Arutyunov Mikhail Eduardovich. How do small political functionaries who call themselves consultants and PR people build their careers?

The Presnensky Court of Moscow sentenced the former deputy head of the Main Medical Directorate of the Presidential Administration, Arutyunov, and the former head of the pharmaceutical department of the same department, Elena Oskolkova. Both defendants were found guilty of supplying CT scanners at inflated prices. Despite the fact that the prosecutor's office insisted on 8 years of real imprisonment, the judge decided that a suspended sentence would be enough for the ex-officials.

A loud scandal involving the supply of tomographs and other medical equipment to various medical institutions in Russia at inflated prices broke out during the presidency of Dmitry Medvedev. At one time, he called what was happening “boorish theft of public money” and said that he had instructed the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Investigative Committee to ensure that everyone involved in the scam suffered “severe punishment.”

According to the Control Directorate of the Russian Presidential Administration, in 2009, at least 170 tomographs were purchased for various hospitals and clinics for a total amount of 7.5 billion rubles. In a number of cases, the price of tomographs was inflated by more than three times, and the profits of intermediaries reached up to 55 million rubles. for one device.

After this, the media reported that criminal cases had been opened regarding the supply of medical equipment at an inflated price, but there was no information about the progress of the investigation of most of them.

On Friday, November 20, 2015, in the Presnensky District Court there was an unexpected echo of a scandal involving the president’s administrative managers.

During the meeting, it became partly clear why so little is known about the criminal case - those involved in the process were unpleasantly surprised by the presence of the press, which was represented only by a Gazeta.Ru correspondent.

Former deputy head of the medical department of the presidential administration, Albert Arutyunov, and former head of the department of pharmaceutical and medical-technical activities of the Main Medical Directorate of the presidential administration, Elena Oskolkova, were found guilty of supplying tomographs at a deliberately inflated price to two medical institutions subordinate to the presidential administration: clinical hospital No. 1 and Federal State Institution "Polyclinic No. 2". The case against the defendants was considered by judge Oleg Dolgopolov, who previously became known for placing the former head of the Federal Penitentiary Service of the Russian Federation, Alexander Reimer, under arrest, satisfying the corresponding request of the Investigative Committee.

According to materials read out during the reading of the verdict, Arutyunov and Oskolkova decided to organize the purchase in August-September 2009 medical institutions tomographs for your own benefit.

The total amount allocated for the purchase of these devices, as well as the associated equipment necessary for their operation, amounted to 376 million rubles.

“According to the documents available to the court, the purchase of this equipment was not among the priority tasks of KB 1, and there was no objective need for it,” judge Dolgopolov concluded. During the trial it became clear that technical task was compiled by Oskolkova in such a way that only the devices of a specific company, Maximum LLC, met its requirements. At the same time, the competing company lost the auction also because the examination for the auction, based on the case materials, was carried out by the organization of the State Budgetary Institution "Educational and Scientific medical Center", where Arutyunov’s acquaintances worked.

Oskolkova then became the chairman of the auction commission that organized the competition.

According to Dolgopolov, the former deputy head of the medical department of the presidential administration also misled the competent authorities by saying that the documentation for the purchase of tomographs was fully approved by the department of material and technical documentation of the presidential administration. In reality this was not the case.

As a result, tomographs from the company were installed in KB 1 General Electric, collected in Israel.

For this purpose, the financial and economic department of the presidential administration allocated first 376 and then another 21 million rubles.

As stated in the verdict, in a similar way, medical devices were supplied to the Federal State Institution “Polyclinic No. 2”. For this institution, tomographs were supplied by the Medical Technologies company, with which a contract was signed for 250 million rubles. At the same time, the market value of these devices, as follows from the judge’s decision, amounted to only 189 million rubles.

During the trial, both defendants denied their guilt and stated that determining the cost of the equipment was not within their competence. The defense insisted that there was no crime in the actions of Arutyunov and Oskolkova.

“The cost of equipment is not as easy to determine as it seems. For example, we open a website with offers for the sale of real estate and find an apartment for 1 million rubles.

We call there and it turns out that it has been sold, but there is another one for 3 million. Why can’t it be the same with tomographs?” — said Arutyunov’s defender Alexander Kozlov.

He also noted that it was necessary to conduct a confrontation between Arutyunov and the head physician of KB 1 Nikolai Vitko.

