Case No. 78-D01-21
The Panel of Judges for Civil Affairs of the Supreme Court of the Russian
Federation
in
the persons of the Supervising Chairman
G.V. Manokhina
and
the Judges
N.K. Tolcheev
V.B. Khamenkov
in open session of Court from 24 May 2001 has reviewed the civil case
opened upon appeal by the Prosecutor of St. Petersburg and the Chief Ministry of
Justice of the Russian Federation for St. Petersburg and the Leningradskaya
Oblast calling for the liquidation of the public association "St.
Petersburg Collegiate Association for the Research of the Principle (Unification
Philosophy)"; and the appeal by the same association calling for the
refusal of its reregistration to be declared unlawful and demanding that its
reregistration be carried out forthwith;
upon appeal in a protest suit filed by the Prosecutor of St. Petersburg
and upon the appeal by the Chief Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation
for St. Petersburg and Leningradskaya Oblast challenging the decision of 16
March 2001 of the St. Petersburg Municipal Court, in which the Court refused to
satisfy the appeals filed, and the position of the public association was
upheld.
Hearing the report by Justice N.K. Tolcheev of the Supreme Court of the
Russian Federation; the explanations by the representatives of the Chief
Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation for St. Petersburg and
Leningradskaya Oblast, O.S. Chetverikova and V.M. Maigeldinov, supporting the
arguments on the side of the plaintiffs; the lawyer G.S. Krylova, representing
the public association "St. Petersburg Collegiate Association for the
Research of the Principle (Unification Philosophy)" and defending it
against the protest suit and the appeals filed; and the conclusion of the
Prosecutor of the Office of the General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation,
M.M. Germasheva, in support of the protest suit and the appeal; the panel of
Judges has
E S T A B L I S H E D
the
following:
In 1996 the Prosecutor of St. Petersburg, in defense of the national and
social interest, appealed to the court with a petition to liquidate the regional
public association "Collegiate Association for the Research of the
Principle (Unification Philosophy)" (hereafter known as "CARP"),
whose Charter was registered in the Department of Justice of the Mayor of St.
Petersburg on 9 December 1991 (Registration No. 327), on the grounds of
violation of the law and other legal statutes, specifically, its own Charter
(Section 3: "Membership in the Association", Section 5:
"Financial Assets of the Association", Section 6: "Supervisory
and Regulatory Bodies") and Articles 19 and 20 of the Federal Law "On
Public Associations".
In 1999 the Ministry of Justice of St. Petersburg, the legal successor of
which is now the Chief Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation for St.
Petersburg and Leningradskaya Oblast, likewise appealed with a demand for
liquidation of the said public association, claiming that it had not completed
reregistration within the legally required time period.
CARP appealed to the St. Petersburg Municipal Court claiming that the
refusal by the Office of Registry to reregister CARP was unlawful.
The St. Petersburg Municipal Court issued the above decision.
The protest suit filed by the Prosecutor of St. Petersburg and the appeal
filed by the Chief Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation for St.
Petersburg and Leningradskaya Oblast raise the issue of changing the decision by
virtue of the incorrect application of the norms of the material law (regarding
evidence) and the lack of correspondence of the Court's decision to the actual
facts of the case.
Weighing the arguments of the protest suit and the appeal filed, the
Panel of Judges for Civil Affairs of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
finds the decision of the lower court to be legal and well-founded in the point
of its refusal to satisfy the claims of the Prosecutor; and, in the other part,
to be changed.
In accordance with Paragraph 4, Part 1, Article 44 of the Federal Law No.
82-FZ of 19 May 1995, amended 19 May 1998, "On Public Associations",
in effect as of 22 May 1995, from the day of its issue (see Social Laws of the
Russian Federation, 22 May 1995, No. 21, Article 1930), a public association can
be liquidated by court decision in the case of repeated or grave noncompliance
with the law or other legal statutes, or else in the case of systematic
activities of the public organization which contradict the goals and purposes
stated in its Charter.
In terms of the grounds for liquidation of CARP stated in the appeal of
the Prosecutor and in his protest suit, it is indicated that the said public
association, in the period from 1994 to 18 March 1996, i.e., up until the date
when it filed its appeal in the St. Petersburg Municipal Court, in violation of
Sections 3, 5 and 6 of its own Charter, did not resolve the questions of
admitting members to or excluding them from its constituency at its public
assemblies, as stipulated in its Charter; nor did it handle the confirmation of
its membership; the governing bodies of the organization did not in fact lead
the organization; general assemblies were not held at the required intervals;
the governing body, executive and vice-director were not elected; the advisory
committee did not function; the members of CARP were not informed of the
financial assets of the organization and how they were being spent.
