7 Марта 2012 года

Glasnost defence foundation digest No. 560

5 March 2012



Politkovskaya murder trial follows well-beaten track

Former police colonel Dmitry Pavlyuchenko, the suspected killer of Novaya Gazeta columnist Anna Politkovskaya, has pointed to Akhmed Zakayev and Boris Berezovsky as the masterminds of the assassination, Kommersant Daily reported. The ex-head of the Moscow police department’s operative investigative unit said the killing was ordered in the wake of a conflict Politkovskaya had had with Zakayev and Berezovsky in London. He also reportedly consented, as part of a pre-trial agreement concluded in September 2011, to testify in the murder case of Paul Khlebnikov, editor of the Russian-language version of Forbes.

The General Prosecutor’s Office and Investigative Committee have neither confirmed nor refuted this information.

Pavlyuchenko’s statements have produced little impression on the public, though. Novaya Gazeta editor Dmitry Muratov described the colonel’s revelations about the alleged masterminds as “ridiculous”, calling attention to the fact that Pavlyuchenko, after a year of stubborn silence, suddenly moved to link Berezovsky and Zakayev to Politkovskaya’s murder right on the eve of the presidential vote, for some strange reason. The former police officer never mentioned either of the two men when testifying as the main witness for the prosecution in the Politkovskaya murder trial in 2010, Muratov said adding that their names “leaped” into Pavlyuchenko’s mind only after his witness status changed to that of the accused. “He claimed to know nothing at the time, and now, as if regaining his memory, he is just saying, to ease his lot, whatever they want him to say,” Muratov told the Interfax news agency. The circumstances of Politkovskaya’s killing will only become clear after really serious evidence has been presented, the editor stressed.

The columnist’s family, too, are doubtful as to Zakayev and Berezovsky’s involvement. In the view of Anna’s son Ilya, Pavlyuchenko may say whatever he is told to by the investigators to have his would-be punishment mitigated. “The main thing is to present the proofs – words are not enough,” he said. So far, no evidence has been available to confirm the former police colonel’s testimony, and the “no comment” stance adopted by the General Prosecutor’s Office and Investigative Committee is evidently not accidental.



Republic of Karelia. Departmental directive prevails over Constitution?

By Anatoly Tsygankov, GDF correspondent in North-Western Federal District

In an incident that occurred at the railway station of Petrozavodsk last autumn, reporters tried but failed to talk to (convicted oligarch) Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s mother (who had visited her son in the penal colony and was returning to Moscow): railway station officials drove them away citing an internal directive “prohibiting the use of photo, video or TV cameras on the platform”. That marked an instance of a departmental order issued by Russian Railways Co. (RRC) prevailing over the provisions of the RF Constitution and Media Law.

The incident caused the Journalists’ Union of Karelia (JUK) to ask a court of law to cancel the controversial RRC directive as a document contravening federal legislation. Since the company is registered in Moscow, the case was considered by the Meshchansky district court in Russia’s capital. JUK President A. Tsygankov was challenging Item 4 of the directive, which regulates the use of photo, video and TV cameras on the premises of the RRC infrastructure facilities in use by the general public.

The court turned Tsygankov’s claim down on the grounds that he is not entitled “to act in defence of the rights or lawful interests of an indefinite group of persons in the absence of such right established under the law”, because “he did not personally suffer” as a result of the railway officials’ actions (which is true), and “no one ever gave him the authority” to defend all of the republic’s journalists (unless the fact of his election Journalists’ Union President is to be taken into account). The court thus confirmed – even if indirectly – the prevalence of a departmental directive over federal law.

At the same time, the court did state that, in line with Item 3 of the same directive, using photo, video and TV cameras anywhere at publicly accessible RRC infrastructure sites is allowed if the resulting photo images or video footage are meant for private use and if the shooting process does not impede the serving of passengers at railway stations or stopover points and does not endanger their safety. Still, Item 4 remains fully effective, and it is this that the station officials cited when driving journalists away from the platform.

This means the problem exists, and it will always be tackled based on the approach chosen by a particular railway station’s management. Never before in Petrozavodsk have reporters seen any barriers placed in their way – they would freely interview arriving or departing governors, MPs, senators, artists, athletes or any other celebrities right on the platform, until the conflict flared up over their wishing to talk to a jailed oligarch’s mother. Therefore, there are reasons to believe the departmental instruction may be used – and was actually used in the above-described case – as an instrument of political repression. This is absolutely unacceptable, so action needs to be urgently taken to get the anti-constitutional railway regulation cancelled.

