Part_3
LEGAL ANALYSIS
On facts of violations of the Constitution of Ukraine, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, other laws of Ukraine and Ukraine's international obligations in initiating against me Lovin Anatolii Ivanovich and my entourage criminal cases, their investigations, court appeals and failure to comply with court decisions, which have entered into force
Ukraine proclaimed a state of law (Article 1 of the Constitution of Ukraine) [Annex № 1], which recognizes the rule of law principle (Article 8 of the Constitution of Ukraine) [Annex № 1], and the man, his life and health, honor and dignity, inviolability and security are recognized as the highest values (Article 3 of the Constitution of Ukraine) [Annex № 1].
Having chosen the path of independent development and securing it in the Constitution, Ukraine reaffirmed its desire to develop and strengthen a democratic, social state of law, one of the main principles of which is genuine provision of rights and freedoms of a man and a citizen.
According to Art. 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (hereinafter - the Convention) [Annex № 2], ratified by the Law of Ukraine «On Ratification of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, The first protocol and protocols № 2, 4, 7 and 11 to the Convention» № 175/97 — the decision of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on 17.07.1997 [Annex № 4], the rights and freedoms shall be guaranteed without discrimination on grounds of sex, race, color, language, religion, political or other beliefs or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other statuses.
In the Part 1 of Art. 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 (hereinafter - the Covenant) [Annex № 3], ratified by the Resolution of Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR № 2148-VIII on 19.10.1973 [Annex № 5], established that «all men are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law». According to Part 2 Art. 26 of the Covenant «any discrimination should be prohibited by law, and the law should guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground ...» [Annex № 3].
Selective justice and selective use of legislation in Ukraine. Phrases and comments.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
on facts of violations of the Constitution of Ukraine, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, other laws of Ukraine and Ukraine's international obligations in initiating against me Lovin Anatolii Ivanovich and my entourage criminal cases, their investigations, court appeals and failure to comply with court decisions, which have entered into force
Ukraine proclaimed a state of law (Article 1 of the Constitution of Ukraine), which recognizes the rule of law principle (Article 8 of the Constitution of Ukraine), and the man, his life and health, honor and dignity, inviolability and security are recognized as the highest values (Article 3 of the Constitution of Ukraine).
Having chosen the path of independent development and securing it in the Constitution, Ukraine reaffirmed its desire to develop and strengthen a democratic, social state of law, one of the main principles of which is genuine provision of rights and freedoms of a man and a citizen.
According to Art. 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (hereinafter - the Convention), ratified by the Law of Ukraine «On Ratification of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, The first protocol and protocols № 2, 4, 7 and 11 to the Convention» № 175/97 — the decision of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on 17.07.1997, the rights and freedoms shall be guaranteed without discrimination on grounds of sex, race, color, language, religion, political or other beliefs or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other statuses.
In the Part 1 of Art. 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 (hereinafter - the Covenant), ratified by the Resolution of Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR № 2148-VIII on 19.10.1973, established that «all men are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law». According to Part 2 Art. 26 of the Covenant «any discrimination should be prohibited by law, and the law should guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground ...».
Part 1 of Art. 9 of the Constitution of Ukraine and the Part 1 of Art. 19 of the Law of Ukraine «On International Treaties of Ukraine» dated 29.06.2004 № 1906-IV stipulates that valid international treaties of Ukraine ratified by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine are part of the national legislation and are applied in the manner set for the rules of the national legislation.
Furthermore, according to Art. 17 of the Law of Ukraine «On Implementation and application of the European Court of Human Rights decisions» dated 23.02.2006, № 3477-IV national courts, during judicial proceedings, must apply the provisions of the Convention and precedent of the European Court of Human Rights.
Following the Council of Europe standards in the field of human rights protection, Ukraine established in the Art. 24 of the Constitution that citizens have equal constitutional rights and freedoms and are equal before the law. There can be no privileges or restrictions based on race, color, political, religious or other beliefs, sex, ethnic or social origin, property status, place of residence, linguistic or other characteristics.
The Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the case of a citizen A.P. Trojan № 1-10/2012 dated 12.04.2012 found that equality of all people in their rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine, means there is a need to ensure equal legal opportunities of both material and procedural nature to implement the same in content and scope rights and freedoms.
In the process of implementing key provisions of the Convention into legislation and law enforcement practices of Ukraine on 06.09.2012 the Law of Ukraine «On Prevention and Combating discrimination in Ukraine» № 5207-VI was adopted, § 2 of Art. 1, which defines "discrimination" as the "decisions, actions or inactions directed to limit or privilege an individual and / or groups of people based on race, color, political, religious or other beliefs, sex, age, disability, ethnic or social origin, marital and property status, place of residence, linguistic or other characteristics if they make it impossible to recognize and realize on equal basis rights and freedoms of a man and a citizen".
Decisions, actions or inactions that lead to the situation when individual and / or group of people are treated less favorably than other people in analogous situation because of their specific characteristics is a direct discrimination according with the § 6 Art. 1 of the stated Law.
At the same time, state authorities of Ukraine for a prolonged period of time violate my rights and freedoms; do not implement court decisions, which have entered into force; deliberately do not apply, apply selectively or disregard application in relation to me the norms of the Constitution of Ukraine, Laws of Ukraine and international treaties of Ukraine, which are ratified by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and are a part of Ukraine national legislation.
State authorities of Ukraine chose to discriminate me on the grounds of political beliefs and property status as a way to influence and pressure me with the aim to:
- deprive me of the possibility to engage in political and social activities;
- create a negative image in political and business circles;
- deprive me of possibility to perform normal business operations and ability to manage it;
- arrest me on a basis of false illegal grounds and thereby deprive me of possibility to take any effective measures in order to protect my rights and freedoms;
- unlawfully deprive me of property and assets of the companies that my family, relatives and I have connection to and which represent an interest to "third parties", whose interests are being advocated in this case by state authorities of Ukraine;
- force me "voluntarily" decline now and in the future to bring any claims and complaints against state authorities of Ukraine and certain representative individuals of these authorities as well as against "third parties", in the interest of which were stolen, confiscated, requisitioned, seized or planned to be illegally seized by any other way tangible and intangible assets that belong to me, my relatives or legal entities that I am connected to or have influence on decisions of their owners;
- create a situation of "maximum support and impunity" in the present time as well as in the future for certain representatives of state authorities of Ukraine and "third" parties, who commit illegal acts against me and my entourage.
As a result of a violation by the state authorities of Ukraine of my rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine and fundamental international legal regulations in the field of human rights, commitment of discriminatory acts in relation to me on the basis of my political beliefs and property status, I am deprived of possibility to implement on an equal basis my constitutional rights and freedoms.
Entrenched in section 2 of the Article 5 of the Convention and section 1 of the Art. 62 of the Constitution of Ukraine presumption of innocence principle, according to which, anyone who is accused of committing a crime is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty in accordance to law is violated. This principle is a fundamental guarantee of criminal process that protects individuals against unjust punishment, punishment without proof of guilt in the prescribed manner and on the basis of illegally gathered evidence.