Likewise, in the opinion of the Prosecutor, during that period there were
violations of Articles 19 and 20 of the Federal Law "On Public
Associations", to wit, participation in the activities of CARP by minors,
and the conduct of religious activities by the organization.
As established by the Court of the First Instance, in fact during the
period prior to 1996, CARP committed a series of violations of the type of
inadequate and improper records of the minutes of its public meetings and its
governing board, reports by its advisory and regulatory committees, accounts of
income and expenses, and bookkeeping balance sheets.
Evaluating the violations which have appeared, the lower court with good
reason came to the conclusion that the errors and inadequacies in conducting its
affairs and the activities of its ruling bodies cannot be considered as
sufficient grounds for liquidating the organization.
After subsequent warning, the public organization corrected the
violations on its own accord in the area of instituting membership in the
organization, and at the present time the director of the organization has been
elected according to the prescribed procedure. Those aspects of a religious
nature among its activities, not provided for within its Charter, have also been
discontinued by the CARP organization.
The conclusions of the lower court are based upon evidence, research, and
evaluations in accordance with the rules as outlined in Article 56 of the Civil
Procedures Code of the Russian Federation of Soviet Socialist Republics, in
correspondence with the facts of this case. There is no basis for a different
evaluation of the evidence, such as presented in the arguments of the appeal.
Evidence of alleged religious activities by CARP following the warning issued,
such as which would warrant the conclusion that this public association is
systematically conducting activities which do not correspond to the purposes and
tasks outlined in its Charter, has not been presented to the court; and this
does not support the conclusions drawn within the contents of the appeal
regarding concrete facts and evidence of the carrying out of such activities.
In light of these facts, the liquidation suit of CARP was rightly
rejected, in which it was alleged that the public association had repeatedly or
gravely violated the law or legal statutes, and systematically conducted
activities contradictory to the goals of its Charter (Part 1, Article 44 of the
Federal Law "On Public Associations").
At the same time, we cannot agree with the decision of the lower court in
the point of rejecting the liquidation of CARP on the basis of Part 3, Article
52 of the Federal Law "On Public Associations", according to which
public associations created before the present Federal Law came into effect must
reregister with the government no later than 1 July 1999 and are exempt from the
registration fee. For such public associations, Part 6 Article 21 of the present
Federal Law, calling for the submission of the founding documents for
governmental registration within 3 months from the day of the founding session,
conference or general assembly, is not applicable. Upon the expiration of the
required period for reregistration, those public associations which have not
completed reregistration are subject to liquidation according to the prescribed
legal procedure upon the request of the Office of Registry which originally
registered the said public association.
The public association "St. Petersburg Collegiate Association for
the Research of the Principle (Unification Philosophy)" did not complete
its reregistration within the required time period, and therefore is subject to
liquidation.
The fact of applying for reregistration within the required period,
alone, does not mean that the organization has fulfilled its responsibilities in
compliance with the stipulations of the Law.
CARP was not deprived of the opportunity to file for legal protection and
to contest the issue during the period specified in Article 239-5 of the Civil
Procedures Code of the Russian Federation of Soviet Socialist Republics, if it
considered the rejection of its reregistration bid to be unlawful. Up to the
present time, no refusal by the Office of Registry to reregister any public
association has been contested in court, with the exception of the refusal on 7
October 1999 of the application by CARP on 23 June 1999.
Meanwhile, the fact of the application by CARP to the Office of Registry
does not constitute evidence that the public association has fulfilled its
obligations regarding reregistration independently from the reasons for which
its reregistration was denied. The Law defines the period within which the
public association must accomplish reregistration, not only apply for such.
Reregistration of CARP had not been granted by 1 July 1999 for its
application on 23 June 1999. This fact cannot be regarded as unlawful, since
according to Part 1 Article 22 of the Federal Law "On Public
Associations" the Office of Registry must be given the period of one month
to review the application for reregistration of a public association and reach
its decision. Upon the date of expiration of the period required to reregister
public associations, the one-month period required for review of the application
of CARP had not yet expired.
The Law places responsibility for reregistration by the required date not
upon the Office of Registry, but upon the public association; therefore CARP
should have allowed ample time for completion of the appropriate requirements
and preparation of all necessary documents, taking into account the period
needed for review of its application by the Office of Registry and the decision
of its reregistration.
Thus CARP did not fulfill the requirements of the Law regarding
reregistration by 1 July 1999, and consequently the lower court was not legally
justified in demanding that the Office of Registry fulfill its obligations to
reregister CARP.
The conclusion of the lower court did not correspond to the facts of the
case in the matter of the refusal by the Office of Registry to reregister CARP.
According to Article 23 of the Federal Law "On Public
Associations", a public association may be denied government registration
if the Charter of the public association contradicts the Constitution of the
Russian Federation, the constitutions or charters of the subjects of the Russian
Federation, Articles 16, 19, 20 or 21 of the present Federal Law, or the
statutes regarding independent public associations.
