Persecution

Kirovles case

 

Case

On 30 July 2012, the Investigative Committee charged Navalny with embezzlement. The committee stated that he had conspired to steal timber from Kirovles, a state-owned company in Kirov Oblast, in 2009, while acting as an adviser to Kirov’s governor Nikita Belykh. Investigators had closed a previous probe into the claims for lack of evidence. Navalny was released on his own recognizance but instructed not to leave Moscow.

Navalny described the charges as “weird” and unfounded. He stated that authorities “are doing it to watch the reaction of the protest movement and of Western public opinion. So far they consider both of these things acceptable and so they are continuing along this line”. His supporters protested before the Investigative Committee offices.

In April 2013 Loeb & Loeb LLP issued “An Analysis of the Russian Federation’s prosecutions of Alexei Navalny”, a paper detailing Investigative Committee accusations. The paper concludes that “the Kremlin has reverted to misuse of the Russian legal system to harass, isolate and attempt to silence political opponents”.

Conviction and release

The Kirovles trial commenced in the city of Kirov on 17 April 2013. On 18 July, Navalny was sentenced to five years in jail for embezzlement. He was found guilty of misappropriating about 16 million rubles’ ($500,000) worth of lumber from a state-owned company. The sentence read by the judge Sergey Blinov was textually the same as the request of the prosecutor, with the only exception that Navalny was given five years, and the prosecution requested six years.

“Enough of fake cases”. The protest against the verdict in Moscow, 18 July 2013
Later that evening, the Prosecutor’s Office appealed Navalny and Ofitserov jail sentences, arguing that until the higher court affirmed the sentence, the sentence was invalid. The next morning, the appeal was granted. Navalny and Ofitserov were released on 19 July, awaiting the hearings of the higher court. The prosecutor’s requested decision was described as “unprecedented” by experts.

Probation

The prison sentence was suspended by a court in Kirov on 16 October 2013, still being a burden for his political future.

Review of the sentence

On 23 February 2016 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Russia had violated Navalny’s right to a fair trial, and ordered the government to pay him 56,000 euros in legal costs and damages.

On 16 November 2016 Russia’s Supreme Court overturned the 2013 sentence, sending the verdict back to the Leninsky District Court in Kirov for review.

On 8 February 2017 the Leninsky district court of Kirov repeated its sentence of 2013 and charged Navalny with a five-year suspended sentence. Navalny announced that he will pursue the annulment of the sentence that clearly contradicts the decision of ECHR.

Yves Rocher case and home arrest

 

Case

In 2008 Oleg Navalny made an offer to Yves Rocher Vostok, the Eastern European subsidiary of Yves Rocher between 2008 and 2012, to accredit Glavpodpiska, which was created by Navalny, with delivering duties. On 5 August, the parties signed a contract. To fulfill the obligations under the agreement, Glavpodpiska outsourced the task to sub-suppliers, AvtoSAGA and Multiprofile Processing Company (MPC). In November and December 2012, the Investigating Committee interrogated and questioned Yves Rocher Vostok. On 10 December, Bruno Leproux, general director of Yves Rocher Vostok, filed to the Investigative Committee, asking to investigate if the Glavpodpiska subscription company had damaged Yves Rocher Vostok, and the Investigative Committee initiated a case.

The prosecution claimed Glavpodpiska embezzled money by taking duties and then redistributing them to other companies for lesser amounts of money, and collecting the surplus: 26.7 million rubles ($540,000) from Yves Rocher Vostok, and 4.4 million rubles from the MPC. The funds were claimed to be subsequently legalized by transferring them on fictitious grounds from a fly-by-night company to Kobyakovskaya Fabrika Po Lozopleteniyu, a willow weaving company founded by Navalny and operated by his parents. Navalnys denied the charges. The brothers’ lawyers claimed, the investigators “added phrases like ‘bearing criminal intentions’ to a description of regular entrepreneurial activity”. According to Oleg Navalny’s lawyer, Glavpodpiska did not just collect money, it controlled provision of means of transport, execution of orders, collected and expedited production to the carriers, and was responsible before clients for terms and quality of executing orders.

Yves Rocher denied that they had any losses, as did the rest of the witnesses, except the Multiprofile Processing Company CEO Sergei Shustov, who said he had learned about his losses from an investigator and believed him, without making audits. Both brothers and their lawyers claimed Alexei Navalny did not participate in the Glavpodpiska operations, and witnesses all stated they had never encountered Alexei Navalny in person before the trial.

Home arrest and limitations

Following the imputed violation of travel restrictions, Navalny was placed under house arrest and prohibited from communicating with anyone other than his family, lawyers, and investigators on 28 February 2014. Navalny claimed the arrest was politically motivated, and he filed a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights. On 7 July, he declared the complaint had been accepted and given priority; the court compelled the Government of Russia to provide answers to a questionnaire.