“I have reason to believe that the latter slandered my client. This is indicated by a number of circumstances of the case,” Kozlov said. The lawyers also insisted that the investigation was incompetent in qualifying the actions of the defendants, and spoke about a poorly conducted examination during the trial.

“The examination of one of the episodes was carried out using an alternative method. But at the same time, alternative options were not explored. Of course, this is a serious violation,” noted lawyer Konstantin, who refused to give his last name, in an interview with Gazeta.Ru.

Representatives of the state prosecution asked to sentence both defendants to 8.5 years of actual imprisonment.

However, Judge Dolgopolov decided otherwise. He found Arutyunov and Oskolkova guilty of exceeding and abusing official powers, indicating that their guilt was confirmed by witness testimony, seizures, examinations, searches, as well as data from their telephone conversations and a number of operational investigative activities.

“The defendants acted against the interests of the service and were motivated by personal gain,” the judge said.

However, according to the judge, correction of convicts is possible without sending them to a colony.

“Given the state of health of the defendants, they positive characteristics from their place of work and the fact that they had no previous convictions, the court decided to sentence Arutyunov to five years and six months of suspended imprisonment, and Oskolkova to four years and six months of suspended imprisonment,” Dolgopolov said. At the same time, both defendants in the case will be prohibited from holding certain positions for several years.

In addition, the judge appointed a probationary period of five years for Arutyunov and four years for Oskolkova. If during this time they commit new crimes, their suspended sentence will turn into a real one. Now both parties to the process have ten days to appeal the decision of the Presnensky Court, otherwise it will come into force. During this time, both Arutyunov and Oskolkova will remain under recognizance not to leave. A civil claim against the defendants by a representative of the Presidential Administration for 240 million rubles. the court left without satisfaction.

At the same time, the convicts refused to comment on the verdict to Gazeta.Ru.

Let us note that in one of the latest income declarations, the convicted officials indicated very modest data.

Thus, Albert Arutyunov earned only 1 million 897 thousand rubles in 2010. At the same time, Arutyunov’s real estate includes a plot of 1,500 square meters. m and a residential building of 532 m, as well as three parking spaces in the absence of declared cars. His wife earned 848 thousand rubles in the same year. and owned a BMW car.

Elena Oskolkova lived even more modestly. Her earnings for 2010 amounted to 1 million 211 thousand rubles, she owns a third of an apartment with an area of ​​46.5 square meters. m, as well as a Mazda car.

Their names come up during interrogations of radical nationalists, they appear in youth movements and contribute to the establishment of the “Russian world” in Donbass. “Vlast” studied how medium-sized political functionaries at the turn of the 2000-2010s, who called themselves consultants, political strategists and PR people, built their careers.

Grigory Tumanov

“This man took me from Lugansk to Russia on June 23, 2014,” said Ukrainian pilot Nadezhda Savchenko in the Donetsk city court on February 1, 2016 Rostov region, where her criminal case is being considered. Opposite the court "aquarium" stood her lawyer Ilya Novikov, holding in his hands a photograph of a plump, unshaven man - Pavel Karpov, a former assistant to the Russian Presidential Administration Nikita Ivanov, who oversaw relations with football fans and pro-Kremlin youth movements. Novikov cited wiretapping data as additional evidence that it was Karpov who smuggled Savchenko. In the recording, a man who sounds like Karpov is allegedly discussing with the then head of the self-proclaimed Lugansk people's republic(LPR) Valery Bolotov transporting a Ukrainian pilot to Russia. “First of all, I didn’t take her anywhere. Yes, I was in Lugansk, but I didn’t see the pilot Savchenko. Then there were quite a lot of fat bearded men in camouflage, so maybe she got confused,” he himself told Vlasti Pavel Karpov. He does not deny that he was in Donbass during the conflict, but assures that he did not take part in the hostilities, did not kidnap Nadezhda Savchenko, and now plans to file a lawsuit for the protection of honor and dignity against her and her lawyers. “Curator from the presidential administration”, “political strategist”, “patron of members of the Combat Organization of Russian Nationalists (BORN), which is responsible for several murders” - as Karpov has not been called in recent weeks.

Political strategist Stanislav Belkovsky believes that it is most appropriate to call people like Pavel Karpov either “romantics with a minus sign” or “small-sized gray cardinals". “The moment when the eminence grise wanted to become a politician, his political death comes,” he argues. Smaller political strategists, according to Belkovsky, always believed that participation “in subtle, specific processes” would help them increase their weight and themselves become subjects of governance. “And, as a rule, these are quite dark things,” he argues.