Part 1 Article 19 of the above Federal Law specifies that leaders,
members and participants of public associations must be citizens of 18 years old
and above; and if a public association, as a juridical person, is constituted
otherwise, then it is not considered as valid before the existing Federal Law
and the statutes regarding independent public associations.
In Part 3 of the same Article it is stipulated that citizens of 14 years
old and up may be members or participants of public youth associations.
The Charter of "Collegiate Association for the Research of the
Principle (Unification Philosophy)" as submitted for reregistration
contains no indication that it is a youth organization (see Section 6 lines
135-136). On the other hand, if its Charter did include such a clause, then in
order for CARP to be registered as a youth organization, it would then be
required to present to the Office of Registry information showing that CARP is
in compliance with Part 11 Article 21 of the Federal Law, in electing to its
governing bodies only those citizens who have reached the age of 18 years old or
over.
In fact, since CARP is not a public youth association, therefore its
leaders, members and participants can only be citizens of at least 18 years of
age and above.
According to Paragraph 3.1 of the Charter submitted for registration, the
members of the Association must be citizens of the Russian Federation who are
enrolled in middle and higher educational institutions, teachers or directors of
such educational institutions.
Upon considering possible scenarios, the Court of the First
Instance drew the reasonable conclusion that Paragraph 3.1 of the Charter of
Collegiate Association for the Research of the Principle (Unification
Philosophy) allows for the possibility of minors being included in CARP
membership.
In this way, Paragraph 3.1 of the Charter as submitted for reregistration
allows minors to be members of the public association (which is not a youth
organization), in violation of Part 1 Article 19 of the Federal Law. In this
connection and upon such a grounds, the denial of reregistration by the Office
of Registry is valid.
According to Part 6 Article 21 of the Federal Law, in order to register a
public association, among other things, a document must be submitted
establishing the legal address of the public association.
CARP did not submit a document establishing the right of the organization
to dispose of the location indicated as its juridical address in its Writ of
Guarantee. Without such a document, the letter submitted cannot serve as proof
of the legality of the given address. These circumstances likewise constitute
grounds for denial of reregistration. Nevertheless, in its decision regarding
the denial of reregistration, the lower court left this point unaddressed.
Among the materials submitted to the lower court in this case, there is
no evidence of the submission of such a document. Accordingly the refusal of
reregistration on these grounds may not be considered as unlawful.
Furthermore, there are various unclear or indeterminate points, as well
as editorial oversights, in the Charter, as referred to in the statement of
conclusion of the Office of Registry, which in sum total, together with the
violations above, likewise hindered the reregistration of CARP. CARP was obliged
to bring its Charter into conformity with the Federal Law by the day the Law
went into effect, at its next session, conference or general assembly (see Part
2 Article 52 of the Federal Law).
Taking into account all the above, the decision of the lower court in the
matters which it addressed cannot be deemed valid and stands to be rescinded;
and a new decision must be issued in these points, in light of the fact that the
circumstances pertinent to the case had been determined on the basis of the
materials in possession of and familiar to both sides in the case.
According to the guidelines of Paragraph 3 Article 305 of the Civil
Procedures Code of the Russian Federation of Soviet Socialist Republics, the
Panel of Judges
D E T E R M I N E D
that the decision of 16 March 2001 by the St. Petersburg Municipal Court
rejecting the petition for satisfaction of the appeal by the Chief Ministry of
Justice of the Russian Federation for St. Petersburg and Leningradskaya Oblast
for liquidation of the public association "St. Petersburg Collegiate
Association for the Research of the Principle (Unification Philosophy)" and
satisfying the demand by this public association that the refusal of its
reregistration be declared unlawful and obliging the reregistration to be
carried forward to completion, is to be reversed.
A new decision is to be produced in the first part, by which the appeal
of the Chief Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation for St. Petersburg
and Leningradskaya Oblast is to be satisfied, that is, to liquidate the public
association "Collegiate Association for the Research of the Principle
(Unification Philosophy)"; and rejecting the appeal of this public
association for declaring the refusal of its reregistration to be unlawful and
for obliging the reregistration process to proceed forthwith.
In the remaining part, the decision of the lower court is to remain
standing without change; but the protest suit filed by the Prosecutor of St.
Petersburg is rejected.
Supervisor:
G.V. Manokhina
Judges:
N.K. Tolcheev
V.B. Khamenkov
Certified
copy:
Acting
Counselor of the Supreme Court of RF:
N.A. Erofeeva
____________
END
OF TEXT
Translated
from Russian by W. Stoertz
Publications
Department, Moscow
20
June 2001