In paragraph 3.2 of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine decision dated 20.10.2011 in the case № 1-31/2011 on the constitutional petition of the Security Service of Ukraine for an official interpretation of the provisions of Section 3 Article 62 of the Constitution of Ukraine it is indicated that "indictment of a crime cannot be justified by factual data obtained by unlawful means, namely: by violation of constitutional rights and freedoms of a man and a citizen; by violation of established laws on legal procedure, means and sources of obtaining factual data; by unauthorized person, etc".
State Laws are binding for all. Compliance and enforcement of Laws by state authorities and citizens - is not a right but their duty!
The Law does not allow its selective application or non-application depending on circumstances and subjective opinion of the investigator, prosecutor, judge and others. Laws and their provisions itself do not give right to state authorities to ignore their application or selectively apply them to a specific person or group of people at their discretion.
In other words – non-application, selective application or ignorance of one Law of Ukraine or another in respect to a particular individual or group of people as well as provisions of international agreements, ratified by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and became part of the legislation of Ukraine, is a direct discrimination against these individuals by the state authorities, which did not apply the provisions of one Law or another!
Evidence of the existence of discrimination in respect of a particular person is the fact of none application of the provisions of Laws itself in considering the circumstances of the events that the person is charged with as a crime!
Non-application of provisions of Laws by state authorities – is discrimination against people to whom these Laws were selectively not applied to, in this case, this type of discrimination does not require any additional evidence to establish it as discrimination, including comparison of it to analogous cases because the Law is binding for all and all other analogous cases with other consequences but consequence of unconditional implementation of the Law can not be!
If there are other cases in which decisions were taken contrary to the Law or with disregard of its provisions - it is a crime! Therefore, these criminal cases cannot be used as particular "analogous arguments", which permit ignorance of Law provisions in the subsequent analogous case!
Ignorance of the above is a gross violation of the rule-of-law principle proclaimed in art. 8 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which obliges citizens and state authorities to strictly comply with the prescribed legislations of Ukraine.
The fact of none application or selective application of the provisions of Laws by state authorities in respect to any persons is itself a crime because it violates fundamental principles of the rule-of-law, equality under the Law and non-discrimination.
For better understanding of the essence of violations of my rights and freedoms and to confirm the position of targeted discrimination against me and my entourage I have classified applicable actions into separate episodes, presented in chronological order.
All these violations are set out in the document "Selective justice and selective application of the law in Ukraine. Facts and comments (Part 3)".
The text of this document can be found in the Documents section of this website.
General information
about the applications, loged to The European Court of Human Rights
on the date of August 03, 2013
Abuse of Power
Abuse of Power
 |
It would be wrong to assume that the Palace of Europe suffers from lobbyist schemes less than say, the Ukrainian or Armenian parliament does. Both East and West are equally prone to temptation. Elections of leaders at various levels are where state or private interests clash, while the texts of resolutions and reports hide personal and party ambitions. At the same time that innovations in international law are being drafted in a PACE meeting room, MEPs get text messages with requests from the Azerbaijani President to support a specific candidate for a specific top position in a PACE faction.
Although Ukrainian issues were not officially on the June session agenda, Ukraine was still mentioned several times: in a discussion on the corruption report, debates on freedom of assembly, and especially on the last session day when the report and Resolution on keeping political and criminal responsibility separate were approved.
It was no coincidence that voting on the report on “Keeping political and criminal responsibility separate” by Pieter Omtzigt, a Dutch Christian MEP, was scheduled for Friday. “They were counting on most MPs to have left,” a Council of Europe apparatus employee says off-record. “This is a sensitive issue and the opponents’ lobbyists are very active.” When asked why the advocates of transparent rules in politics are not equally proactive, the employee comments: “Democrats, just like autocrats, are interested in continuing to hold office. Their constituencies don’t give them “a plus” for their work at the Council of Europe. Activity in Strasbourg does not mean reelection in their constituency.”
Oil money, the cowardice of the western political class and the ambitions of power-hungry leaders from the east stand in the way of european solidary
Hence the asymmetry. Voters will not necessarily notice success in Strasbourg but a serious loss often ruins political careers. Christoph Strasser, a German Socialist MEP, was down in the dumps after his report on the monitoring of the political prisoner situation in Azerbaijan failed. The international organization had spent three years on determining the term “political prisoner”. When the report was unexpectedly voted down in January, Strasbourg old-timers said: “Now go find someone brave enough to take on Ukraine, who will risk his career to battle against your Yanukovych!”
But Pieter Omtzigt had no choice. His work on the report started almost two years ago, and its format was determined back then: he was supposed to research the situation in Ukraine and Iceland, where the former premier was also under investigation although he remained free.
Obviously, Christoph Strasser’s bitter experience was one of the reasons that made the author of the report that was fairly critical of the Ukrainian government remove any mention of Ukraine, as well as Iceland which, by the way, did not request anything, from the PACE Resolution on keeping political and criminal responsibility separate. “There was obviously a threat that the report would be shot down just as the report on Azerbaijan’s political prisoners was”, a representative of PACE’s legal service commented. “In January, the consequences were not long in coming, with a new wave of arrests in Baku. Aliyev celebrated victory over democratic standards.”
Thus, Pieter Omtzigt was cautious. “Opponents insisted that the resolution should be a legislative document,” he explained in an interview with The Ukrainian Week. “As a rapporteur, I agreed because the decision of the European Court of Human Rights regarding Yulia Tymoshenko stated clearly that she was imprisoned for political reasons. The most important thing, in my opinion, is that the resolution retains the demand for countries, whose legislation allows the practice of the abuse of imprisonment disguised as a struggle against the abuse of office, to change this legislation. Another achievement, in my opinion, is that the report was approved without amendments. It contains a very harsh criticism of the Ukrainian judiciary. Since representatives of the ruling party in Ukraine voted for it, I conclude that my criticism is considered justified. The report also determines Mrs. Tymoshenko as a political prisoner under the norm approved by PACE in October last year. This moment is very important for Ukraine, which hopes to sign the Association Agreement with the EU soon. According to the Copenhagen Accord, countries in close partnership with the EU and hoping to become candidates in the future cannot have political prisoners. The resolution contains legal mechanisms that may help solve the problem of both Tymoshenko, and Lutsenko. The pardon for ex-Interior Minister does not stand for the complete reinstatement of his rights as a citizen. He was not deemed to be not guilty.”
In fact, the Party of Regions MPs who unanimously supported Pieter Omtzigt’s report that classifies Tymoshenko as a political prisoner, left for Kyiv with a sense of happy victory. According to the Head of the Ukrainian delegation, Ivan Popescu, “the report is a subjective document that reflects the author’s stance”, while it is the resolution that carries actual legal weight. Popescu doesn’t mention its demand to amend the “abuse of office” part of the legislation. Why upset himself? Meanwhile, Omtzigt stresses that “If the report’s recommendations are not taken into account, the case could end up under the consideration of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers, which will implement a monitoring procedure. This will mean that the country is not complying with the commitments undertaken when it joined the Council of Europe, and that its political practices do not meet European standards. My powers as a rapporteur are in effect for a year after the report is approved. I will watch the situation in Ukraine very closely all this time to see if the legislation is amended.”
Ukrainian opposition members vary in their opinions on the Strasbourg voting. “I’m somewhat disappointed by the fact that Omtzigt did not fight for the initial version of the resolution that mentioned Ukraine,” UDAR’s MP Iryna Herashchenko commented for The Ukrainian Week. “In the current situation, this is the best possible result,” said Batkivshchyna’s Serhiy Sobolev, Deputy Head of the Ukrainian delegation.