Since Tsygankov’s rights were infringed (he was notified of the court ruling too late to be able to challenge it), he urged the Meshchansky district court, in the first place, to give him additional time for filing a protest, and secondly, to duly consider that protest. There are reasons to expect this civil case now to be reviewed by the higher-standing Moscow city court. Like-minded journalists are invited to attend the hearings to express solidarity with their Karelian colleagues. We need to pool our efforts, because RRC’s internal directive is a hindrance to all of us.

Maritime Region (Far East). Outgoing governor acknowledges his non-transparency to media was “a mistake”

By Anna Seleznyova, GDF correspondent in Far Eastern Federal District

Maritime Region Governor Sergei Darkin on 29 February held a news conference for regional and federal media reporters in connection with his previous-day dismissal by President Medvedev after 11 years of Darkin’s stay at the helm accompanied by repeated media allegations about his proneness to corruption.

It should be noted, though, that neither the governor nor any of his administration officials ever once filed a legal claim against journalists, although media hints at their corrupt behaviour were numerous. Taking over as governor from Yevgeny Nazdratenko, who was notorious for his litigations with the press, Darkin forbade any confrontation with reporters once and for all. Evidently, he wished to distance himself from his predecessor, who had been known to start his working day with leafing through the morning newspapers only to order a legal claim or two to be brought against his critics by the afternoon. To Nazdratenko’s merit, though, he understood the media’s role well enough to hold news conferences frequently and know many journalists personally.

Darkin, in contrast, never held news conferences and maintained no personal contact with journalists. He disapproved of his administration officials’ mixing with reporters and reduced their contacts with the media to official releases issued by his press service time and again. The regional House of Journalists was shut down under Darkin. And the sole legal action he is known to have taken was his lodging a 1million-rouble moral damage claim against Andrei Karaulov, anchor of the Moment Istiny (Moment of Truth) TV show, which the governor won, although the claimed compensation amount was slashed substantially.

At his first – and last – news conference on 29 February, Governor Darkin described his policy of keeping the media at arm’s length as “a big mistake”. “I should have been more open to the regional residents and media,” he said. The journalists acknowledged the outgoing leader’s recognition of his mistakes by featuring reports about his brief farewell news conference on all Maritime television channels and news lines.

Maritime Region. Quoting head of Putin’s campaign team labelled “unlawful canvassing”

By Anna Seleznyova, GDF correspondent in Far Eastern Federal District

The Maritime Region Electoral Committee on 1 March reprimanded Irina Grebneva, editor of the newspaper Arsenyevskiye Vesti (AV), for what was described as “unlawful canvassing”.

The reference, as it turned out in a telephone conversation between a committee official and the editor, was to her quoting Stanislav Govorukhin, the head of Putin’s campaign team, as saying in his 10 February interview for the newspaper Trud that, “With Putin in power, Russia made a shift toward normal, civilized corruption”. Bloggers eagerly picked up and broadly circulated the quote they liked so much throughout the Internet, together with an impromptu campaign slogan, “Vote for Putin to sustain normal, civilized corruption!” AV followed suit by publishing Govorukhin’s notorious quote next to the slogan reprinted from the web.

However, the editor’s meeting with electoral committee officials, appointed for 5:30 p.m. that day, never actually took place because security officers did not let Grebneva through without a pass; the relevant office worked only until 4 p.m.

4. Republic of Altai. Unidentified persons purchase independent newspaper’s print run

Sergei Mikhailov, publisher of the Listok newspaper based in Gorno-Altaisk, reported to the GDF about unidentified persons buying up the fresh issue of his newspaper wholesale from street vendors, specifically from the newspaper stalls in the shops at 17, Kuchiyak St. and at 51, Krasnogvardeiskaya St., and from the press kiosk set up in the lobby of the local printing house.

Readers later reported wholesale purchases of the issue in all residential areas throughout the city; some came directly to the Listok office to buy the newspaper.

The weekly’s latest issue was delivered to the distributors from a printing house in Novosibirsk 18 hours after the deadline – on Thursday afternoon instead of Wednesday evening; the printing company claimed overloaded with campaign material orders. Listok started to be bought up in stacks right after it hit the press stalls.