The home arrest, in particular, prohibited usage of the internet; however, new posts were released under his social media accounts after the arrest was announced. A 5 March post claimed the accounts were controlled by his Anti-Corruption Foundation teammates and his wife Yulia. On 13 March his LiveJournal blog was blocked in Russia, because, according to the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor), “functioning of the given web page breaks the regulation of the juridical decision of the bail hearing of a citizen against whom a criminal case has been initiated”. Navalny’s associates started a new blog, navalny.com, and the LiveJournal blog was eventually abolished, with the last post published on 9 July.

The home arrest was eased a number of times: On 21 August Navalny was allowed to communicate with his co-defendants; a journalist present in the courthouse at the moment confirmed Navalny was allowed to communicate with “anyone but the Yves Rocher case witnesses”. On 10 October, his right to communicate with the press was confirmed by another court, and he was allowed to make comments on the case in media (Navalny’s plea not to prolong the arrest was, however, rejected). On 19 December, he was allowed to mail correspondence to authorities and international courts. Navalny again pleaded not to prolong the arrest, but the plea was rejected again.

Conviction

The verdict was announced on 30 December 2014. Both brothers were found guilty of fraud against MPK and Yves Rocher Vostok and money laundering, and were convicted under Articles 159.4 §§ 2 and 3 and 174.1 § 2 (a) and (b) of the Criminal Code. Alexei Navalny was given 31⁄2 years of suspended sentence, and Oleg Navalny was sentenced to 31⁄2 years in prison and was arrested after the verdict was announced; both had to pay a fine of 500,000 rubles and a compensation to the Multiprofile Processing Company (MPK) of over 4 million rubles.[220] In the evening, several thousand protesters gathered in the center of Moscow. Navalny broke his home arrest to attend the rally and was immediately arrested by the police and brought back home.

Both brothers filed complaints to the European Court of Human Rights: Oleg’s was communicated and given priority; Alexei’s was reviewed in the context of the previous complaint related to this case and the Government of Russia had been “invited to submit further observations”. The second instance within the country confirmed the verdict, only releasing Alexei from the responsibility to pay his fine. Both prosecutors and defendants were not satisfied with this decision.

ECHR

On 17 October 2017 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Navalny’s conviction for fraud and money laundering “was based on an unforeseeable application of criminal law and that the proceedings were arbitrary and unfair.” The Court found that the domestic court’s decisions had been arbitrary and manifestly unreasonable. ECHR found the Russian courts’ decisions violated articles 6 and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights. On 15 November 2018, the Grand Chamber upheld the decision.

Indemnification

After the Yves Rocher case, Navalny had to pay a compensation of 4.4 million rubles. He declared the case was “a frame up”, but he added he would pay the sum as this could affect granting his brother’s parole. On 7 October 2015, Alexei’s lawyer announced the defendant willingly paid 2.9 million and requested an installment plan for the rest of the sum. The request was granted, except the term was contracted from the requested five months to two, and a part of the sum declared paid (900,000 rubles; arrested from Navalny’s banking account) was not yet received by the police; the prosecutors declared that may happen because of inter-process delays.

Later that month, Kirovles sued Navalny for the 16.1 million rubles’ declared pecuniary injury; Navalny declared he had not expected the suit, as Kirovles did not initiate it during the 2012–2013 trial. On 23 October, a court resolved the said sum should be paid by the three defendants. The court denied the defendants’ motion 14.7 million had already been paid by that point; the verdict and the payment sum were justified by a ruling by a Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Navalny declared he could not cover the requested sum; he called the suit a “drain-dry strategy” by authorities.

Other cases

In late December 2012 Russia’s federal Investigative Committee asserted that Allekt, an advertising company headed by Navalny, defrauded the Union of Right Forces (SPS) political party in 2007 by taking 100 million rubles ($3.2 million) payment for advertising and failing to honor its contract. If charged and convicted, Navalny could be jailed for up to 10 years. “Nothing of the sort happened—he committed no robbery”, Leonid Gozman, a former SPS official, was quoted as saying. Earlier in December, “the Investigative Committee charged Navalny and his brother Oleg with embezzling 55 million rubles ($1.76 million) in 2008–2011 while working in a postal business”. Navalny, who denied the allegations in the two previous cases, sought to laugh off news of the third inquiry with a tweet stating “Fiddlesticks”.

In April 2020, Yandex search engine started artificially placing negative commentary about Navalny on the top positions in its search results for his name. Yandex declared this was part of an “experiment” and returned to presenting organic search results.

