in accordance with Article 26.11 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, as well as from the point of view of compliance with the requirements of the law upon receipt (Part 3 of Article 26.2 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).
A violation entailing the impossibility of using evidence may be recognized, in particular, by obtaining explanations from a victim, a witness, a person against whom proceedings are being conducted for an administrative offense, who were not previously explained their rights and obligations, provided for in Part 1 of Article 25.1, Part 2 of Article 25.2, Part 3 of Article 25.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, Article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
Thus, due to failure to clarify Art. 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, a person brought to administrative responsibility upon receiving written explanations from him, which is reflected in the protocol on administrative offense 77 AE No. 0287973, is unable to further use evidence in the case of an administrative offense.

4) . The protocol in the case of administrative offense 77 AE No. 0287973 does not contain any information about two witnesses, in accordance with the requirement of Part 2 of Art. 25.7. Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation directly provided for in Part 1 of Art. 27.1., Art. 27.10 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
Inspector of the 1st Department of Traffic Police of the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate of the Moscow City Internal Affairs Directorate Cherkashin A.V., who entered himself into the protocol as the only witness, legally cannot be such. By virtue of part 1 of Art. 25.7. Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, a witness is a person not interested in the outcome of the case.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in paragraph 10 of the Resolution of the Plenum No. 5 of March 24, 2005. gave the following definition of powers to officials: Since the bodies and officials who drew up the protocol on an administrative offense are not participants in the proceedings on cases of administrative offenses, the range of which is listed in Chapter 25 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, they do not have the right to file petitions, challenges, or appeal against decisions made in the case of court rulings and rulings.
In addition, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, in a review of legislation and judicial practice (Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for the 4th quarter of 2006), gave the following clarifications in such situations: “Due to his official interest, a traffic police inspector should not be involved as a witness in proceedings on cases of administrative offenses provided for in Chapter 12 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation “Administrative offenses in the field of road traffic.” In this connection, Ivanov I.I. is already deprived of the guarantee of ensuring his legal rights, as a person brought to administrative responsibility, in order to eliminate any doubts regarding the completeness and correctness of recording in the protocol the contents and results of the procedural action.

5) . Based on the fact that this case was not considered on the merits by the courts of the first and second instances, the decision made in the case of an administrative offense and the Decision on the complaint against the Resolution in the case of an administrative offense cannot be based on the law.

The magistrate ignored the petition stated by I. I. Ivanov in the protocol on the case of administrative offense 77 AE No. 0287973, to consider the case in the presence of a defense lawyer or lawyer, which violated his right enshrined in Art. 48 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and Art. 25.1. Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, for legal assistance.
In the decision in the case of an administrative offense, the magistrate of court district No. 375 of Moscow, dated November 26, 2007, there are no references to evidence confirming the fact that a person committed an administrative offense and the reasons for which the judge came to the conclusion of his guilt, which is not complies with the requirements of Part 1 of Article 29.10 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

6) . Both authorities also ignored the explanation given by Ivanov I.I. as evidence, reflected in the protocol in the case of administrative offense 77 AE No. 0287973, that these devices are not devices for giving special sound signals (protocol of seizure of things and documents 77 AN 0011051). The unit and microphone themselves are not devices for sending special signals. In addition, they were not installed properly and were in the car as cargo (which, in accordance with Part 1. Article 26.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, is evidenced by the absence of traces of fasteners on the body of the parts and connection to each other in accordance with the requirements of GOST R. 50574 – 2002., manufacturer’s instructions, as well as to the vehicle’s on-board network).

7) . In the operative part of the ruling, the magistrate came to the conclusion that the court had no reason not to trust the evidence collected by the official inspector of the 2nd traffic police department (on the special highway) of the Moscow Main Internal Affairs Directorate. However, as was previously stated, obviously, both authorities came to this conclusion, since they did not examine the case materials on the merits and in full, which is further confirmed by the following circumstances:
Art. 12.5. Part 4 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation provides for administrative punishment for driving a vehicle on which, without the appropriate permission, devices for sending special light or sound signals are installed. In accordance with part 2. Art. 28.2. Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the protocol on a case of an administrative offense indicates the events of the administrative offense, as well as other information necessary to resolve the case. In Russian, the word device means: - location, design of something.
Sufficient data from the point of view of the principle of reasonableness, validity of truly revealing the event of the offense, the presence of any evidence that these devices are installed properly, are in working order, capable of producing special sound signals at the time of involvement in an administrative offense, and other materials, Contributing to a complete comprehensive and objective consideration of the case on the merits, indicating the presence of an administrative offense in the actions of Ivanov I.I., are not available in the protocol on the administrative offense and in the other materials of the case.