“We believe this is because the issue features campaign materials by candidates for the city mayor’s position and seats on the City Council,” staffers said. “We have asked our forwarding agents to tell the press vendors to sell Listok only on a retail basis.”

Moscow. Who got aroused by “Pussy Riot”?

By Natalia Severskaya, GDF correspondent in Central Federal District

The police has accused the Russian News Service of “failure to fully cooperate” in the investigation of a scandal around the female punk rock band called “Pussy Riot”.

According to Radio Liberty, police officers have come to the RNS headquarters several times in the past 24 hours to question journalists about the whereabouts of the women rockers, who are facing disorderly conduct charges after singing the song “Virgin Mary, Mother of God, Please Turn Putin Out!” at Moscow’s Cathedral of the Redeemer, and later posting a video recording of their performance on the Internet.

The police officers came to the Russian News Service in hopes of getting on the trail of the “female hooligans” who were recently interviewed by RNS, but chief editor Sergei Dorenko said he could be of little help because the band members had never come to his studios in person; they had talked to the interviewer via the Internet. The visiting officers, apparently upset by this information, told him that “a special group has been set up” to investigate the Pussy Riot scandal and to report the findings “all the way up”; they expressed disappointment at the journalists’ “unwillingness to cooperate” and asked Dorenko to sign a written pledge of non-disclosure of any information pertaining to the investigation, but the editor said NO again. “In fact, I’ve got nothing to disclose,” he wrote on Twitter.

The law enforcers feel very much aroused, which seems understandable. But they are definitely wrong expecting journalists to breach the legislative provisions requiring reporters to keep secret their sources. “The Media Law and the Code of Criminal Procedure both stipulate that it is a journalist’s duty not to disclose information that may lead to a source’s identification,” Mikhail Fedotov, a member of the Presidential Council to Facilitate Civil Society and Human Rights Development and a co-author of the effective law “On the Media”, told Radio Liberty. In this case, he added, “the police did not bother to observe the law or even elementary norms of business ethics”.

Rostov Region. Journalists turned serfs

By Anna Lebedeva, GDF correspondent in Southern Federal District

Even first-year students of journalism know today that one must not write any positive or negative reports about candidates for administration heads, mayors, MPs or presidents during the election campaign period. Nothing must be written at all, unless this is paid for from another candidate’s electoral fund, as stipulated in the law “On the Basic Guarantees of Citizens’ Electoral Rights”.

Much has been said and written in the media about this law’s effectively restricting people’s right to be informed about individual candidates and elections in general; yet the law remains effective, and any district or municipal newspaper editor attempting to defy it may be in for a fine or other big problems. There may be some exceptions, though.

In a special issue of the newspaper Taganrogskaya Pravda, released on 1 March in 90,000 copies (which number is a dozen times larger than the usual), Rostov Region Governor Vassily Golubev announced his support for Nikolai Fedyanin, the incumbent mayor of Taganrog standing for re-election, and pledged regional power’s assistance in tackling city problems in the event of local residents “making the right choice” during the vote. The same special issue featured an article smearing Fedyanin’s rival – the opposition candidate Vladimir Prasolov.

To be sure, Prasolov sued the governor for breaching the electoral law mentioned above. But the city court in Taganrog turned his claim down, finding that the special issue featured no “agitation” stuff. Prasolov then challenged this ruling before the higher-standing regional court which did not have the time to consider it before the start of elections.

Taganrogskaya Pravda editor Anatoly Malinovsky did not deny in a conversation with the GDF correspondent that the special issue’s release just one day before the vote was another person’s initiative, and that he is aware of his own and his team’s potential liability under the law if the publication is found propagandistic, after all. But he, a “serf journalist”, could not really be expected to say NO to the mayor, or to the governor himself, he admitted bitterly.

Curiously enough, the incumbent mayor Nikolai Fedyanin lost to the opposition candidate Vladimir Prasolov in the mayoral race in Taganrog. Tossing pro-Fedyanin leaflets into almost every mailbox did not help. The free city made its own free choice – in defiance of “the official opinion”.

Perm Region. Senator Shubin’s convicted ex-son-in-law demands ban on newspaper publication

See Digest 541

By Mikhail Lobanov, GDF correspondent in Volga Federal District

Businessman Artyom Lukin, former son-in-law of Perm ex-Mayor Igor Shubin, who now is a member of the RF Federation Council, has lodged a legal claim against the regional newspaper Zvezda, asking for a ban on the circulation of a story about his criminal record, dated 1 March 2011.

