Glavred: - Yuri Vladimirovich, tell me, what was the impetus for the fact that you started the trial on your citizenship of Ukraine?
- Often, when I was in Europe, I came across our compatriots, people born in the USSR, communicated with them. Here at one of these meetings, I contacted with the Latvians. The same as we, Russian-speaking citizens, former Soviet citizens, only with passports, giving them the right to stay in the EU. And that's what I learned from them. They, like us in Ukraine, were changed names. We Augusta became Serpni, Roses - Trojands, Nikolai - Mykols, Anna - Gunnami. The same thing befell them, only they were given an ending in their names - the letter “c”! So Vitaly Kosov became Vitaliy Kosovs, And Yulia Stankevich became Hulihas Stankevichus. Holding Yulin's passport in my hand, I could not read her name for a long time, and at that time, looking at me, she was laughing!
So it was 20 years !!! And then there was some Latvian Goose (Goose in a good sense of the word), who went through all the judicial instances of Latvia, seeking the abolition of this marasmus. He came to the European Court, and he decided to cancel all these postscripts and return the names given to them by their parents. But 20 has been silent for years - the common people, the lawyers, and the linguists. A similar situation occurred in our USSR with citizenship.
Glavred: - And what is this our similarity? Can you simply and affordably explain to the readers of Vremya.UA?
- Of course, I will explain! The fact is that the issue of citizenship is a matter of fundamental human rights. Deprivation of citizenship, civil rights - this is one of the most ancient punishments, and it was equated to the death penalty. The names of this punishment were as follows: in ancient Rome it was exile; in France it was a civil death; in Russia it was a link. One common phrase was the loss of rights. We, the citizens of the USSR, became citizens of the USSR, because we were citizens of the Union Republics. The union republics united in the Union, and we received a common (in the Constitution the word “common” was replaced by the word “united”) a single union citizenship for all citizens.
Each of us had 2 citizenship. Each republic had its own flag, anthem, coat of arms, Constitution, laws and citizenship. When the Union was dismantled, what were we supposed to stay with? With our republican citizenship, regardless of where we were at this time - in Zanzibar, in Paraguay, Zimbabwe, or even one of the Union Republics of the USSR, but not our own. During life in the USSR, we all mixed up. Russians, Belarusians, Kazakhs, Georgians and Armenians came and moved to Ukraine. And the Ukrainians in the Far East of Russia were 40%. The village with the names of Lower Poltavka, New Stepok or Ukrainian Buylovka - this is the norm today for Russia. In Blagoveshchensk-on-Amur, the central street of the city is ul. Shevchenko T. G., as well as the street where I was born, in the Donetsk region - Priamurskaya street.
People mixed up, but their republican citizenship did not suffer from this. Citizens of all republics enjoyed the same rights on the territory of the USSR. But at the same time they remained citizens of these republics, and republican constitutions protected their citizenship, wherever they were. In 1991, not only the citizenship of the USSR, but also the republican citizenship disappeared. Of the two citizenships that were with each of us, not one was left! USSR citizenship has disappeared, but who and on what grounds has our republican citizenship taken away from us? That is the subject of my trial.
Glavred: - We know that a total of 4 trial has already passed. What is the result?
- Yes, it all started last year, from Yenakiyevo, the city where President V. Yanukovich was born. But the Enakiy court could not issue a concrete decision, the case was sent to the Donetsk Regional Administrative Court. March 14 held its last meeting. The court did not recognize me Ukrainian, republican citizenship, although I presented documents confirming my presence by birth and the first two decades of my life.
I did not hope that it will be recognized. This is just a step in further action. One judge will not break the system that has worked for 20 for years. But another thing was recognized, more weighty for the European Court (and I have judicial practice in the EU). None of the documents, none of the respondent’s speeches, nor any of the court decisions indicated a specific article of the law depriving me of this citizenship. Because it was contrary to the Constitution of Ukraine, which continued to act.
The defendant, a representative of the migration service of Ukraine, simply refused to answer this question. Moreover, in order to deprive a person of his citizenship, Ukrainian laws require that they follow a certain procedure, this is a series of procedures. The defendant has no evidence and their compliance. Most importantly, there is no presidential decree on the loss of my citizenship of Soviet Ukraine, namely, since the day it was released, my citizenship has been lost by me, so says the law. There is reason to go further. We are being pulled to Europe - well, well, let’s go, complain, take an example from the Latvian Goose.
Glavred: - Tell me, well, who of the social and political organizations of the Donetsk region supported you? Who sent their representatives to the court session?
- There were representatives of the Gromadskaya Rada of the Donetsk Regional Council, the regional organization of children of war, the Union of Soviet officers, the organization “Nobody except us”, the correspondent of the newspaper “Communist of Donbass”. Well, and I, the claimant - the representative of the Communist Party.
Glavred: - Well, everything is clear for you, you are of Russian Ukrainian origin. And we, Ukrainians of Russian and other origins, how do these courts relate to you?
- If a judicial precedent takes place, and this is exactly the name of the court decision that breaks down many years of anti-legal practice, then this will have various multi-faceted results of both economic and social and political importance. The legal basis of the precedent is obvious: the newly emerging laws should not infringe the established rights and freedoms of the individual. The borders of the CIS countries should limit only the rights and freedoms of CIS citizens born after the dismantling of the USSR. You, when returning your rights to you, will be able, as in the times of the USSR, to move freely, work, live from Minsk to Vladivostok, including Kiev and Almaty.