“Thank God they approved it, we feared the worse,” said Batkivshchyna’s Lesia Orobets. “There are forces in the Assembly that are able to collect votes, one way or another, to reject the resolution and send the report for revision. But there was no one in the room who would rise and say that he/she supports medieval tools of revenge against political opponents. The resolution is a normative document that states clearly: every time the government changes, there cannot be politically motivated persecution against opponents. There must be political responsibility for political decisions. We have elections and impeachment for this. Anything else is an attempt to take revenge. It’s a good thing that the resolution was adopted as a normative document. Every week there are new reports about political persecution – in Ukraine, Russia and Georgia. Today, opposition politicians from all countries can use the resolution to exert pressure on their governments and force them to abide by the law.”
Omtzigt’s concerns are confirmed by the election of the new head of the EPP faction in PACE that saw pressure from the so-called “oil group”, i.e. Russian, Azerbaijani, Turkish and other politicians who are concerned with their own interests in power rather than human rights.
Baku representatives actively promoted the new head, Spanish MEP Pedro Agramunt. He is the CoE’s rapporteur on Azerbaijan. His strange friendship with the country, where the opposition has become history, appears more than controversial. The EPP had long been the CoE’s locomotive of sorts in the struggle with authoritarian regimes. The new head of the faction is likely to make this task more challenging.
“Many Western politicians have values for domestic use, but lack the conviction to protect declared principles outside their country,” notes the CoE apparatus employee, who has worked there for almost 20 years. European solidarity is still more of a dream than a reality. Big oil money, the cowardice of the Western political class and the unrestrained ambition of power-hungry leaders from the East stand in its way.
Part 4
Part 4
LEGAL ANALYSIS
of violation facts of the Constitution of Ukraine, Laws of Ukraine, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, as well as other international obligations of Ukraine in the investigation of illegally brought against me – LYOVIN ANATOLIY IVANOVYCH - and my surrounding criminal procedures, appealing of illegal actions of public servants of law enforcement agencies of Ukraine and neglect of judgement in effect
Episode 18.2 (Continuation of Episode 18 of Part 3). Violation of my rights and freedoms by Investigator Olefirenko V.I. in the investigation of illegally brought against me pre-trial procedure No 12012230000000210
As on 19.02.2013 from the Investigation Department of the Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in Kherson region at the place of my registration the notice was served on suspicion [annex No 241] of having committed a crime under Part 5 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, in pre-trial procedure No 12012230000000210 recorded into the Unified Register of pre-trial procedures (hereinafter - the Register) of 22.12.2012.
From the context of this document, I first became aware of the pre-trial procedure against me, which allegedly was recorded into the Register yet on 22.12.2012, and according to which the investigation has concluded that there was a sufficient evidence to suspect me of committing a specified criminal violation.
Legal analysis of numerous inconsistencies that pointed out the signs of this document's fabrication and fact that it was executed after the imposition by the Superior Specialized Civil and Criminal Court of Ukraine of ruling d.d. 02.14.2013 [annex No 227], which under cassational procedure has finally recognized as illegal and cancelled the ruling on brought against me the criminal procedure No 500076-11(2) [annex No 13], that given in Episode 18 of Part 3.
The aforementioned notice on suspicion [annex No 241] was recorded by the Investigator Olefirenko S.V. illegally in violation of both criminal and procedural legislation of Ukraine, as well as my rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine and international agreements of Ukraine, approved by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
Essence of violations:
LOVIN ANATOLII - biography
ANATOLII LOVIN
Born on February 4, 1961 in the village of Lasytsi, Sasiv area, Ryazan region, in a large family. His parents, Ivan Stepanovych and Lyubov Serhiivna, were involved in agricultural activities and all he children, who helped the parents from early childhood, new how hard it was to work on land.
EDUCATION
In 1976, Anatolii Lovin finished an eight-year school in the village with a romantic name Cape of Good Hope, which was in the same area and region. His parents moved to that location for permanent dwelling and were buried there.
He finished the Secondary School in 1978, in the village of Voskhod (Penky), to reach which he had to walk 12 kilometers and during the winter he lived in a school boarding house.
Any boy in his childhood dreams of becoming a pilot, but Anatolii Lovin realized his dream. In 1978, he became a student of Balashov Higher Military Aviation College of pilots named after Air Chief Marshal A.A.Novikov (the city of Balashov, Saratov region). Anatoliy Lyovin graduated with Honors in 1982 with a qualification of Pilot-Engineer.
During his studies in the College, he was awarded the Frunze Scholarship for outstanding results in studying aviation technology and flying.
In 2006, Anatolii Lovin got another university-level degree by graduated from the National Academy of Public Administration under the President of Ukraine, with a major in Public Development Administration.
LABOUR ACTIVITY
From 1982 till 1992, he held managerial posts in the Soviet Army in command positions in the Baltic region, Central Russia, Ukraine, Afghanistan. He carried out tasks in the 224 th State Aviation Detachment (Moscow). Anatolii Lovin served in many military actions areas both within the USSR and foreign countries. His military rank is colonel, 1-st class a military pilot, 1-st class pilot-instructor of Civil Aviation.
In 2006, he became a state servant of the 1-st rank1 (category).
In 1993-1994, he was Deputy Head of Flying Training Department of the Ministry of General Machine Building, and later on airline company "Aviaobshemash" (Moskow).
During 1994-2002, he held managerial positions in air companies, aviation companies (Ukraine), President of "TITAN" concern. A self-contained system of operation, service and repair of aviation equipment was established, with a total number of more than 1000 employees.
"A.T.I." air company was established by him in 1995. This company was the biggest cargo air carrier in Ukraine and Asian-African region up until 2001, when it was deliberately destroyed by the "law-enforcement" bodies of Ukraine on the request of the competitors. Later on, the competitors ransacked the property belonging to the company and Anatolii Lovin.
He was also deprived of control over another air company "SILK-WAY" (Azerbaijan), which is currently the biggest cargo air company in this country, due to deliberate actions on part of the same "law-enforcement" bodies of Ukraine.
Until 2001, Ukraine controlled by means of Anatolii Lovin's organizations almost 100% of the market of cargo air transportation in Azerbaijan. Given relatively cheap fuel and good geographical location of the country, it was possible to control almost all cargo air transportation in the region.
Anatoliy Lyovin holds the position of the President of "TITAN" Concern.
POLITICAL ACTIVITY
During 2002-2006, he was People's Deputy of Ukraine of IV convocation. Anatolii Lovin held the post of First Deputy Head of the Committee of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine for Transport, Communications, Building and Housing, and Communal Services.
He is the author and co-author of many bills related to activities of the Committee. Anatolii Lovin was also Head of the Interim Commission of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on Investigation of the Crisis in Ukrainian Aviation. While holding this post, he made utmost efforts to prevent the Ukrainian aviation from being stolen and destroyed.
In 2004, Anatolii Lovin initiated and directly participated in the design and adoption on the Inter-Governmental level of a project to create on the territory of Azerbaijan a joint Ukrainian-Azerbaijani Center for education and battle training of pilots.