As we reported in Digest 541, Lukin, 30, was tried on 22 March 1999 on charges of group robbery involving violence, and on 6 March 2000 on charges of deliberate grievous bodily harm to a person that resulted in the victim’s reckless killing; he had served over 7 years in jail before his release on parole in 2003, then returned to Perm to marry Olga Shubina, daughter of then mayor Igor Shubin, in the spring of 2007. Half a year later, yet another criminal case was opened against him on charges of fraud. In 2008, he fled from the investigators and remained on the federal wanted list during the following 7 months.

The Leninsky district court in Perm on 30 November 2009 sentenced Lukin to 6 years in prison for two episodes of fraud resulting in his misappropriation of 19.1 million roubles. Although he had officially divorced her by that time, his ex-wife Olga Shubina defended his interests during district and regional court hearings as a public counsel for the defence.

While serving his time in Penal Colonies Nos. 22 and 19 in the Cherdynsky district of Perm Region, Lukin claimed hurt by the “Criminal Record” story published in Zvezda on 1 March 2011, which announced the Sverdlovsk district court’s intent to order an additional probe into a third alleged episode of fraud yielding 10.7 million roubles for Lukin. His defence lawyer Yekaterina Mukhina complained to the regional prosecutor’s office about journalists who had “unlawfully gathered and disseminated information about Lukin’s private life”.

But a check-up carried out by the prosecutors with the help of the regional department of Roskomnadzor [federal agency overseeing public communications] did not reveal any law violations in the course the article’s preparation or publication. That caused Lukin to lodge a legal claim against Zvezda in defence of his honour and dignity; he also demanded compensation for the moral damage he suffered as a result of his “negative treatment by the public after my release from prison”.

To secure his claim, he asked the court to “prohibit the defendant and other persons to take any action to circulate the article ‘Criminal Record’ or disseminate the a priori false information it contains … in order to protect me from suffering further serious damage”.

Khabarovsk. Journalists acquitted by arbitration court

By Olga Vassilyeva, GDF correspondent in Far Eastern Federal District

As we reported in Digest 540, the Khabarovsk Region Arbitration Court received a legal claim filed by Mikhail Timofeyev, director of Tretya Marta Ltd., against the newspaper Khabarovsky Ekspress and its authors Konstantin Pronyakin and Irina Kharitonova in the wake of a publication that struck the plaintiff as “libellous, smearing, and damaging to my business reputation and my relationships with partners”.

“A good reputation is an asset to be treasured, upheld and constantly improved,” Timofeyev wrote in his claim, demanding 95,000 roubles in moral damages.

Having heard both sides last December, the court found that “the disputed publication does not state any facts needing to be checked in terms of accuracy, since it only features third-party opinions and authors’ own suppositions. The disputed statements are evaluative judgments that cannot be analysed in terms of whether they are accurate or true to fact”.

The plaintiff’s representative, Larisa Timofeyeva (wife of Mikhail Timofeyev who has stayed in pre-trial detention in Khabarovsk since his arrest on 1 February 2011) challenged the ruling before the Sixth Court of Appeals which on 28 February pronounced it unchanged and in full legal effect as of the same day.

The Khabarovsky Ekspress publication, as we have earlier pointed out, only generalized other media reports and police officers’ statements; the original publications (in media controlled by federal and regional authorities) had been far more straightforward and sharp-worded. Yet Timofeyev chose to lodge his legal claim against Khabarovsky Ekspress, which is an independent media outlet.



… Russian people’s interest in reading the press is on the decline, and that many have come to understand over the years that the national media are insufficiently free?

In the past two years, the share of Russians regularly reading two or more daily newspapers has shrunk from 18 to 12%, and the share of those reading at least one newspaper a day has reduced from 23 to 20%, Levada Centre analysts said presenting the findings of their sociological research. Two-thirds (65%) of the participants in a poll carried out in January admitted they do not read newspapers regularly; their share has gone up 9 percentage points since 2010.

The survey also revealed that with every coming year, Russian citizens see more and more media shifting to government control in this country. The share of people considering the Russian press “fully free” or “largely free” has shrunk from 46% in 2010 to 39% this year, with nearly half of the respondents (47%, up from 45% in 2010) continuing to believe the national media are effectively controlled by the government, the sociologists said.

