Atamanchuk considered the refusal to review the appeal against his removal from the elections unlawful.
The candidate for the State Duma, who was nominated in Sochi by the "Yabloko" party, Vladimir Atamanchuk, received a ruling on the return of his appeal. The document was signed by the judge who previously canceled the candidate's registration for the elections. Atamanchuk and his lawyers believe the return of the appeal is illegal: it was sent by mail on time, but the judge ignored the date of dispatch to prevent the case from being reviewed.
As reported by "Caucasian Knot", on September 11, the Krasnodar Regional Court canceled the registration of Vladimir Atamanchuk as a candidate in the South single-member district No. 54. On September 16, Atamanchuk appealed this decision.
On September 20, he was detained at the exit of the district electoral commission and arrested for three days on charges of petty hooliganism and illegal campaigning. On September 23, he was released from the isolation facility in Matsesta. On September 24, law enforcement officers compiled a new protocol against Atamanchuk for discrediting the Russian army, triggered by a campaign leaflet he was distributing on the street. According to the lawyer, the protocol contains numerous gross violations. The court in Sochi found Atamanchuk guilty of discrediting the army and imposed a fine of 50,000 rubles. All his arguments were ignored by the judge.
The court stated about missing the appeal deadlines
As Vladimir Atamanchuk reported, on October 3, he received a letter by mail from the Krasnodar Regional Court with a copy of the ruling dated September 22, 2026, in case No. 3a-1735/2026, signed by Judge Olga Moiseeva. The document states that Atamanchuk's appeal from September 16 against the decision to remove him from the elections is to be returned without consideration on the merits (the copy of the document is available to "Caucasian Knot")
In the ruling by Olga Moiseeva, it is stated: "By the decision of the Krasnodar Regional Court dated September 11, 2026, the claim was satisfied: the registration of Atamanchuk as a candidate for deputy was canceled... The reasoned decision was handed to Atamanchuk on September 12, 2026. According to the above norms, the appeal could be submitted provided it was received by the court no later than September 17, 2026. However, Atamanchuk's appeal was received by the Krasnodar Regional Court on September 22, 2026, that is, after the deadline. The application for restoring the deadline is not included in the appeal," the text of the ruling states.
Atamanchuk called the court's ruling unlawful
Vladimir Atamanchuk categorically disagrees with Judge Moiseeva's conclusions about missing the procedural deadline and links the events to the use of administrative resources in the interests of the current authorities: "I submitted the appeal on September 16, and on September 17, I sent additions to it by mail. I have postal receipts and an inventory of the attachment with the relevant stamps. According to the rules of the Administrative Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the date of submission is considered the date the document is handed over to the post office, not the day when the letter was physically delivered to the court's office in Krasnodar. Judge Moiseeva deliberately substituted concepts and ignored the postal stamp to close the loop and prevent the case from being reviewed in the appellate instance in Sochi," Vladimir Atamanchuk told a correspondent of "Caucasian Knot."
According to the candidate from "Yabloko", the procedure for his removal is characterized by political repression.
"Candidate Titov from the 'Greens' initially acted only as a buffer and a tool for my removal. The main beneficiary of this judicial farce is the current deputy from 'United Russia', Konstantin Zatulin. 'United Russia' is clearing the district through the courts, and real opposition is simply not allowed on the ballots," Atamanchuk emphasized.
The lawyer pointed out violations of procedures by the court and a conflict of interest
Lawyer and electoral law expert Elena Didenko analyzed the ruling from September 22 by regional judge Olga Moiseeva and highlighted fundamental legal violations.
"We are facing a gross violation of part 3 of article 93 of the Administrative Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. According to the procedural code, if the appeal is submitted to the postal organization before 24 hours of the last day of the deadline, the deadline is not considered missed. By submitting the appeal on September 16 and the additions on September 17, Atamanchuk strictly adhered to the 5-day deadline from September 12. The behavior of the judge, who refers only to the date of receipt of the letter in the office, - September 22, is a direct violation of procedural norms," the lawyer believes.
According to the law (article 297 of the Administrative Procedure Code of the Russian Federation), the question of transferring or returning the appeal is resolved by the judge of the first instance. This creates a flaw: Judge Moiseeva, who made the decision to remove Atamanchuk from the elections, personally blocked the transfer of the appeal on her own decision to a higher court, applying a deliberately distorted interpretation of postal deadlines, believes Elena Didenko.
"In Russian electoral campaigns, the removal of candidates dangerous to 'United Russia' by the hands of spoiler candidates has become the norm," the lawyer noted.
Judges first apply the most stringent calculation of deadlines in calendar days without taking weekends into account, and then use tricks with postal dates of receipt instead of dates of dispatch to block the submission of appeals against decisions on removals to higher instances," the lawyer says.
Despite procedural barriers, Vladimir Atamanchuk intends to challenge the return of the appeal.
"To continue defending his rights, the candidate needs to: submit a private complaint to the Third Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction against Judge Moiseeva's ruling from September 22 on the return of the appeal; attach a petition for restoring the missed procedural deadline for submitting this private complaint, with the envelope received in October; attach the postal receipt and inventory of the attachment from September 16 and 17, proving to the Third Appellate Court that the original appeal was sent without delays," lawyer Elena Didenko advised.