Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 21.10.2010 «Дело Салиев (Saliyev) против России» [англ.]

e into play, and they decided not to wash their own dirty linen in public. As it appears, they want to cover up the affair at all levels.
If we do not succeed, we will still continue fighting. On 15 August 2001 our organisation sent to the Magadan Town Court a statement of claim against Kolymaenergo and the Federal Commission of Securities and the then head of the Board of Directors of Kolymaenergo, the leader of the "United Russia" fraction in the State Duma, Mr P., the General Director of Kolymaenergo Mr. S., and the chief accountant Ms K. What is our organisation asking for before the court? First of all, that it declare the advertisement of the fourth issue of shares abusive, and the issue itself invalid. We think that Kolymaenergo Plc breached the provisions of the federal legislation, in particular, the Standards for the Issue of Shares, the Act on Defence of the Rights of Investors and the Public Limited Companies Act. The legal provisions on which we base our claims are indicated in the statement of claim.
So far the date of the hearing in this case has not been set; it will take place in October or November, after the judge returns from her leave. By the way, the judge took annual leave twenty days after the case had been assigned to her. A similar handling of cases concerning machinations with shares has become almost systemic.
All this squabbling cannot but be detrimental to the investment climate in the region, because Kolymaenergo is a public limited company and its shares can be purchased by foreign investors as well. And now, when Russia is seeking recognition as a country with a market economy, events of this kind will not help it to acquire weight.
In the current situation the NGO Investory Kolymy will insist on an objective examination of its civil claims and of the criminal case, in order to protect the rights of investors.
A. Saliyev,
Head of the Advisory Board of the NGO Investory Kolymy"
8. On 10 October 2001 the applicant submitted the article to a municipally owned newspaper, Vecherniy Magadan, for publication. He produced documents in support of the facts described in the article. Mr Svistunov, the editor-in-chief of the newspaper, agreed to publish the article. It was included in issue No. 44 of 2 November 2001. That issue, with the applicant's article in it, had a print run of 5,184 copies.
9. On the morning of 2 November 2001, 2,394 copies of the issue containing the applicant's article were sent to subscribers and to State libraries. Two thousand copies were given to the distributing company Rospechat to be sold at street distribution points, kiosks and newsstands. However, shortly afterwards those copies were withdrawn from the newsstands and they were later destroyed. According to the Government, the withdrawal was requested by Mr Svistunov (the editor-in-chief). They submitted a letter from the editor-in-chief to the head of Rospechat asking the latter to withdraw the copies. The letter is dated 2 November 2001; however, according to the applicant it was backdated. Only the copies that had been sent to libraries and subscribers remained. The Government submitted that a part of the print run had already been sold, with the result that only 120 copies had been withdrawn and destroyed.
10. On 5 November 2001 the editor-in-chief wrote a letter to the mayor of Magadan asking the latter to release him from the position of editor-in-chief because he "was unable to perform his duties in a fully professional manner".
11. On 10 November 2001 the head of the trade union at the Kolymaenergo hydroelectric power plant wrote a letter to the editor-in-chief of Vecherniy Magadan asking him to explain why issue No. 44 had been withdrawn from the newsstands.
12. On 11 November 2001 the editor-in-chief replied to that letter explaining that he had not given the relevant order. He claimed that the



> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 15 16 17

	Поделиться:	Tweet