[Interfax news agency report, 29 February]



Conflicts registered by GDF Monitoring Service on RF territory in February 2012

Deaths of journalists – 1 (Viktor Afanasenko, chief editor, Prestupnost i Korruptsiya newspaper, Rostov-on-Don).

Attacks on journalists – 4 (Lyudmila Zaitseva, freelance contributor to Mobile Reporter project, Moscow; Alexander Lashmankin, Radio Liberty correspondent, Samara; Sergei Krasilnikov, acting editor-in-chief, Tolyattinskoye Obozreniye newspaper, Samara Region; Andrei Lakhovsky, Babr.ru correspondent, Irkutsk Region).

Attacks on media offices and TV/radio stations – 2 (Nadezhda i My newspaper, Krasnoyarsk Region; Rekord radio station, Omsk).

Instances of censorship – 8 (Ekho Moskvy radio station, Moscow; EROS TV station, Volgograd – attacked twice; Channel One – attacked twice; Rezonans newspaper, Trans-Baikal Region; MTV Channel, Moscow; NTM television company, Yaroslavl).

Criminal charges against journalists and media – 1 (Valery Semergey, editor-in-chief, Imeyu Pravo newspaper, Krasnodar Region).

Unlawful sacking of editor/journalist – 1 (Natalia Irzhanova, chief editor, Kamskiye Zori newspaper, Perm Region).

Detention by police, FSB, etc. – 8 (Mikhail Lobanov, correspondent, Novy Kompanyon newspaper, Perm; Natalia Filonova, editor, Vsemu Naperekor newspaper, Trans-Baikal Region; Alexei Rassolov, journalist, Ekooborona radio station, Moscow Region; Konstantin Ganov, journalist, press service of Altai Region CPRF Committee, Barnaul; Lyudmila Zaitseva, freelance contributor to Mobile Reporter project, Moscow; Anne Nivat, special reporter for Le Point magazine, Moscow; Stanislav Mikryukov, journalist, NovoTOMSK news portal, Tomsk; Valery Semergey, editor-in-chief, Imeyu Pravo newspaper, Krasnodar Region).

Refusals to provide information (including bans on use of audio recorders and video/photo cameras; refusals to provide accreditation; restrictions on admittance to official events held by government bodies, industrial enterprises or state institutions) – 18.

Threats against journalists and media – 7 (Rinat Mussin, reporter, Moi Gorod-Kostroma newspaper, Kostroma; Aznor Attayev and Arina Zhilyasova, anchors, Vesti Kabardino-Balkaria news show, Kabardino-Balkaria; Nina Smiley, anchor, Radio Rekord, and Maria Gordeyeva, anchor, Radio Europe Plus, both of Omsk; Andrei Lakhovsky, Babr.ru correspondent, Ikrutsk Region – threatened twice).

Refusals to print (or distribute) media – 4 (newspapers Gorodskiye Vesti, Novaya Yezhenedelnaya Gazeta and Vecherny Pervouralsk Svobodny, all three based in Sverdlovsk Region; Zhizn v Yaroslavle newspaper, Yaroslavl).

Disruption of TV/radio broadcasts – 2 (cable TV in Kursk; city television in Lermontov, Stavropol Region).

Closure of media – 1 (телепередача «НТВшники», Москва).

Withdrawal (purchase, seizure) of print run – 3 (Chestnoye Slovo bulletin, Pskov; Moi Gorod-Kpstroma newspaper, Kostroma; Zhizn v Yaroslavle newspaper, Yaroslavl).

Interference with Internet publications – 5 (Livejournal.com; Slivmail.com; Press-Line news agency; Ufimsky Zhurnal; Vysota 102 news agency).

Release of duplicate (i.e. rival) newspapers – 5 (Novaya Gazeta na Urale and Vecherny Yekaterinburg newspapers, both based in Yekaterinburg; MK v Arkhangelske newspaper, Arkhangelsk; Kuryer and Patrioty Rossii-Pskov newspapers, both based in Pskov Region).

Confiscation of or damage to photo, video or audio apparatus and computers – 3 (PCs of Rezonans newspaper staffers, Trans-Baikal Region; PC of Listok correspondent Ruslan Makarov, Republic of Altai; PCs of Energiya newspaper and its staffers, Moscow Region).