During the implementation of this project, Ukraine would have benefited not only from its military presence in the region in terms of political influence, but it would have had a chance to train its combat pilots, using cheap Azerbaijani fuel at a price five times lower than the market price. And Ukraine would not have paid in cash, but by means of the written-off property of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine at market prices. Unfortunately, this project was "successfully" torpedoed by the Government of Ukraine. This Center was established and operates successfully, but without Ukraine.
In 2006, Anatolii Lovin prevented the International State Airport "Boryspil", which is the main air gate of Ukraine, from unauthorized seizure by a group of people.
Within the period 2003 till 2006, he represented Ukraine in the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of CIS countries, and was working in the Committee of Fighting against Organized Crimes. Anatoliy Lyovin was the author and co-author of several laws.
From 2001, he initiated more than 2000 court hearings, both in Ukrainian and international courts, regarding the protection of rights and freedoms, establishment of law and order. Under these lawsuits, defendants were mainly governmental bodies and employees, even the President of Ukraine. Because of these initiatives, Anatolii Lovin has many enemies, who constantly disseminate discrediting and untrue information about him in mass media, trying to distort the details of his work. Many times he was subjected to physical assaults.
In 2006, the President of Ukraine ordered to provide Anatoliy Lyovin with protection from possible physical assaults.
At the same time, state authorities of Ukraine for a prolonged period of time violate his rights and freedoms; do not implement court decisions, which have entered into force; deliberately do not apply, apply selectively or disregard application in relation to him the norms of the Constitution of Ukraine, Laws of Ukraine and international treaties of Ukraine, which are ratified by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and are a part of Ukraine national legislation.
Currently, the European Court of Human Rights (Strasbourg) accepted for review the complaint Anatoly Levin's about numerous violations of his rights and freedoms by state authorities of Ukraine.
HOBBIES
Anatolii Lovin is a pilot-instructor.
He flies several plane types of Soviet, Ukrainian and foreign design.
While flying, he has been to almost every corner of the world. He has repeatedly visited all of the continents, including Antarctica.
His main hobbies and interests are: extreme, flying, hunting, diving, books, nature.
Anatolii Lovin has appealed to the Desk Offiser for relation with Ukraine on Economic issues Catharina Sørensen
Ukraine Desk
EEAS III.B2: Eastern Partnership - bilateral
European External Action Service
Rue de la Loi 242 - Capital Building Loi-05/381
BE-1049 Brussels
August 20, 2013
Dear Mrs. Sørensen,
I address to you as a representative of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of the European Union responsible for bilateral relations with Ukraine on economic issues.
As EEAS has repeatedly noted, Ukraine is one of the EU largest and most important economic partner among 6 Eastern Partnership countries, as evidenced by adoption on May 15, 2013 by the EU Commission of decision on the possible signing of the Association Agreement between the EU and Ukraine in November 2013.
In this terms, it is not acceptable the systematic violations by Ukraine of the rule of law and protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, selective justice, violation of rights and legitimate interests of investors, illegal economic and criminal prosecution, unlawful deprivation of property and other similar activities that are incompatible with the fundamental values and EU principles.
Despite the multiple declarative statements by Ukraine representatives in the international arena that in Ukraine there are no problems of the electoral law and selective justice, analysis of the situation regarding human rights in Ukraine shows a number of serious problems that exist in our country, as well as willful evasion of the state bodies of Ukraine of execution of their legal duties imposed by law to protect human rights.
Moreover, some representatives of the state bodies of Ukraine, acting in their criminal interests or interests of the third parties, intentionally violate the Constitution and laws of Ukraine and its international obligations themselves.
I'd like to bring to your knowledge that over a long period of time, a group of civil servants and officials with the purpose to prevent my active participation in the social and political life of Ukraine, possibility of normal business operations and management, as well as with the purpose of illegal redistribution of material assets, to which I'm involved as well as my immediate surroundings, unlawfully restrict my rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 and legislation of Ukraine.
Currently, in the European Court of Human Rights there are under consideration a number of complaints filed against Ukraine by me personally, and on behalf of the companies, to which I have direct relevance, in connection with the illegal actions of state bodies of Ukraine regarding the property of these companies. The main ones are the following:
1) In the nearest future the European Court of Human Rights will decide on the Legal Statement No 19336/04 (EAST / WEST ALLIANCE LIMITED against Ukraine) [Annex No 1] on the illegal seizure by the state bodies of Ukraine of six An-28 and eight L-410 aircrafts and unsatisfied judgments on their return to the owner - Irish company «EAST / WEST ALLIANCE LIMITED». Communication in the present case is completed.
Only the material damage caused by such illegal actions of Ukraine and documented by the Applicant party is more than $ 154 million U.S. dollars.
2) In addition, at bar of the European Court of Human Rights there is a Legal Statement No 1006/07 (AVIACOMPANIYA A.T.I., CJSC against Ukraine) [Annex No 2].
The applicant party to the present case is CJSC “Aviacompaniya “A.T.I.”, 100% shares of which is owned by the Irish company “EAST / WEST ALLIANCE LIMITED”. The subject of this appeal is the adoption by the Supreme Court of Ukraine of illegal decision, which has violated the applicant's rights under paragraph 1 of Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Art. 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention.
As a result of rewarding illegal judgment by the Supreme Court of Ukraine the CJSC “Aviacompaniya “A.T.I.” and Irish Company “EAST / WEST ALLIANCE LIMITED” in accordance with the laws of Ukraine were deprived of the right to claim compensation for material damage in the amount of EUR 4 220 806, 68 despite the fact that such a right was granted to the Applicant party by the national legislation of Ukraine.
Currently, the communication process has started with regard to this legal statement.
3) In addition, the CJSC “Aviacompaniya “A.T.I.” and the Irish company «EAST/WEST ALLIANCE LIMITED» (which owns 100% of shares of the CJSC “Aviacompaniya “A.T.I.”) have appealed to the ECHR also regarding other unlawful acts of Ukraine concerning the property of these companies and exhaustion of all possibilities to protect their violated rights in national judicial institutions.
Namely, on 06.12.2012 the CJSC “Aviacompaniya “A.T.I.” and Irish company “EAST / WEST ALLIANCE LIMITED” filed a legal statement with the ECHR in connection with illegal seizure by the state bodies of Ukraine of 63 auxiliary power units (aero-engines) APU TA-6A (Legal Statement No 24690/13 (AVIACOMPANIYA ATI, CJSC against Ukraine) [Annex No 3].
Material damage caused to the applicant party is $ 20 430 712 USD (cost of 63 APU). In addition, the damage was caused in the form of lost profits due to the failure to rent them, which amounted to $ 12 704 729,70 USD.
Unlawful and intentional actions of the national judicial agencies, the purpose of which was to prevent the compensation of damage to the CJSC “Aviacompaniya “A.T.I.” and Irish company “EAST / WEST ALLIANCE LIMITED” by the state were expressed in illegal court order and entailed a number of gross violations of the applicants' rights guaranteed by the Convention.
Despite the fact that the Legal Statement No 24690/13 met all the eligibility criteria stipulated in Art. 34 and 35 of the Convention, on 30.05.2013, the ECHR on the basis of decision of the Single Judge N. Tsotsoria has recognized the appeal as inadmissible [Annex No 4]. Inthisrelevantnoticedd. 06.06.2013, theCourtdidnotspecifythereasonwhytheappealwasconsideredinadmissible.
