Viktor Medvedchuk vs. Dmytro Chobit
On 29 September the Pecherskiy district court of Kyiv continued the consideration of the civil case “Viktor Medvedchuk vs. Dmytro Chobit”. This court process lasts since October 2002, but only recently judge Fadeeva has begun to consider the case, so to speak, in essence: earlier all the time was wasted for various procedural moments.
Now the court analyzes the past of Medvedchuks father. In the book “Nartsyss” Chobit told in details about the cooperation of Medvedchuk-senior with German occupants and confirmed his story with archive documents.
The head of Presidents chancellery did not agree with these statements, as well as with other 90% of the information expounded in the documentary book by Chobit. The claim of Medvedchuk consists of several tens of pages. The plaintiff denies even those statements, which cannot be denied: some generally known facts of his biography, the official data about his property and the evaluative judgments, which may not be the object of a claim.
Taking into account the fact that Dmytro Chobit confirms his every word with tens of documentary arguments, the trial can last for indefinite time. Besides, recently the process has turned to the opposite direction, since in summer the author of “Nartsyss” brought the counter-claim against the head of the SDPU (u). According to the norms of the Criminal-Procedural Code, the claim was addressed to the Pecherskiy district court. The counter-claim was caused by the numerous procedural tricks applied by V. Medvedchuk. D. Chobit defines these tricks as “juridical cheating” and “the attempt to get one million hryvnas in a fraudulent way” (this is the sum of the compensation demanded by Medvedchuk from the author and editor of the book).
“Silski visti” more than once wrote that the head of the SDPU (u) made a brutal error in the addresses of the defendants. One of the defendants, according to the claim, is the non-existing publishing house “Kyiv-Brody: “Prosvita””, which is allegedly situated by the address: 8 Muzeyny bystreet, Kyiv. Really, this building is occupied by the Society of Ukrainian language “Prosvita” headed by MP Pavel Movchan. Yet, this society has no connection with the publishing house “Prosvita”, which published the book “Nartsyss”. This publishing house works in the town of Brody, the Lviv oblast.
The fact that one of the defendants was situated by this address gave Medvedchuk the right to hand the claim to the Pecherskiy district court of Kyiv (where he could figure on the positive result), although both Chobit and his editor lived in Brody. Thus, in fact, the principle of territoriality was violated.
As early as at the first court sitting Mr. Chobit drew the attention to this procedural mistake. Yet, Medvedchuk, as well as judge Fadeeva, ignored any arguments adduced by the defendants. They even neglected the official reference from the unique state register reading that the organization “Kyiv-Brody: “Prosvita”” did not exist.
Dmytro Chobit quitted the attempts to prove the obvious things and turned to court. He valued his moral sufferings and court drudgery at 3 billion 682 million hryvnas (about 700 million USD) and demanded these money from Medvedchuk.
Viktor Medvedchuk, in his claim against Chobit, demanded to prohibit the distribution of “Nartsyss”. Chobit, in his turn, demands to sequestrate all Medvedchuks property, movable and immovable, of Medvedchuk, including the property situated abroad (in particular, his luxurious apartment in Cyprus). Dmytro Chobit is going to pass the obtained sum to the state budget of Ukraine.
The behavior of judge Fadeeva in this situation was very strange. When the judge obtained the claim by Chobit, she issued the fantastically illogical decision: she recommended Dmytro Chobit to address his claim to the Shevchenkivskiy district court of Kyiv. She explained this recommendation by the fact that Viktor Medvedchuk was residing in this district.
So, the judge, who had been already considering the case with the brutal violation of the territorial principle, tried to violate the Criminal-Procedural Code for the second time, since a counter-claim must be handed to the same court as the primary claim.
D. Chobit appealed against the actions of judge Fadeeva to the Appeal court of Kyiv. He was lucky: the judges of the Appeal Court regarded his arguments as essential and obliged Fadeeva to accept the claim.
(«Silski visti», 30 September 2003)