Administrative pressure (unplanned inspections by sanitary, fire or tax inspectors) – 4 (Nikolai Kirillov, correspondent, Argumenty i Fakty newspaper, Perm; Ekho Moskvy radio station, Moscow; Porechanka and Krasninsky Krai newspaper, both based in Smolensk Region).

Other forms of pressure/infringement of journalists’ rights – 34.


Last week, the Glasnost Defence foundation was referred to at least 10 times in the Internet, including at



Omsk: Regional court’s acknowledgement that “freedom is better to residents than non-freedom” leads to establishment of region’s first ever free media outlet

By Georgy Borodyansky, GDF correspondent in Siberian Federal District

The regional court in Omsk has turned down a protest lodged by the Chief Administration for the Press, TV/Radio Broadcasting and Public Communications against a Central district court decision reinstating Marina Yeliseyeva as chief editor of the newspaper Tarskoye Priirtyshye (TP). As we have reported in the GDF Digest, she was relieved of her duties on 3 October last year on gubernatorial orders by the Chief Administration head Alexander Belash – for insufficient “coverage of district administration performance in the light of the governor’s activities” – an approach prescribed by a memo once signed by Belash and circulated among the district newspaper editors.

In 2010, the same pretext was used for firing Marina’s predecessor and husband Sergei Malgavko, who had turned TP into one of Russia’s best district newspapers with a circulation of 10,000, which is read in actually every family in Tara, a district with a population of 47,000.

The story of Yeliseyeva’s sacking and reinstatement has had a sad and scandalous continuation. Unwilling to put up with their defeat in court, the district authorities first challenged the first-instance court’s ruling before the regional court of appeals, and followed up with an “ideological crackdown” on TP, vividly proving again they can “work well with people”: one of Belash’s deputies came to Tara to meet with the TP staffers, and persuaded 12 of them to sign (according to them, against their own will) a collective appeal to the Chief Administration to replace Yeliseyeva for several reasons, one of them being “her cutting down the salary to 3,000-4,000 roubles”; the appeal was later posted on a pro-governor website.

The “low salary” claim, though, proved easy to disprove, since a number of websites (Targorod, SuperOmsk, Biznes-kurs, etc.) had posted by that time an official accounting office declaration of the average monthly earnings of TP staffers in 2011 – 19,000 roubles after tax. The scandal caused a torrent of comments in the Internet, showing most Omsk-based journalists are on the fired editor’s side and in opposition to the appeal signatories who claimed to be “defending the staff’s interests”.

Nevertheless, Marina Yeliseyeva resigned voluntarily: she and Sergei Malgavko, as well as their son Alexei (a photo correspondent who has won several international awards in spite of his young age and who is a freelance photographer for the France Presse news agency) have decided to start an independent newspaper of their own. Shortly afterwards, Belash was replaced as Chief Administration head – evidently, in the wake of the scandal around TP.

2 March saw the release of the first issue of Tarsky Kuryer – the Omsk Region’s first ever (at least in the third millennium) independent newspaper, the first 3,000 copies of which were sold out instantly, with press distributors asking for more.

Although Yeliseyeva has won all of her litigations with the regional government, she is unwilling to return to the latter’s control. TP will now have to compete with a pretty strong new rival; this competition will show to Tara residents “which is better to them – freedom or non-freedom”, as outgoing President Medvedev put it.


This digest was prepared by the Glasnost Defence Foundation in Moscow. The digest has been issued once a week, on Mondays, since August 11, 2000.

Currently it is distributed by e-mail to 1,600 subscribers in and outside Russia.

Editorial board

  • Editor-in-chief, Alexei Simonov
  • Boris Timoshenko, Head of Monitoring Service;
  • Svetlana Zemskova, GDF Lawyer;
  • Vsevolod Shelkhovskoy, translator.

We welcome the promotion of our news items and articles but if you make use of any information from this digest or other GDF materials please acknowledge the source.


Glasnost Defence Foundation, Room 432, 4 Zubovsky Boulevard,
119992 Moscow, Russia.

Telephone/fax: +7 (495) 637-4947 and +7 (495) 637-4420
e-mail: boris@gdf.ru , or fond@gdf.ru

Все новости

ФЗГ продолжает бороться за свое честное имя. Пройдя все необходимые инстанции отечественного правосудия, Фонд обратился в Европейский суд. Для обращения понадобилось вкратце оценить все, что Фонд сделал за 25 лет своего существования. Вот что у нас получилось:
Полезная деятельность Фонда защиты гласности за 25 лет его жизни