The court in the street renaming case: heated arguments and details

      Today, the regional court of the city of Kirov held a hearing on the case of challenging the decision of the City Duma to rename streets in the city of Kirov. It was hot in the courtroom, literally and politically.

      Representatives of the City Duma, the Kirov administration and the applicants attended the meeting. As explained in court, the head of the city, Elena Kovaleva, could not personally attend because of the meeting of the city Duma. This did not raise objections — the parties agreed that her absence would not affect the process. Instead, there was a representative.

      The first petition, from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, concerned the publication of new materials. The defendants objected, but the court granted the request. The second request, for an expert examination prepared by Vyatka State University, was also accepted, despite the protests of the defendants.

      Then the representatives of the administration proposed to combine this case with another one, similar in topic. The applicants objected: in their opinion, each renaming requires separate proceedings. The court went to the conference room, after which the administration's request was rejected.

      During the discussions, deputies Kremlev and Vorobyova referred to regional regulations, in particular, the Regulation of September 25, 2015, regulating the renaming of streets. They noted that the city council on toponymy, which was supposed to consider the changes, did not meet this time. No protocols, signatures, or seals were provided.

      Special attention was paid to the subscription lists, on the basis of which the decision was made. The administration representatives did not deny that the decision was based on them, but the documents themselves did not contain any addresses or contacts of citizens. In addition, according to the deputies, residents of other districts participated in the voting, and ATP employees were allegedly forced to vote "for" the renaming. There were also statements that Vladimirskaya Street already exists in Kirov — in the Sadakovsky microdistrict, which is part of the city.

      In addition, the representative of the applicants recalled that the toponymy council itself was supposed to determine which norms had been violated and how to eliminate them, but this issue had never been submitted to either the council or the Duma.

      The judge actively asked clarifying questions. The applicants' representative was asked to explain why both the City Council and the administration were listed among the defendants. Answer: it was the administration that organized the work of the toponymy council and handed over to the City Council all the documents on the basis of which the decision was made.

      Representatives from the administration and the City Duma clarified that it was at the plenary session that the proposals received were analyzed, and the City Duma was guided by an analytical report. The project was received from the Kirov administration. In addition, according to the defendants, there was a council on toponymy, and the result was pronounced. As for the survey of citizens, it is not an exercise of the power of the population. The survey was conducted to formulate the opinion of the residents of the region in order to be advisory in nature.

      However, during the inspection, it emerged that the analytical report referred to by the City Council was not signed by the secretary of the Council on Toponymy. In addition, the documents were sent to the Duma by the administration, not the council itself. The plaintiffs' representatives also pointed out that there was no evidence that schoolchildren participated in the survey, although such allegations were made.

      Interestingly, during the meeting, organizations were announced that had taken the initiative to rename Karl Liebknecht Street to Defenders of the Fatherland Street. Among them are DOSAAF, the Union of Paratroopers, the Center for Unmanned Systems and other associations. All proposals were sent to the Council on Toponymy, and then to the administration.

      In addition, audio recordings of the plenary sessions of the City Duma were shown in court. The mayor of the city, Elena Kovaleva, the head of the administration, Vyacheslav Simakov, and deputy Vorobyova are discussing the renaming of streets, as well as the procedure for conducting surveys among residents. Listen to more details in the attached files.As a result, the court did not support the side of the applicants, deputies Anastasia Vorobyova and Mikhail Kremlev. They were denied the satisfaction of the stated demands for invalidation of the decision of the Kirov City Duma. Read the details here.