Since this decision is final and can not be appealed neither to the ECHR Grand Chamber, nor any other body, the Irish company “EAST / WEST ALLIANCE LIMITED” andCJSC “Aviacompaniya “A.T.I.” finally lost the opportunity of fair compensation of material damage caused by illegal actions of the state bodies of Ukraine and violation by Ukraine of its international obligations.
4) In addition to the above specified statements, which partly reflect the illegal actions of Ukraine in respect to the property of the companies to which I have a direct relationship (I am one of the directors of the “EAST / WEST ALLIANCE LIMITED” Company, and the Company’s owner is my family), on 11.04.2013 a collective statement was filed with ECHR on behalf of the British Company “AVICOM BRITANIA LIMITED” (director of which is my daughter - Anna Levina) and LLC “International airport “Kherson” [Annex No 5].
British company “AVICOM BRITANIA LIMITED” acted as an investor of the LLC “International Airport “Kherson” and on 12.05.2011 has acquired 100% of the authorized capital of the LLC “International airport “Kherson”.
By registration as of 12.05.2011 of the new edition of the Charter of the LLC “International airport “Kherson” the state of Ukraine has confirmed the legality of the purchase by “AVICOM BRITANIA LIMITED” Company of 100% of the authorized capital of the LLC “International airport “Kherson”, and confirmed the mandatory application of rules of the international law in case of property seizure in accordance with the Agreement “On promotion and mutual protection of investments”, signed by the Government of Ukraine and Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on 10.02.1993
Despite the international legal guarantees for the protection of property of the British company “AVICOM BRITANIA LIMITED” against expropriation, which in accordance with Art. 1 of the above Agreement “On promotion and mutual protection of investments”, signed by the Government of Ukraine and Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a foreign investment, the state of Ukraine illegally seized (expropriated) the property of the “AVICOM BRITANIA LIMITED” Company.
At that, illegally seizing (expropriated) the property of the Company Ukraine failed to provide an immediate and effective compensation of its value in violation of its international obligations under Art. 6 of the Agreement between the Government of Ukraine and Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland “On the promotion and mutual protection of investments”, according to which the expropriation of foreign investment is only possible in case of immediate and effective compensation.
Also, the illegal seizure (expropriation) by the state of Ukraine of property of the British Company “AVICOM BRITANIA LIMITED” and LLC “International airport “Kherson” is a violation of Art. 1 of Protocol No 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. As a country party to the Convention, Ukraine shall “ensure the protection of property rights and prevent its deprivation not otherwise as just in public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law”, since adoption of the decision on seizure (expropriation) was carried out in violation of the national law and international treaty provisions.
The proof of actions illegality on the part of the state of Ukraine is the fact that while taking the decision on seizure (expropriation) of property of the British Company “AVICOM BRITANIA LIMITED” and “International airport “Kherson” the national courts, despite the availability of all supporting materials, deliberately ignored the fact that the property of the Company “AVICOM BRITANIA LIMITED” is a foreign investment in accordance with Art. 1 of the Agreement between the Government of Ukraine and Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland “On the promotion and mutual protection of investments” dd. 10.02.1993.
Moreover, national courts have deliberately and illegally ignored the fact that the Charter of the LLC “International airport “Kherson” was officially registered with the state registrar of Pechersk District State Administration in Kiev and is an official document, according to which Ukraine assumed an obligation to protect investments (property) of “AVICOM BRITANIA LIMITED” Company.
The above proves the intentional unlawful and concerted actions by the state of Ukraine on unlawful deprivation of my property and company assets, to which I have the relevance, as well as my family members, and in which there is an interest of “third” parties represented in this case by Ukrainian authorities.
For this purpose, various illegal methods are used; there is interference in the work of the courts and pressure on them for making decisions known to be illegal.
Fearing that ECHR can adopt a decision in favor of the “EAST / WEST ALLIANCE LIMITED” Company, “AVICOM BRITANIA LIMITED” and other companies, to the management of which I have a direct relation, the Ukrainian authorities by way of my illegal criminal prosecution are trying to arrest me on false grounds and deprive me and my family of the possibility of effective action to protect my rights and freedoms.
The main purpose of these illegal actions is the need to make me give up “voluntarily” of any claim against the state authorities of Ukraine (both in present and in future), as well as against “third” parties, in whose interests there were illegally seized the material and intangible assets owned personally by me, my family, as well as legal entities, to which I have a relevance and can influence the decisions of their owners.
In addition, only by committing such illegal actions the representatives of state bodies of Ukraine will be able to avoid responsibility for the crimes committed against me and my surroundings.
To this end, by the Prosecution Service of Kherson region, actions of which are coordinated by the Chairman of the Kherson Regional State Administration Kostyak M.M. and Chairman of the Kherson Regional Council Pelikhov V.G, there were illegally commenced two criminal cases against me by way of substitution of civil legal relations to criminal law. Appellation of illegally made rulings on commencement of these criminal cases actually took more than a year and was accompanied by persistent violations of Ukrainian legislation and illegal restrictions of my rights and freedoms.
However, even after the judgment dd. 01.08.2012 upheld by the decision of the court of appeal dd. 14.08.2012 and upheld by the decision dd. 14.02.2013 of the High Specialized Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases, which is the supreme court of cassation in criminal proceedings in Ukraine, the criminal prosecution against me was recognized in full as illegal, the court decisions have not been adopted. Currently, I unlawfully continue to be on the wanted list for already closed by court criminal cases, and therefore can not return to Ukraine and effectively protect in full my violated rights and freedoms!
Moreover, after the final recognition as illegal of decisions to commence the criminal cases against me and their closure by the national courts of Ukraine, these judgments have not been executed by the state authorities of Ukraine, despite the fact that p. 5 Art. 124 of the Constitution of Ukraine stipulate the mandatory enforcement of judgments within the territory of Ukraine!
As a result of such illegal actions, I was not only reinstated, but on the basis of the same charge two additional criminal cases were commenced against me, which is a flagrant violation not only of the law of Ukraine, but its international legal obligations to protect Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as well!
An attempt to restore own violated rights and oblige the officials of the Prosecution Service of Kherson region to implement the decisions of courts to cancel the rulings on commencement of criminal cases against me, reinstate me, remove me from the wanted list and cancel the illegally chosen measure of restraint (arrest) through recourse to national judicial authorities failed to restore the law and justice.
Judge of the Kherson City District Court, Skoryk S.A., who investigated my complaint on the above specified violations, in fact refused to comply with final judgments of courts and restore my violated rights. On 06.09.2012 he unreasonably and unlawfully made a ruling to dismiss the complaint on intentional failure to comply with law enforcement of court decisions and, accordingly, restore my rights, whereby completely deprived me of the right to judicial protection, contributed to further violations of my rights and freedoms and the impunity of government officials of Ukraine, who have committed these offenses and continue my illegal criminal prosecution up to date.
This illegal decision of the Judge Skoryk S.A. served as a basis for further discriminatory actions against me by the Prosecution Service and law enforcement agencies of Kherson region, including illegal commencement against me of additional criminal cases on the same grounds that were closed by the courts decisions, as well as restrictions of my rights and freedoms.
