The court did not recognize private military case
As it became known””, in the Rostov region the court rejected the claim of the widow of a soldier PMC “Wagner” Louise Rubanova, trying to seek compensation for moral damage. Alexey Rubanov died during his third trip to Syria, and payments in connection with his death were parents. The widow, left with three small children, of this amount has not got a penny. Her claim to the Russian authorities, will not provide, according to the petitioner, the security of the citizen Rubanova in Syria, the court dismissed, finding that there is no connection between his death and the actions of the Russian armed forces against the terrorists.
Louise Rubanova and her lawyer Vladimir Kiryanov addressed in Bagaevskiy district, Rostov region, hoping to collect 1 million rubles of compensation for moral harm to two children, Alexey Rubanov in connection with his death while fighting in Syria in February last year. The third child was born after the death of Mr. Rubanov. During trial preparation, it was determined that the claims the plaintiff should not be addressed Ministry of defence and the Ministry of Finance of Russia, and the Russian Federation as a whole.
It should be noted that Alexey Rubanov, who served in the Russian army, a long time could not find work that would provide his family, and then became a fighter PMCs (private military companies), which officially does not exist. The group of fighters he was three times sent to Syria, which earned them two medals “For blood and bravery” with a room a personal token. From the third mission in the Rostov region delivered a fighter’s body in a zinc coffin.
Accompanied “cargo 200” men, according to some, were handed over to the parents of a soldier of the envelope with the money — him unpaid salary and compensation. How much money was there is unknown.
Representative Louise Rubanova claims that of this amount, the widow, bringing up two children then, did not get anything. According to him, this was due to the rather complex relationship between the parents of a soldier and his new family. To sort out relations in court, they did not, considering it useless after the other trial.
Last year in Chelyabinsk region court considered a similar case. The parents of a soldier PMC “Wagner” (as it was called in the court documents), Andrei Litvinov, who died in the Syrian province of HOMS in September 2017, sought inclusion in the estate for division in equal shares to 5 million rubles, received by his widow as compensation from employers. However, the plaintiffs, decided the court, did not submit valid evidence of the passage of Mr. Litvinov military service under the contract in the Syrian Arab Republic (SAR) at the time of death. Was not presented and evidence of the work of Andrei Litvinov on contract at PMC. In addition, a court, there are no official data on registration of such organisation in the Russian Federation.
Thus, the nature of the origin of money obtained by the widow of a soldier from an unidentified person remained unknown.
Under these circumstances, the court came to the conclusion that the disputed money in the amount of 5 million rubles can not be considered common property of the parents of Mr. Litvinov and his widow, in connection with what reasons for their inclusion in the succession mass is not seen.
It should be noted that Louise Rubanova tried to get compensation out of court. Her defender Vladimir Ikramova managed to establish the address of the organization, presumably associated with PMC, however, on his appeal, which spoke of the plight of widows, the answer never came. And to learn about the circumstances of death of Alexey Rubanov, the widow and her representative had to go to the foreign Ministry.
There was obtained a certificate that the citizen of Russia Rubanov really died in the village of Haouch-Duar in Eastern ghouta in late February of last year, and his death was caused by “charring of the body.”
It should be noted that in February—April 2018 in the Damascus suburb of Eastern ghouta armed forces of Bashar al-Assad and its allies conducted operation “Damascus steel” on the elimination of the enclave, which was under the control of armed opposition groups.
The claim of Louise Rubanova was emphasized that, according to the medical report, the death of her husband was violent. “The state is obliged to protect its citizens in any situation, both on its territory and beyond its borders”, — he said while in the statement of claim. Recognizing the presence of the Russian armed forces in the SAR well-known fact, the plaintiffs believed that the military is conducting an operation against the terrorist organization “Islamic state” (banned in Russia), “did not take measures to rescue its nationals in danger abroad, through their evacuation from the zone of military conflict.”
According to the applicants, the harm to the victim Rubanov was caused by the unlawful actions of unidentified persons due to military operations. Because in the course of the proceedings it was not established that Alexey Rubanov was in Syria in the armed forces of the Russian Federation, argued the plaintiffs, then he could be “with civilian visit.” The death of Mr. Rubanov in the zone of military conflict has been caused moral harm to his children who lost their sole breadwinner.
Representatives of the defendants in the person of the Ministry of defense and Ministry of Finance in court has not arrived, hodataystvu on the proceedings in their absence.
But sent written responses to the claim in which asked to refuse the claim in full.
The same version was supported by the assistant Prosecutor believes that the requirements not be satisfied, as the hearing is not established the causal relationship of the death of Alexey Rubanova with the infliction of harm on the part of the Russian Federation.
The court, in turn, decided that the case file has no evidence, certainly evidence that Mr. Rubanov died as a result of illegal actions of servicemen of the Russian armed forces or other law enforcement agencies of the Russian Federation.
In addition to the death certificate in a certain place, the plaintiff has not submitted evidence of death resulting from the actions of servicemen of the Russian Federation in connection with the failure to take measures aimed at ensuring the safety of the population during military action in Syria. That is not evidence, evidence of the moral damage by illegal actions of the Russian Federation, in connection with which the court has found it necessary to refuse satisfaction of the declared requirements.