The name of Pavel Karpov first surfaced during another high-profile trial - in the BORN case. In 2007, two nationalist friends, Nikita Tikhonov and Ilya Goryachev, who at one time collaborated with the pro-Kremlin newspaper Re:Aktsia, decided to pave the way for the far right to power through the Russian Image organization. As follows from the materials of the criminal case about the murders of several anti-fascists, a lawyer, a journalist, a federal judge and natives of the Caucasus, while “Russian Image” under the leadership of Goryachev participated in “round tables” and negotiations with people close to the authorities, the military wing, BORN itself, was under Tikhonov's leadership committed political murders. During interrogations, Tikhonov’s comrade-in-arms Evgenia Khasis said that the idea was to convince the authorities with targeted strikes that only the “Russian Image” could take radical nationalists under control, making them comrades-in-arms in the fight against the opposition. This idea ultimately resulted in two life sentences - for Goryachev and Tikhonov.

As Goryachev claimed during the trial, he met Karpov while he was building the “Russian Image”. He called the political strategist nothing more than “a curator from the presidential administration.” Most likely, the acquaintance occurred through Leonid Simunin, whom Tikhonov called “a supervisor from the administration” in his testimony. He also claimed that Simunin suggested that he engage in the fight against the opposition, namely attacks on the National Bolsheviks. As stated in the materials of the criminal case, Tikhonov eventually came to the conclusion that supporters of Eduard Limonov were not “enemies of the Russian nation,” and refused this offer. Officially, in the late 2000s, Simunin was listed as the head of the Lyubertsy branch of the Moscow region pro-Kremlin movement “Local”. He repeatedly stated that he had nothing to do with BORN; Karpov, in a conversation with Vlast, stated the same thing: “I can’t understand why I’m being dragged into this story. This is a question for Savchenko’s lawyers - Feigin and Polozov, who, by the way, and Goryachev was defended... Looks like PR attempts." Vlast’s interlocutor, who is well acquainted with Karpov, claims that he nevertheless worked with representatives of the “Russian Image”, but knew nothing about the true plans of the nationalists pretending to be moderate: “Pasha and BORN had an absolutely idiotic story, but he It's really not my fault."

The materials of the criminal case against BORN members say that Goryachev met Simunin “on the basis of common PR interests.” The nationalist periodically prepared various reports on youth subcultures for Simunin’s company “PRORIV” and helped write advertising posts. If you study the companies that Simunin led, it becomes clear that he and Karpov were not just casual acquaintances.

According to the SPARK database, in 2009, Karpov and Simunin together founded the company "Region-150", the main activity of which is "market research and identification public opinion", and a year later - the Auto Services company, which was engaged in car repairs. Now both companies no longer belong to them, and joint business they, according to the database, no longer conducted. Simunin has since managed to move away from managing the PROryv company; now it is owned by his wife. In 2013, he founded the company Communications Center - K, which, according to SPARK, is engaged in the sale of cars, advertising, and also conducts “activities in the field of law, accounting and audit." Simunin’s partner in many previous companies, Alexey Chernyshov, registered the Crimea Service company in Feodosia on June 29, 2015, which provides services in the housing and communal services sector. In contrast, Simunin and Karpov were interested in Ukrainian events not only from the point of view of development business: when the active phase of the conflict began in the Donbass in the summer of 2014, they immediately went there too.

There is even some spirit of adventurism in this: to take part in some dubious story in order to later increase your quotes

“They are in many ways similar to Vasily Yakemenko, this is a phenomenon of the same nature,” says Stanislav Belkovsky about “political strategists-adventurers.” True, for the ideologist of the Nashi movement, the priority in the end was a calm, even partly bourgeois life. After leaving Rosmolodezh, Yakemenko tried to go into business, founding the Eat Pie cafe, then launched political party. But neither culinary nor political activity did not work out, and now, according to Vlast, Yakemenko is working on the Great Books Club project. “It’s natural: people get together and read books together. This is the kind of club that suits the interests of a person, Vasya himself likes it wildly, he doesn’t want to go back, the person is happy,” says one of former colleagues Yakemenko. But such a voluntary retirement does not suit everyone. “For some, it’s not money that’s more important, but power. There’s even some spirit of adventurism in this: to take part in some dubious story in order to then increase your quotes,” Belkovsky argues.