Navalny alleged that Russian billionaire and businessman Yevgeny Prigozhin was linked to a company called Moskovsky Shkolnik (Moscow schoolboy) that had supplied poor quality food to schools which had caused a dysentery outbreak. In April 2019, Moskovsky Shkolnik filed a lawsuit against Navalny. In October 2019, the Moscow Arbitration Court ordered Navalny to pay 29.2 million rubles. Navalny said that “Cases of dysentery were proven using documents. But it’s us that has to pay.” Prigozhin was quoted by the press service of his catering company Concord Management and Consulting on 25 August 2020 as saying that he intended to enforce a court decision that required Navalny, his associate Lyubov Sobol and his Anti-Corruption Foundation to pay 88 million rubles in damages to the Moskovsky Shkolnik company over a video investigation.

By 2019 Navalny had won six complaints against Russian authorities in the ECHR for a total of €225,000.

Poisoning and recovery

On 20 August 2020 Navalny fell ill during a flight from Tomsk to Moscow and was hospitalized in the Emergency City Clinical Hospital No. 1 in Omsk, where the plane had made an emergency landing. The change in his condition on the plane was sudden and violent, and video footage showed crewmembers on the flight scurrying towards him as he screamed loudly. Later, he said that he was not screaming from pain, but from the knowledge that he was dying.

Afterwards, his spokeswoman, Kira Yarmysh, said that he was in a coma and on a ventilator in the Omsk hospital. She also said that since he arose that morning, Navalny had consumed nothing but a cup of tea, acquired at the airport. It was initially suspected that something was mixed into his drink, and physicians stated that a “toxin mixed into a hot drink would be rapidly absorbed”. The hospital said that he was in a stable but serious condition. Although staff initially acknowledged that Navalny had probably been poisoned, after numerous police personnel appeared outside Navalny’s room, the medical staff was less forthcoming. The Omsk hospital’s deputy chief physician later told reporters that poisoning was “one scenario among many” being considered.

A plane was sent from Germany to evacuate Navalny from Russia for treatment at the Charité Hospital in Berlin. Although the doctors treating him in Omsk initially declared he was too sick to be transported, they later released him. On 24 August, the doctors in Germany made an announcement, confirming that Navalny had been poisoned with a cholinesterase inhibitor.

Ivan Zhdanov, chief of Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation, said that Navalny could have been poisoned because of one of the foundation’s investigations. On 2 September, the German government announced that Navalny was poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent, from the same family of nerve agents that was used to poison Sergei Skripal and his daughter. International officials said that they had obtained “unequivocal proof” from toxicology tests, and have called on the Russian government for an explanation. On 7 September, German doctors announced that he was out of the coma. On 15 September, Navalny’s spokeswoman said that Navalny would return to Russia. On 17 September, Navalny’s team said that traces of the nerve agent used to poison Navalny was detected on an empty water bottle from his hotel room in Tomsk, suggesting that he was possibly poisoned before leaving the hotel. On 23 September, Navalny was discharged from hospital after his condition had sufficiently improved. On 6 October OPCW confirmed presence of cholinesterase inhibitor from the Novichok group in Navalny’s blood and urine samples.

On 14 December a joint investigation by The Insider and Bellingcat in co-operation with CNN and Der Spiegel was published, which implicated agents from Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) in Navalny’s poisoning. The investigation detailed a special unit of the FSB, which specializes in chemical substances, and the investigators then tracked members of the unit, using telecom and travel data. According to the investigation, Navalny was under surveillance by a group of operatives from the unit for 3 years and there may have been earlier attempts to poison Navalny. In an interview with Spanish newspaper El País, Navalny said that “It is difficult for me to understand exactly what is going on in Putin’s mind. … 20 years of power would spoil anyone and make them crazy. He thinks he can do whatever he wants.”

On 21 December 2020 Navalny released a video showing him impersonating a Russian security official and speaking over the phone with a man identified by some investigative news media as a chemical weapons expert named Konstantin Kudryavtsev. During the call, he revealed that the poison had been placed on Navalny’s clothing, particularly in his underwear, and that Navalny would have died if not for the plane’s emergency landing and quick response from an ambulance crew on the runway.

In January 2021 Bellingcat, The Insider and Der Spiegel linked the unit that tracked Navalny to other deaths, including activists Timur Kuashev in 2014 and Ruslan Magomedragimov in 2015, and politician Nikita Isayev in 2019. In February, another joint investigation found that Russian opposition politician Vladimir Kara-Murza was followed by the same unit before his suspected poisonings.

The European Union, United Kingdom and United States responded to the poisoning by imposing sanctions on senior Russian officials.