Thus, the Deputy Prosecutor of Kherson region, A. Terno, in a letter dated 01.08.2013, notifying on purportedly conducted audit on my appeal on violation of my rights and freedoms, directly points out the fact that by the judgment dd. 06.09.2012 the Kherson City Komsomolsky District Court on a legal basis refused to cancel a preventive measure and restore my rights in respect of which the restrictions were imposed, on closed criminal cases.
The fact that violation of my rights and freedoms have a systemic nature and are the result of deliberate joint illegal actions of the state bodies of Ukraine and national courts committed deliberately to deprive me of the possibility to carry out business in Ukraine, property and assets of the companies, to which I and my family have relevance, forcing me to give up all claims against the state bodies of Ukraine and their individual representatives involved in the above-mentioned violations, has a plenty of documentary evidence.
The adoption by the court of obviously illegal decision has enabled the officials of the Prosecution Service of Kherson region, without removing me from the wanted list under already closed criminal cases without canceling a preventive measure, thus making it impossible to return to Ukraine and independently defend own rights, to re-initiate the criminal case against me on the same grounds in violation of international obligations of Ukraine under Art. 4 Protocol No 7 to the Convention on Human Rights.
Due to the changes to the criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine and entry into force as of 20.11.2012 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, by which the prosecution agencies were eliminated from the number of investigative bodies engaged in pre-trial investigation, in the fourth time the criminal proceedings were commenced against me on the same grounds, but in this case by SU MIA of Ukraine in Kherson region.
Thus, the next illegally commenced criminal cases against me and putting into the wanted list is an argument for the state bodies of Ukraine, which they use for my further unlawful criminal prosecution even when the courts of first, appeal and cassation instances have assessed my actions and recognized as legitimate and such that belong to the sphere of economic but not criminal legal relations.
Illegal intentional creation of the situation on the part of the investigating bodies of Ukraine of putting me into the wanted list is significantly breaches and limits my rights and freedoms. The absurdity of this situation is confirmed by the fact that I have never evaded from carrying out the measures of investigation and investigative bodies of Ukraine have always known and currently know my current place of stay. Lastofficialstatementaboutmyplace of stay, contactphonenumbersandothercontactinformationIsentto investigatorof the SUMIA of Ukraine in Kherson region, OlefirenkoV.I. on July 15, 2013.
However, until now, the law enforcement bodies of Ukraine took no actions to contact me or my lawyers, have carried out no measures of investigation and, accordingly, have not removed me from the wanted list, thus I am in condition of continual anticipation of arrest for a non-existent cause, i.e. the need for my arrest on the basis of my unknown place of stay.
Due to the multiple refuses of the prosecution authorities of Ukraine, Security Service, Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, courts of various instances, Commissioner of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on Human Rights, Lutkovskaya V.V. to consider essentially the complaints and statements on violation of my rights as a result of illegal commencement against me and my surrounding of criminal cases, their illegal investigation, selective non-application in my regard of the Constitution regulations and laws of Ukraine, adoption of illegal court decisions, etc., I was forced to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
The court accepted my legal statement by assigning it a registration No 69071/12, and in future will provide an objective assessment of the above mentioned unlawful actions of the civil servants and state authorities of Ukraine.
Currently, I have exhausted all possibilities provided to me by law to protect my violated rights and freedoms in Ukraine, but I failed to restore the violated due course of law and justice and compel the restoration of my violated rights. All officials and state bodies of Ukraine, which I have addressed, actually refused to consider my appeal on the merits.
I have addressed twice (28.02.2013 and 02.04.2013) to the President of Ukraine - Viktor Yanukovych - and sent him two volumes of materials where outlined the facts of violations of law committed against me, pointing out that the cause of such violations is my political and civil position, as well as prestige in business circles. Until now, my appeals are left without consideration, and I have not received any response.
In addition, I have sent a statement to the Secretary of the National Security and Defense, Klyuyev A.P., Chairman of VRU, Rybak V.V., Prime Minister of Ukraine, Azarov N.Y., Commissioner of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, Lutkovskaya V.V., Prosecutor General of Ukraine, Pshonka V.P., Chairman of the SBU, Yakimenko O.G., Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, Zaharchenko V.Y., Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, Kozhara L.O., Minister of Justice, Lavrynovych O.V., members of the Supreme Council of Justice of Ukraine, Committees of Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the competence of which includes the monitoring over compliance with the due course of law; also with the same statements I have addressed to the deputies' factions and people's deputies of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (there was filed about 500 statements).
As for today, there are no any real effective decisions adopted for the purpose to constraint the violations, restore the rule of law and justice and restore my violated rights. Most of my appeals were simply ignored or rejected in consideration for formal reasons, or referred for consideration and decision making to those bodies that committed the corresponding violations themselves, which is contrary to the legislation of Ukraine.
I also would like to inform you that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, as well as the Committee of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on Foreign Affairs actually refused to consider my appeals, stating that they do not relate to their competence. At that, the representatives of these authorities in their public statements do not cease to point out the absence in Ukraine of problems with human rights violations and electoral justice, ignoring the reports on such violations and failing to take any actions to comply with international obligations of Ukraine in the field of human rights.
In connection with a cynical disregard for the rules of law, failure to fulfill the decisions of courts that have entered into legal force, illegal commencement of criminal cases against me, putting me into the wanted list and election of the arrest as a preventive measure on the basis of vain charges, fearing reasonably for my life and health, I was forced to travel outside Ukraine and ask for protection in Greece, which is one of the countries - members of the EU.
I have submitted to the state authorities of Greece all the documents evidencing the gross violations by Ukraine of my rights and freedoms and my discrimination on economic and political grounds, which have been carefully studied by the Greek government and confirmed.
In connection with the foregoing, on July 2, 2013 the Government of Greece granted to me an international protection under the Geneva Convention “On the Status of Refugees” of 1951, the Law of the Republic of Greece “On immigrants” and Presidential Decrees No 141/210 and 98 / 2008 [Annex No 6].
To confirm the set forth herein multiple violations of human rights and freedoms, selective application of law and justice in Ukraine, I present to you the document “The selective application of law and justice in Ukraine. Facts and Comments (Parts 3 and 4)” [Annex No 7, 9] and annexes thereto [Annex No 8, 10].
I ask you to give an objective assessment of the outlined herein facts of violations by Ukraine of its international obligations in the sphere of respect for and protection of human rights, protection of rights and legitimate interests of foreign investors, as well as the facts pointing out the conducted by the state authorities of Ukraine illegal economic and criminal prosecuting, lawless deprivation of property and other actions that violate its international legal obligations.
Also, I ask to render every assistance and help in the restoration of law and justice as to the above specified issues in accordance with European law principles and international treaties provisions, the agreement to binding nature of which was given by Ukraine.
I ask you to inform me on the decision taken. I appreciate any feedback you may have.