However, Pavel Karpov himself, in a conversation with Vlast, stated that he went to Donbass “at the call of his heart”: “I have also always been involved in political consulting, my area of ​​interest lay in this area. I was in Ukraine during the first “Orange Revolution”, I went there and then. This is my bread, I needed to be in the know, so I ended up in Lugansk." Former DPR Prime Minister Alexander Borodai, also a PR man, political strategist and good friend of Karpov, also speaks about the “call of the heart” that sent him to Ukraine. He himself ended up in Donetsk back in May 2014, and by June Pavel Karpov and Leonid Simunin arrived in Donbass. “I knew Pasha well for a long time, and Lenya is his acquaintance,” recalls Borodai.

Karpov went to Lugansk, and Simunin preferred Donetsk, where at some point he took up the post of deputy head of the newly created Ministry of Energy of the DPR. “Lenya really did a lot: at first he organized the repair of the dam that fed the Donetsk reservoir. It really was selfless,” says Alexander Boroday. Meanwhile, sources close to Simunin say that he had to leave the DPR after a couple of months and almost under escort: “Let’s just say, having sorted out the pressing things, he tried to engage in commercial activities, but the Ministry of State Security did not like it, so he was literally sent to Russia expelled, having previously put him on the wanted list."

Karpov also did not stay in Lugansk, although, according to him, he managed to understand the situation and also rose to the rank of assistant to Valery Bolotov, who at that time headed the LPR. Bolotov resigned as the “people’s governor” in August 2014, and Karpov also went to Moscow at the same time.

Savchenko’s defense believes that Simunin and Karpov unofficially monitored the situation in the DPR and LPR from Moscow, but militiamen interviewed by Vlast say that, most likely, numerous PR people and political strategists rushed to hot spot for their own benefit, while real control over the situation was carried out by “completely other people.” “Those who previously worked with youth movements or were members of them actually often found themselves in Donbass in August 2014. In a number of cases, they were attracted to build state and civil institutions. Many then returned to their regions to engage in politics there, using Donbass as a social elevator, but not to say that they were successful,” says one of the former members of the pro-Kremlin youth movement.

Alexander Averin, a member of The Other Russia, who fought with fellow party members in Lugansk as part of the so-called international brigades, recalls that during especially hot months there were really a lot of “civilian” specialists and Moscow political strategists in the city. “In the evening, somewhere in a bar, you could definitely meet a person who calls himself a curator from the administration, a political strategist. This is unprovable, but such things do not require proof - everything is always clear. But I can’t say that these people are up to anything generally influenced,” says a member of The Other Russia. Karpov himself claims that he had only a “scientific interest” in Lugansk, since he has many clients, “including among businesses,” who were interested in the conflict in Donbass.

Using the example of Karpov, one can understand how narrow the circle of medium-sized political strategists is and why the same names so often “shine up” in high-profile stories like the BORN case. In the Volokolamsk district of the Moscow region there is the village of Butakovo with the dacha communities “Butakovo-1” and “Butakovo-2”. In the first, according to SPARK, the founders are Leonid Simunin, the son of the former owner of the Regnum news agency Semyon Sorkin and former member“Local”, and now the head of one of the Moscow region meetings of deputies, Alexey Mitryushin. The founders of the second are Pavel Karpov and ex-State Duma deputy Maxim Mishchenko. The latter, not yet leaving the State Duma, often communicated with Ilya Goryachev.

"Russian Image", which was headed by Goryachev, regularly held round tables with the participation of Mishchenko. According to Goryachev, Karpov could have introduced him to Mishchenko. However, Mishchenko himself told Vlast that he had not communicated with Pavel Karpov for many years: “We met at some event in 2008, talked a couple of times, then I lost track of him.” When asked in what capacity Karpov was then introduced to him, the ex-deputy replied: “As a person who also read Gumilyov.” Having heard the name “Butakovo-2”, Mishchenko refused to communicate with “Vlast” further.