8) . Based solely on the opinion of one official who collected evidence in the case, both authorities did not take into account that the inspector of the 2nd department of the traffic police (on the special highway) of the Moscow Main Internal Affairs Directorate, who opened an administrative case against Ivanov I.I., is not an electrical specialist , or an expert capable of giving a proper assessment of the installation of the specified devices to the requirements of GOST R. 50574 - 2002, and also determine whether the above devices comply with this GOST.
According to clause 6.1.2. GOST R. 50574 - 2002. Devices for supplying special light and sound signals must be certified in accordance with the rules and procedures approved by the State Standard of Russia, and their installation on a vehicle must comply with the standards provided by the manufacturer. There is no information in the case materials that the seized items were certified in the manner prescribed by law, installed properly in accordance with the requirements of technical standards and were in working condition.
At the same time, the case file contains a printout of the website of a store selling such devices. However, this material presented by an official inspector of the 2nd department of traffic police (on the special highway) of the Moscow City Internal Affairs Directorate does not contain any of the listed information necessary to consider the case on the merits and is only of an advertising nature.
Further, on December 24, 2007, Ivanov I.I., in accordance with Art. 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Art. 46 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, filed an appeal to the Presnensky District Court of Moscow. However, his complaint was not considered within a reasonable time. In accordance with Art. Art. 30.2; 30.5; Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the period from the moment of filing a complaint until its final consideration is thirteen days. As a result, the complaint was considered beyond a reasonable time: - February 12, 2008. (fifty-one days, instead of thirteen), thereby violating his rights enshrined in Part 1 of Article 6 and Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

9) . The federal judge of the Presnensky District Court of Moscow did not consider the complaint against the decision in the case of an administrative offense on the merits and in full, as provided for in Art. 30.6. Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, which is confirmed by the following circumstances:
When preparing to consider a case of an administrative offense, the judge is obliged to carry out those listed in Article 29.1. Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation procedural actions in order to fulfill the tasks provided for in Article 24.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation of the tasks of comprehensive, complete, objective and timely clarification of the circumstances of each case, resolving it in accordance with the law, as well as identifying the causes and conditions that contributed to the commission of an administrative offense.
However, the decision made indicates that the judge limited himself to only a short formal reply, did not conduct a full factual study and did not evaluate all the arguments presented by I. I. Ivanov in the complaint regarding the decision in the case of an administrative offense. This is confirmed by the absence in the reasoning part of the decision of indications of specific circumstances that are sufficient from the point of view of the principles of reasonableness, validity and legality, which were the basis for making this decision.
In the decision of the federal judge of the Presnensky District Court of Moscow on the complaint against the decision in the case of an administrative offense, there are no references to evidence confirming the fact that the person committed an administrative offense and the reasons for which the judge came to the conclusion of his guilt, which does not meet the requirements of Part 1 Article 29.10 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
In addition, the structure of the text of the decision made by the Federal Judge of the Presnensky District Court of Moscow and the arguments set out in it indicate that the complaint against the decision in the case of an administrative offense was not considered at all, but was only mechanically copied from the decision being appealed.
The arguments reflected by I.I. Ivanov in the complaint are based on the law and factual circumstances, are logical, consistent and justified, and are confirmed by explanations from judicial practice.
Taking into account the above and in accordance with Art. 26; 27; 28; 29; Federal Law "On the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation", I ask you to ensure the protection of the rights of Ivanov I. I. grossly violated by the traffic police and the court.
Due to the fact that the resolution in the case of an administrative offense finally formally entered into legal force, and the case of an administrative offense, as well as the complaint against the resolution in the case of an administrative offense, were not actually considered on the merits and in full, in accordance with the law , which led to a significant violation of rights and freedoms, I ask you, within the framework of Article 31 of the Federal Law "On the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation", to send to the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, a comment regarding the performance of official duties by the justice of the peace of court district No. 375 of Moscow and a federal judge of the Presnensky District Court of Moscow, in connection with gross violations of the current legislation of the Russian Federation, which became the reason for the derogation of the rights and freedoms of citizens.
I draw your attention to the fact that, by virtue of Part 4 of Article 15 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, generally recognized principles and norms of international law and international treaties of the Russian Federation are an integral part of its legal system. If an international treaty of the Russian Federation establishes rules other than those provided for by law, then the rules of the international treaty apply. The supervisory procedure for considering cases by the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case (Tumilovich v. RF) was recognized as an ineffective remedy in the sense of paragraph 1 of Art. 35 of the Convention. Based on these provisions, a person in respect of whom the decision on a complaint against the resolution has entered into force has the right to apply for effective protection of violated rights to the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation, as well as to the ECHR, bypassing the supervisory courts.
In accordance with part 2; Article 20; Federal Law "On the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation", I ask you to inform me about the results of consideration of the appeal within ten days.

Sincerely: ____________ Date: ____/____/___________/

APPENDIX 7 L

1) A copy of the decision in the case of administrative offense No. 5-1090/07 of the magistrate of court district No. 375 of Moscow dated November 26, 2007.
2) A copy of the decision of the federal judge of the Presnensky District Court of Moscow dated February 12, 2008.
3) A copy of the protocol on the case of administrative offense 77 AE No. 0287973 dated October 25, 2007. (2 copies)
4) A copy of the summons that the inspector of the 2nd traffic police department of the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate (on the special highway) of the Moscow Central Internal Affairs Directorate tried to hand over to Ivanov.
5) Photo of an envelope, a registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt, located in the case materials, which did not reach the addressee as intended.
6) Copy of clause 6. Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 5 of March 24, 2005 “On some issues that arise for courts when applying the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses.”