Legal proceedings against Google due to sanctions have begun in Sevastopol

Sevastopol, March 24 (PolitNavigator, Alexander Kononov) – The first hearing on the claim of lawyer Dmitry Mishin against Google for violation of his consumer rights took place today in the Leninsky Court of the city of Sevastopol, but the issue was not considered on its merits. By court decision, the consideration of the claim was postponed to April 9.

Subscribe to the news "PolitNavigator - Crimea" in Facebook, Classmates or In contact with

Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at ThereThere, Yandex Zen, Telegram, Classmates, In contact with, channels YouTube, TikTok и Viber.
To subscribe to notifications in your browser, click here.

During the hearings, the question will be decided whether Google had the right to disconnect Sevastopol from using its services without any notice. According to Mishin, the company did not have such a right, having grossly violated the law on consumer rights, in connection with which he asks the court to oblige the defendant to restore the operation of the Google Play service on his smartphone within the administrative-territorial borders of Sevastopol, to recover from Google compensation for moral damages in the amount of 10 thousand rubles and fined 5 thousand rubles.

“The Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights says one important thing - Article 16 says that if in some way the contract violates the rights of the consumer, then this part of the contract or this clause of the contract is invalid. Therefore, I hope that the court will consider and hope that my claims will be satisfied,” Mishin said.

At the same time, he does not agree with the statement of the defendant, Google representative Viktor Tulsanov, that his demands as a consumer of the services of an American company are allegedly not justified. In this case, Mishin is sure, Google representative offices in Russia are nothing more than “horns and cops” for all Russians.

“The defendant’s applicant simply provided the court with documents of objection to his claim, where he believes that I am unreasonably filing a claim due to the fact that territorial jurisdiction, first of all, belongs to the United States of America. And the second question is that Google does not have its official legal branches in the Russian Federation. And the offices in Moscow, St. Petersburg and other cities of Russia, which actually fulfill the duties of this company, are separate legal entities, despite the fact that their entire authorized capital and capital was contributed by foreign companies. It turns out that branches and offices that are located in Russia are actually “horns and hooves” offices. They do not bear any responsibility to the consumers of their services. It seems to me that this issue needs to be resolved at a more serious level,” says the lawyer.

At the same time, he hopes that his case will be important for all Russians.

“The main question is what has been adopted, is being considered, the materials will be studied, because this decision is of great importance not only for the residents of Sevastopol and Crimea, but also for all citizens of the Russian Federation. This, I hope, will put an end to lawlessness in terms of drawing up contracts regarding jurisprudence, the jurisdiction of courts, when companies deliberately limit the protection of their legal rights in court to citizens of the Russian Federation, including if they buy or acquire any services from foreign companies,” Mishin explained.

At the same time, the consideration of the issue on the merits was postponed to April 9, while today Judge Oksana Garkusha only clarified the claims and petitions of the parties.

Earlier, Dmitry Mishin, due to the fact that Google services on his smartphone stopped working, sent official requests to the smartphone manufacturer, seller and owner of the Android service. Google confirmed to him that it had introduced restrictions based on US Presidential Decree No. 13685 of December 19, 2014. However, as Mishin found out, this document refers to Crimea, and Sevastopol is not mentioned in it. The plaintiff demanded that Google resume the provision of services, but was refused. And only after that he decided to go to court.