Nationalists, militias - political strategists like Karpov and Simunin - are essentially universal. For example, Karpov, among other things, is the president of a certain Youth Program Fund. The organization does not have a website, and nothing is reported about the funds it received in the Card Index database and on websites where the results of competitions for grants are published. The founder of the fund is Mikhail Pulinovich. In open sources you can only find the decision of the council of deputies of the Moscow region settlement of Mikhailovo-Yartsevskoye dated April 19, 2013 under number 11/4, which states that Mikhail Pulinovich was nominated to the territorial election commission of Troitsk with the right to a decisive vote. Volunteers of the Citizen Observer project interviewed by Vlast, as well as independent observers who participated in local elections in Troitsk in 2013, do not remember such a member of the commission.

When asked what he is doing now, Pavel Karpov answers evasively: “Yes, I’m sitting in the Public Chamber of Moscow, I’ll leave soon.” Karpov is indeed listed on the website of the capital’s OP as a member of the security commission, as well as the head supervisory board autonomous non-profit organization"Youth Initiative of Russia" (MIR). Among its founders are Moscow PR man Mikhail Arutyunov and deputy head of the capital’s department of culture Vladimir Filippov. As “Power” found out, formerly WORLD regularly won competitions from the city’s youth policy department to conduct youth mass events. “Both Filippov and Arutyunov themselves previously worked in this department. I remember Filippov: he came to the department of culture following Sergei Kapkov, when the youth policy department merged with the cultural department. An executive guy,” recalls one of the former city government officials. The second founder, Arutyunov, also previously worked at the Agency for Public Projects under the Moscow Department of Culture, and in 2012 he sat on youth council under Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin, then participated in the preparation of the patriotic event “Memory Watch”.

The scandal that the trial turned into did not delight anyone, so it is unlikely to have a favorable effect on Karpov’s career

Doing everything at once, advising officials on issues of radical youth movements, working with the city mayor’s office and traveling to hot spots - as Stanislav Belkovsky claims, this is how many medium-sized political strategists act, dreaming first of becoming gray eminences and then rising to the ranks of politicians. “But, having done something that, in their opinion, is useful for the authorities, such people forget that the authorities have a habit of getting rid of them,” the political scientist believes.

Nadezhda Savchenko’s lawyer Ilya Novikov argues in a similar way. “In general, it seems to me that this whole story with the removal of Savchenko was an attempt by Karpov to please someone, to create a reason, a case, himself, but I’m not sure that those who were planned to be impressed ultimately appreciated such a “gift”,”— he said in a conversation with Vlast. According to Novikov, having learned about Karpov’s possible participation in his client’s case, he visited all his acquaintances from Russian government agencies, “including quite high-ranking ones.” “And everywhere they answered me the same thing: “We don’t know this and we don’t want to know.” Or they simply pretended that they were not interested in such a topic. I think the scandal that this trial turned into did not delight anyone, so it’s unlikely this will have a beneficial effect on Karpov’s career,” the lawyer believes.

According to him, a phonoscopic examination of the wiretap in which Karpov allegedly discussed the export of Savchenko to Russia began recently in Kyiv. It could be completed in the coming weeks, and if the assumptions of lawyer Novikov are confirmed, Karpov is unlikely to be able to visit Ukraine again soon, as he will join the list of defendants in the criminal case of the kidnapping of the pilot.

Barnaul Garrison Military Court ( Altai region) - Civil

The essence of the dispute: Complaints about unlawful actions (inaction) of officials, state and municipal employees

Barnaul Garrison Military Court

Barnaul Garrison Military Court - JUDICIAL ACTS

Case No. 2-668/2011

SOLUTION

In the name of the Russian Federation

BARNAUL GARRISON MILITARY COURT

Contains:

Presiding - Kleshnin M.I., with secretary - Kletskina T.A.,

Having considered in open court a civil case at the location of a military court at the request of a contract serviceman of military unit 00000, Lieutenant Colonel Mikhail Eduardovich Arutyunov, challenging the actions of the head of the Federal budgetary institution“Financial support department of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation for and” related to the non-payment of monetary allowance to him for the time he was at the disposal of the commander of military unit 00000 beyond the established deadlines,

U S T A N O V I L:

In connection with the implementation of organizational and staffing measures, Lieutenant Colonel Arutyunov, who served under a contract in military unit 11111, was relieved of his military post and placed at the disposal of the commander of military unit 00000.

After the expiration of the six-month period of being at the disposal of the commander of the named unit, the head of the Federal Budgetary Institution “Department of Financial Support of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation for and” (hereinafter referred to as FBU “OFO of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation for and”), no monetary allowance was paid for November 2011 to Arutyunov.