Annexes:
1) Certificate on Statement № 19336/04 (EAST/WESTALLIANCELIMITEDagainstUkraine), being under consideration of the European Court of Human Rights;
2) CertificateonStatement№ 1006/07 (AVIACOMPANIYAA.T.I., CJSCagainstUkraine),being under consideration of the European Court of Human Rights;
3) Copy of the Legal Statement to the European Court of Human Rights from the “EAST/WESTALLIANCELIMITED” Company and CJSC “Aviacompaniya “A.T.I.” dated06.12.2012;
4) Copy of a letter to ECHR dd. 06.06.2013;
5) Copy of the application of 11.04.2013 was submitted to the ECHR by British company «AVICOM BRITANIA LIMITED and LLC “International airport “Kherson”;
6) Copy of the document for international protection in Grees to Mr. Anatolii Lovin;
7) Selective use of legislation and selective justice in Ukraine. Facts and Comments (Part 3);
8) Annex to the document “Selective use of legislation and selective justice in Ukraine. Facts and Comments (Part 3)”;
9) Selective use of legislation and selective justice in Ukraine. Facts and Comments (Part 4);
10) Annex to the document “Selective use of legislation and selective justice in Ukraine. Facts and Comments (Part 4)”.
Yours faithfully,
People’s Deputy of Ukraine of IV convening,
President of “Titan”concern
Anatolii Lovin
COMMISSIONER FÜLE ON SELECTIVE JUSTICE IN UKRAINE
"Politically-motivated justice is a systemic problem in Ukraine, and it needs a systemic solution in the form of a comprehensive judicial reform" said Commissioner Füle today in the Plenary Session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg speaking on the situation in Ukraine.
Anatolii Lovin has appealed to Interpol
INTERPOL
General Secretariat
200, quai Charles de Gaulle
69006, Lyon, France
To: Secretary General
Mr. Ronald K. Noble
Copy: INTERPOL National Central Bureau
of Ukraine
To: Chief Mr. Nevolya V.V.
10, Bogomol'tsa str., Kiev, Ukraine, 01024
Dear Sirs!
I am compelled to address to you as by bodies of prosecutor's office of Ukraine and by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine were violated norms of the national legislation, and also for the future prevention of attraction to it of the Interpol.
The essence of the case is in the following:
On 07.11.2011 the deputy prosecutor of the Kherson region was instituted the criminal case No. 500076-11 for the excess by officials of LLC "Airport "Kherson" of their powers that led to heavy consequences, on the signs of the crime provided by p. 3 of Article 365 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
On 07.12.2011 during pretrial investigation on the mentioned criminal case, the investigator instituted against me the criminal case No. 500076-11 (2) on the signs of the crime provided by p. 5 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (assignment, waste of property or a taking to them by abuse of an official position).
The resolutions on institution of criminal cases No. 500076-11 and No. 500076-11 (2) were abolished by the court according to the complaints of my defender.
On 13.07.2012 the Komsomol district court of the Kherson passed the resolution on abolishing of the resolution on the institution of the criminal case No. 500076-11, which was upheld by the Appeal court of the Kherson Region dated 25.07.2012.
On 01.08.2012 the Komsomol district court of Kherson abolished the resolution on institution of the criminal case No. 500076-11 (2). The mentioned resolution of the Komsomol district court was upheld by the resolution of the Appeal court of the Kherson Region dated 14.08.2012.
The Komsomol district court of Kherson and the Appeal court of the Kherson region, motivating the resolution on abolishing of the resolutions on institution of the criminal cases and upholding the judgment of the first instance gave to actions of the pretrial investigation bodies an appropriate assessment having noted that described above legal relationship connected with the corporate and economic activity of LLC "Airport "Kherson", "STYRON TRADING INCORPORATION" company, the British company "AVICOM BRITANIA LIMITED" and are out of the legal relationship regulated by the criminal proceedings.
The resolution of the Komsomol district court dated 01.08.2012 on abolishing of the resolution on institution of the criminal case No. 500076-11 (2) and the resolution of the Appeal court of the Kherson region dated 14.08.2012 were appealed by prosecutor's office of the Kherson region in cassation order to the Supreme specialized court of Ukraine on consideration of the civil and criminal cases.
On 14.02.2013 the Supreme specialized court of Ukraine on consideration of the civil and criminal cases refused the cassation appeal and upheld the resolutions on abolishing of the resolution on institution of the criminal case No. 500076-11 (2) instituted on the signs of crime provided by p. 5 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
In the mentioned resolution the Supreme specialized court of Ukraine on consideration of the civil and criminal cases specified the following:
"The first instance court, abolishing the resolution of the investigator on institution of the criminal case, referred to that identification of signs of a crime during institution of another criminal case cannot be an occasion to institution specified as such resolution of the investigator in the other case abolished by the resolution of the first instance court. The ground recognizing by the investigator for the institution of the criminal case in connection with an exit of the participant (shareholder) from the company can't be recognized, as an exit of the participant from the company including disputes on definitions of a share in the charter capital, its size and payment terms, are solved by the court in the order of civil proceedings on the basis of the Civil Code of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine "On business partnerships".
On 31.12.2011 by the prosecutor's office of the Kherson region during the pretrial investigation in the criminal case No. 500076-11 (2), I was put at the wanted list.
According to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (1960) which was in effect at August, 2012, after coming into force of the resolution of the judge on abolishing the resolution on institution of criminal case such resolution attracts to cancellation of restraints and to renewal of the restricted rights during the period of pretrial investigation - (inquiry and restraints).
After abolishing of the resolution on institution of criminal cases No. 500076-11 and No. 500076-11 (2), the pretrial investigation body, roughly violated law requirements, didn't execute judgment, inquiry which has declared to me already in nonexistent criminal cases was not cancelled.
The prosecutor's office of the Kherson region didn't make any actions for removal from the accounting of the criminal cases No. 500076-11 and No. 500076-11 (2) and, respectively, for removal me from inquiry.
According to the excerption from the register of the Department of Analytical Information Support of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, by the automated account, I am Lyovin A.I. on the territory of Ukraine now is the person, who from 16.12.2011 institutes to the criminal liability by the prosecutor's office of the Kherson region because of the commission of a crime, provided by p. 5 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (criminal cases No. 500076-11 of 07.11.2011 and No. 500033 of 28.02.2012, criminal proceedings No. 000210 of 22.12.2012), Also since 29.12.2011 I was put at the state wanted list, since 31.12.2011 in interstate inquiry in the Department of Internal Affairs in the Kherson region for the commission of a crime provided by p. 5 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Besides, in the "database of federal inquiry" of the Russian Federation is placed information that I am Lyovin A.I. inquiries on the territory of the Russian Federation, the "Date of inquiry case: 29.12.2011, Circular 2012/47, disappearance date: 16.12.2011, restraints: the CONCLUSION UNDER GUARDS, the division put at the wanted list: the Department of Internal Affairs of the Kherson region of Ukraine, reception date: 10.02.2012".
Thus the law enforcement authorities of Ukraine didn't bring the relevant data on my removal me from inquiry after abolishing of the resolution on institution of the criminal case No. 500076 11 (2), but also doubtful data on restraint against me (detention) were brought in the bases of electronic accounting of the Russian Federation. But this type of restraint against me was never chosen in the any criminal case also in the any pretrial proceeding (the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine of 2012).
On 28.08.2012 that is in 14 days after the judgment wherein the court established that all legal relationship which were the subject of the pretrial investigation, are outside criminal proceedings entered into legal force the investigator of prosecutor's office of the Kherson region repeatedly instituted the criminal case No. 500033-12 against me on the same reasons, in the same legal relationship and on the same signs of the crime provided by p. 5 of Article 191 of the Criminal Court of Ukraine.
