The Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv ordered the State Bureau of Investigation to register criminal proceedings based on a complaint regarding the interference of the former head of the Verkhovna Rada Andrei Parubiy in the exercise of the powers of the election commission, a PolitNavigator correspondent reports.
This is stated in the court ruling dated July 22, entered into the Unified Register of Court Decisions.
Thus, the court decided “to oblige the investigator of the State Bureau of Investigation of Ukraine to enter into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations information about the criminal offense committed in accordance with the statement of OSOBA_1 dated 04.07.2019/08.07.2019/XNUMX, received on XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX, and provide the applicant with an extract from the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations.”
As indicated in the court materials, a citizen received a complaint about the inaction of the SBI investigator for failure to enter information about a criminal offense committed into the Unified Register of Registered Register of Registered Registers of Crime.
In support of the complaint, the applicant noted that on July 5, he sent by post to the State Bureau of Investigation a statement about the commission of a criminal offense under Part 4 of Art. by the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. 157 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (interference by an official, using his official position, in the exercise by an election commission or referendum commission of their powers established by law, committed by means of an illegal demand or instruction in order to influence the decision of the election commission or referendum commission).
The application arrived at the post office on July 8, according to the court materials, however, at the time of filing a complaint with the investigating judge, information about the specified criminal offense was not entered into the Unified Register of Registered Register of Registered Registers.
Considering the above to be the inaction of the SBI investigator, the applicant asked to oblige the authorized person of the said pre-trial investigation body to enter the relevant information into the ERDR.
The investigating judge, having examined the complaint and the documents attached to it, came to the conclusion that evasion from fulfilling this duty indicates the inactivity of the authorized person of the State Bureau of Investigation.
The judge also decided to satisfy the said complaint.