Considering his rights to be violated, Arutyunov appealed to the military court with a statement in which he asked to oblige the head of the Federal Federal Budgetary Institution "OfO RF Ministry of Defense for and" to pay him a salary for November 2011, as well as reimburse legal expenses.

Arutyunov and the head of the Federal Budgetary Institution “OFO MO RF PoI”, who were duly notified of the time and place of the court hearing, did not arrive at the court, and asked to consider the case in their absence.

From the objections received by the court, it follows that the head of the Federal Budgetary Institution "OFO of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation for and" asks the court to refuse the applicant to satisfy his demands, since he had no grounds for paying Arutyunov monetary allowance for the time he was at the disposal of the commander of military unit 00000 beyond the established deadlines, those. for November 2011, due to the absence of a decision from the authorized official to pay the applicant monetary allowance when he was in possession beyond the established deadlines.

Having examined the case materials and the documents presented, the court believes that the Arutyunov’s application is justified and subject to satisfaction, and proceeds from the following:

In accordance with the order of the commander of military unit 00000 dated June 22, 2009 No., in connection with the implementation of organizational and staffing measures, Lieutenant Colonel Arutyunov by order of the Commander of the Siberian Military District of May 27, 2009 No. enlisted at the disposal of the commander of military unit 00000, from June 22, 2009 enrolled in the lists of personnel of the military unit and for all types of support.

From the certificate of military unit 00000 it can be seen that Lieutenant Colonel Arutyunov’s payment of salary was suspended due to the expiration of the established period of being at the disposal of the commander of military unit 00000.

As follows from the letter from the head of the planning and statistics department of the personnel department of the Central Military District, on August 2, 2011, lists of military personnel who were at disposal beyond the established deadlines were sent to the commander of military unit 00000 for payment of salary to them, including Arutyunov.

In accordance with the article of the Russian Federation, everyone has the right to work and remuneration for it without any discrimination.

According to articles and Federal Law“On the status of military personnel”, the right to work and remuneration for it is realized by military personnel through their passage military service and receiving appropriate monetary compensation for this.

Clause 4 of Article of the Federal Law “On Military Duty and Military Service” establishes that a serviceman may perform military service in non-military positions if he is at the disposal of the commander in connection with organizational and staffing measures for no more than six months.

Paragraphs 9 and 46 of the Procedure for providing military personnel with monetary allowances, approved by Order of the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation dated June 30, 2006 No. 200 (hereinafter referred to as the Procedure), establish that monetary allowances are paid to military personnel at the place of their military service. At the same time, for military personnel undergoing military service under a contract, enlisted in the prescribed manner at the disposal of commanders (superiors), for the entire time they are at the disposal of commanders (superiors), but not more than the terms established by Article 13 of the Regulations on the procedure for military service, subparagraph “ b" paragraph 2 of which allows for the enrollment of a military personnel at the disposal of the commander (chief) in the event of release from a military post in connection with organizational and staffing measures for no more than six months, salaries are paid according to military rank, salaries for a previously held military position, a percentage bonus for length of service, a monthly bonus for the complexity, intensity and special regime of military service and a monthly cash incentive in the amount of one salary for a military position.

Paragraph 47 of the above-mentioned Procedure establishes that for military personnel undergoing military service under a contract, enlisted at the disposal of commanders (superiors) on the grounds specified in subparagraph “b” of paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Regulations on the procedure for military service, after the established period of being at the disposal The commander (chief) may be paid by decision of the commanders of military districts and other officials specified in this paragraph.

In its essence, paragraph 47 of the Procedure does not introduce additional grounds limiting the payment of monetary allowance to military personnel enlisted at the disposal of commanders during and after the deadlines established by subparagraph “b” of paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Regulations on the procedure for military service, but, on the contrary, in in order to protect their material rights, it provides the command with the opportunity to pay military personnel of this category even at the end of the established period of being at the disposal of the commander.

As follows from paragraph 48 of the Procedure, military personnel undergoing military service under a contract, released from their military positions, including in connection with organizational and staffing activities, are paid in the amounts established by paragraph 46 of the Procedure until the day they take on their duties. according to a new military position or on the day of exclusion from the lists of personnel of a military unit.