After all, this was guaranteed to us in the first international agreement of Ukraine, which is also not being implemented now. Although, according to the Constitution, is the law. The respondent didn’t respond to this question why it is not being fulfilled. One installation is done - “divide and conquer”! Divided by republics, is now divided within Ukraine, by color. The system is as old as the world.
But back to the issue of the effect of polygeneration for each of us. I was faced with the fact that in Europe many people receive two or even three pensions. Similarly, each of us, having two citizenships, by birth and by living at the time of the collapse of the USSR (this is exactly guaranteed in the “Agreement on the Creation of the CIS”), giving each of its republics several years of service, will have two pensions. I think that smart and flexible people are now able to “crank” it, but illegally. In our post-Soviet space, all of Moldova has two passports each, and probably someone has already thought of this. I want, in particular, to achieve this effect in legal form - the bourgeois, however, do not want!
Well, the main effect is the restoration of the rights of citizens of the USSR, it will be possible to talk about the restoration of the USSR, because these people will become the electoral base for initiating referendums in the republics, where they will have the right to vote.
Glavred: - I agree with you, as the fact is well known: the USSR de jure exists. And every cloud has a silver lining: the traitors Yeltsin, Shushkevich and Kravchuk in a hurry and under the influence of a drink in Belovezhskaya Pushcha made a number of gross legal mistakes, which enable the willful ruler of one of our republics to restore the Union. But back to the topic. So, for the first time in 20 for the first time, the prospect of a possible restoration of the Soviet Union is seen. Well, how to briefly describe the violations that were committed in 1991 in the rights of citizens of the USSR? How to go to Europe, how do you say, what to complain about?
- In short, without going into legal subtleties and not referring to articles, this is about the following.
1. Why can a law, without mentioning a person, can deprive him of his human rights, his constitutional rights, impose a criminal punishment on him, equivalent to the death penalty, expressed in civil death?
2. On what basis is the practical deprivation of a citizen of his constitutional rights realized by such an application of the law, which completely contradicts the current Constitution, international treaties, the existing legal field of the country and even itself, this law?
3. How can it be that a citizen of a country has been deprived of its civil rights, citizenship on the grounds and in the manner that does not meet the requirements of the legal field of the same country by the state structures of this country? This deprivation is null and void, is not legitimate and should be revoked.
Let Europe think about these questions. But first, let's go through "all circles" in Ukraine.
Glavred: - The Constitution of Ukraine prohibits dual citizenship, we are told about this at every corner. By the way, as you know, according to media reports, more than 20 deputies in the parliament have dual citizenship. If Europe "gives the go-ahead," will this be unconstitutional?
- Sorry, these are fables for ordinary people. This oral prohibition is supposedly based on the word “one” in today's Constitution. A single citizenship was in the USSR, but with the second republican. And in Ukraine, it is “single” under the Constitution since June 1992, while in the same article, in its third line, a double was allowed, with a single one. And so it was until 1996. The law on citizenship, both in force and in force, allowed and allows polygrancy. The old law in force before 2001, allowed it to Art. 1, and the new - in the article 2 n. 1. Open and read, if you do not believe, it explains how to understand the word “one” and on what principles citizenship is based. These principles speak directly about the possibility of polygenship in Ukraine today. But all this is written for the report to Europe. And for us - the fable of the impossibility of this same polygrancy.
Glavred: - Well, tell me, Yuri, at least some of the famous people have already supported you?
- Yes, there are answers to my appeal. I started this litigation with written requests, not by email. In writing, a few months waiting for answers. Frequent trips to Europe - I am a member of the Workers' Commissions, this is the Spanish Communist trade union - interrupted my work on this issue. Who did I write to? To the President of Ukraine Yanukovich V.F., Minister of Education and Culture of Ukraine Tabachnik D.V., people's deputy of Ukraine, head of the Communist Party faction in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine P.N. Symonenko, deputy of the State Duma of Russia, director of the Institute of CIS Countries K.F. , Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia to His Holiness Father Kirill, President of the Regional Public Organization “Zemlyachestvo Donbassovtsev” Moscow Lunev N. S., President of the Regional Public Organization “Zemlychestvom Donbassovtsev” St. Petersburg Lisovsky SA, the Donetsk regional state administration chairman Bliznyuk AM (now working in Parliament). Answers not received from all. But the positive responses received from three.
Pyotr Simonenko was the first to give support and give his answer (Rabochaya Gazeta, No. 185 from October 16, 2010). The second was Sergey Lisovsky from St. Petersburg, he came to our region and visited our city on other matters, but at the same time personally brought me his answer. The third was Father Cyril, I received a letter from him, he also expressed his support for this issue.
Glavred: - Tell me, Yuri, we see that you have been studying this question for a long time, and there were similar precedents in world practice?
- Yes, there were, but not in the form of judicial precedents, but in the form of the triumph of law and justice after a change in the power system in the country. Spain, after the fall of Franco’s regime, unconditionally gave its passports to citizens of the USSR (second citizenship with a single union) - “Spanish children” and their children - just because they or their parents were born in Spain, although it passed after their departure about 40 years. So it will probably be with us - if I lose the courts, we will wait until the restoration of the USSR.