After the coming into effect of the new Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (2012) the criminal case No. 500033-12 was directed in according of investigative jurisdiction to the Investigative Department of the Department of the Ministry of internal affairs in the Kherson region and on 22.12.2012 was brought in the Union register of pretrial investigations and was registered by No. 12012230000000210 on the signs of commission of the criminal offense provided by p. 5 of Article 191 of UK of Ukraine.
The criminal case No. 500033-12 and pretrial proceeding No. 12012230000000210 instituted against me illegally that is confirmed by the judgment of the highest judicial authority of Ukraine - the Resolution of the Supreme specialized court of Ukraine on consideration of the civil and criminal cases which upheld the judgments of the first and appeal instance, which abolished the resolution on illegal institution of the criminal case and drew a conclusion on absence of the corpus delicti in my actions.
On 21.11.2011 in private matters I left out of borders of Ukraine and this trip wasn't connected with pretrial investigation on the criminal cases No. 500076-11 and No. 500076-11 (2).
On my request to the Suvorovskiy district court of Kherson dated 02.07.2013 the Court answered me that 25.01.2013 the body of a pretrial investigation addressed with the motion in the court on election of a restraint against me in the form of detention in the pretrial proceeding No. 12012230000000210.
On 29.01.2013 the Suvorovskiy district court of Kherson refused to the investigator on satisfaction of the mentioned motion.
The Appeal court of the Kherson region on 08.02.2013 refused in satisfaction of the Appeal of the prosecutor who took part in the case and upheld the resolution of the investigative judge of the Suvorovskiy district court dated 29.01.3013 by which was refused in satisfaction of the motion for election of a restraint against me in the form of detention.
As appears from the resolution of court of the first instance and the resolution of the Appeal court, by body of a pretrial investigation and by the prosecutor participating in case, in attempt to receive the sanction on my arrest, was once again made falsification of materials of pretrial proceeding by the notification of the court of the doubtful data of my inquiry since December, 2011 (resolutions on institution of the criminal cases was abolished by the court) and by the messaging of the court of doubtful data on my international inquiry which carries out by the Interpol. Thus, the Criminal office of the Investigative Department of the Department of the Ministry of internal affairs in the Kherson region, instead of the National bureau of the Interpol in Ukraine, made and provided the certificate of my international inquiry that isn't true and which was provided to the court.
Due to the illegal criminal prosecution, I was compelled to address for protection to the public authorities of the Republic of Greece, having provided them the documents which confirmed the above mentioned circumstances on illegal criminal prosecution against me. After studying of the provided documents and on the basis of the following:
1. The provisions of:
A) The Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees of 1951 and its New York Protocol of 1967, ratified by the Decree 3989/1959 and the Decree 389/1968.
B) Articles 24 and 25 of the Law No. 1975/1991 "On immigrants" with changes and additions according to articles 1 and 2 of the Law No. 2452/96 (The Governmental messenger No. 283).
C) The Decrees of the President No. 114/2010 and No. 96/2008.
2. The Petition of the person, asks to provide the status of the refugee dated 15.03.2013.
3. The Protocol of examination of proofs of the person, asks to provide the status of the refugee dated 15.03.2013.
4. According to the Proposals of the corresponding officer dated 29.04.2013 concerning the above-mentioned Petition dated 15.03.2013, I was gain the status which guarantees me the protection (a protection guarantee) against illegal criminal prosecution by law enforcement authorities of Ukraine (the copy of mentioned documents are enclosed).
Taking into account stated above circumstances and also in view of the fact that in the "database of federal inquiry" of Russian Federation" and in the database of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine is placed the unreliable information concerning on my inquiry and the restraint against me on the already nonexistent criminal cases, I don't exclude possibility of the appeal of the law enforcement authorities of Ukraine to the Interpol for the announcement me in the international inquiry on the same illegal and far-fetched bases.
I inform you that I never disappeared, had no intention to disappear and not disappear from the bodies of pretrial investigation now!
The Investigative Department of the Department of the Ministry of internal affairs in the Kherson region and the officials of prosecutor's office of the Kherson region authentically know that about one and a half years I am officially on the lawful bases in the Republic of Greece.
My address: 32, A. Panagouli
Glifada 166 75
Athens, Greece.
It is possible to communicate with me by the following communication:
ph.: +372 5447 5447, + 30 699 6289 281
e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
In case of need at any time it is possible to contact me by above specified contacts, or with my representatives and defenders (lawyer) in Ukraine, by the following contact information:
Lawyer: Alexandre Grigor'yevich Sinkievich,
7, Lavrskaya street, app. 2,
Kiev,
02094 .
ph. +38 (067) 998-80-80.
e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
I ask you, deliberately and moderately belong to stated in this address of the facts and to take measures for the purpose of an exception of the possibility of announcement me in the international inquiry, my illegal detention and an extradition which can be illegally initiated by a group of persons, having possibility of impact on the public authorities and the law enforcement authorities of Ukraine, for the purpose of redistribution belonging to me and members of my family of material assets, or my physical destruction.
Annexes:
- Copy of the resolution on institution of the criminal case No. 500076-11 dated 07.11.2011;
- Copy of the resolution on institution of the criminal case No. 500076-11 (2) dated 07.12.2011;
- Copy of the resolution of the Komsomol district court of Kherson dated 13.07.2012 on abolishing of the resolution on institution of the criminal case No. 500076-11;
- Copy of the resolution of the Appeal court of the Kherson region dated 25.07.2012 by which the resolution of the Komsomol district court of Kherson dated 13.07.2012 was upheld;
- Copy of the resolution of the Komsomol district court of Kherson dated 01.08.2012 on abolishing of the resolution on institution of the criminal case No. 500076-11 (2);
- Copy of the resolution of the Appeal court of the Kherson region dated 14.08.2012 by which the resolution of the Komsomol district court of Kherson dated 01.08.2012 was upheld;
- Copy of the resolution of the Supreme specialized court of Ukraine on consideration of the civil and criminal cases dated 14.02.2013;
- Copy of the resolution of the Suvorovskiy district court of Kherson dated 29.01.2013 by which was refused in satisfaction of the petition for election of a restraint - detention;
- Copy of the resolution of the Appeal court of the Kherson region dated 02.02.2013 by which the resolution of the Suvorovsky district court of Kherson dated 29.01.3013 was upheld;
- Copy of the resolution on institution of the criminal case No. 500033-12 dated 28.08.2012:
- Copy of the Notice of suspicion dated 24.01.2013 in the criminal proceedings No. 12012230000000210;
- Comparative table of texts of the resolutions on institution of the criminal cases No. 500076-11, No. 500076-11 (2), No. 500033-12 and the notice of suspicion in pretrial proceeding No. 12012230000000210.
- Copy of the Extract from the register of the Department of analytical information support of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine about my inquiry;
- Listing from the "Database of the federal search" of Russian Federation about my interstate inquiry;
- Copies of the documents issued by government authorities of the Republic of Greece, confirming my status, according to the Geneva convention relating to the status of refugees of 1951 and its New York Protocol of 1967.
July 23, 2013
A.I. Lovin