From pp. 17 and 29 of the Regulations on the Federal Budgetary Institution “OFO of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation for and” it follows that the Institution to ensure the maintenance of constant combat and mobilization readiness military units carries out the calculation and timely provision of personnel with the required types of allowances, that is, it is obliged to organize timely and full provision of monetary allowances to the personnel of the served military units. In turn, in accordance with paragraph 36 of the said Regulations, the head of the FBU manages the activities of this Institution and bears personal responsibility for the implementation of the tasks assigned to the Institution and the implementation of its functions.

Thus, taking into account that the maximum period provided for in subparagraph “b” of paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the above Regulations, during which the issue of appointing serviceman Arutyunov to a military position or dismissing the applicant from military service must be resolved by the competent commander, was not exceeded through the fault of a serviceman, given that in accordance with paragraph 11 of Article of the Federal Law “On Military Duty and Military Service” the end of military service is the date of exclusion of a serviceman from the lists of personnel of a military unit, Arutyunov exercises his right to work through military service, the court believes , that the applicant has the right to payment of monetary allowance for the entire period of military service until the moment of exclusion from the lists of the unit’s personnel and believes that the head of the Federal Budgetary Institution “OfO RF Ministry of Defense for and”, by not paying Arutyunov monetary allowance for November 2011, violated it the right to be provided with appropriate monetary allowance, in connection with which it considers it necessary to recognize Arutyunov’s application as justified and satisfy it.

Taking into account the above, as well as the applicant’s expenses confirmed by the receipt for payment of the state duty, subject to reimbursement on the basis of Art. on the other hand, the court believes that 200 rubles should be recovered from the Federal Budgetary Institution “OFO of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation for and” in favor of Arutyunov.

Guided by Art. Art. - , 258 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, military court,

DECIDED:

The statement of Mikhail Eduardovich Arutyunov to challenge the actions of the head of the Federal Budgetary Institution “Department of Financial Support of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation for and” related to the non-payment of his allowance for November 2011 is recognized as justified.

The actions of the head of the Federal Budgetary Institution “Department of Financial Support of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation for and” related to the non-payment of Mikhail Eduardovich Arutyunov’s salary for November 2011 are considered unlawful.

Oblige the head of the Federal Budgetary Institution “Department of Financial Support of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation for and” to pay Mikhail Eduardovich Arutyunov a monetary allowance for November 2011.

To compensate for legal expenses, recover 200 (two hundred) rubles from the Federal Budgetary Institution “Department of Financial Support of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation for and” in favor of Mikhail Eduardovich Arutyunov.

The decision can be appealed to cassation procedure to the West Siberian District Military Court through the Barnaul Garrison Military Court within 10 days from the date of issuance.

The presiding judge in the case, M.I. Kleshnin

Moscow

Main activity according to OKVED code:

Additional activities of the company:

• . Other activities related to the use computer technology And information technologies;
• . Research of market conditions and identification of public opinion;
• . Publishing activities;
• . Consulting on issues commercial activities and management;
• . Technical testing, research and certification;
• . Providing various types services;
• . Scientific research and developments in the field of natural and technical sciences;

All-Russian classifier of products by type economic activity:

• . Other advertising distribution services;
• . Services for the production and distribution of advertising;
• . Selling advertising space or time on a commission basis;
• . Sale of space or time for advertising, not included in other categories;
• . Services for the preparation, creation and placement of advertising;

LLC "SPM", registration date - April 7, 2011, registrar - Interdistrict Inspectorate of the Federal Tax Service No. 46 for MOSCOW. Full official name - LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY "SOCIALISM PRO MEDIA". Legal address: 107113, MOSCOW, SOKOLNICHESKAYA SQUARE, 4A, office. 309. The main activity is: " Advertising activity". The organization is also registered in such categories as: "Other activities related to the use of computer technology and information technology", "Research of market conditions and identification of public opinion", "Publishing activities". Organizational and legal form (OPF) - limited liability company liability Type of property - private property.

Address and telephone numbers of "SPM"

• Legal address

  107113, MOSCOW, SOKOLNICHESKAYA SQUARE, 4A, office. 309

  Founders of the company

  The founders of the company according to Statregister data as of October 2012:
  • . Citizens of Russia (2);
  Founders of the company according to the Unified State Register of Legal Entities as of February 2012:
  • . ARUTYUNOV MIKHAIL EDUARDOVICH (participation share - 50%);
  • . OVCHINNIKOV VASILY VLADIMIROVICH (participation share - 50%);