The legitimacy of the court's actions regarding Atamanchuk's removal from the elections raised doubts for the lawyer.

The court in Krasnodar did not consider the appeals of the candidate from the "Yabloko" party, Vladimir Atamanchuk, regarding his removal from the elections, but quickly reviewed the complaint of his opponent in the district. The court committed a number of violations that need to be appealed, despite the predictable outcome, the lawyer indicated.

As reported by "Caucasian Knot", on September 11, the Krasnodar Regional Court canceled the registration of Vladimir Atamanchuk as a candidate for the State Duma in the South single-member district No. 54. The basis was an election material that the plaintiff considered extremist. On September 20, Atamanchuk was detained by law enforcement at the exit of the district election commission; he was arrested for three days on charges of petty hooliganism and illegal campaigning. After three days, Atamanchuk was released from the detention center.

On September 24, 2026, after the elections to the State Duma, Vladimir Atamanchuk, who spent time in the temporary detention center (IVS) on charges of petty hooliganism and illegal campaigning, finally managed to find out the reason why he was not allowed to participate in the elections and was excluded from the ballots.

"This 'secret' was finally revealed to me today in the Third Appellate Court, where I submitted my appeal on September 16, and then, on September 17, an addition to it," Atamanchuk told a correspondent of "Caucasian Knot". He provided a copy of the appellate ruling, which is also posted on the court's website.

The court not only did not wait for the deadline for submitting complaints but also completely ignored my complaints submitted on time.

"The most interesting thing is that the court not only did not wait for the deadline for submitting complaints but also completely ignored my complaints submitted on time. However, it immediately reacted to Titov's complaint, who was 'dissatisfied' that the decision of the first instance court was not subject to immediate execution, and submitted an appeal on the night of September 13. The court denied his request. That is, with one hand, the court denies the unreasonable demands of the candidate, while with the other, it upholds its decision to remove me from the elections, and it comes into legal force," Atamanchuk stated.

According to him, the basis for considering the case was Titov's appeal, which was received before the deadline for submitting complaints. At the same time, Atamanchuk claims that the court did not explain to him where his own complaints, submitted on time, had gone.

The goal was not to consider Atamanchuk's appeal

The situation with Atamanchuk's removal from the elections based on the appellate ruling was commented on by independent election expert Elena Didenko. "Let's start with the fact that this entire 'operation' was clearly carried out to avoid considering Atamanchuk's appeal. Therefore, the deadline for submitting complaints was not adhered to, and the appellate complaint was submitted by the plaintiff on September 13, the day before the start of the election campaign, - on September 14 at 8:00.

According to the information posted on the court's website, it can be seen that at 21:27 Moscow time, actually at night, Titov submitted it, it was immediately registered, and at 23:00, a trio of judges, the judge's assistant, plaintiff Titov, a representative of the territorial election commission of Primorsky city of Sochi, and a prosecutor from the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation gathered, held a session, reviewed Titov's complaint, and the judges issued their decision in the absence of the main character against whom this action was aimed, - Atamanchuk. It was precisely for one candidate from the "Yabloko" party that seven people agreed to stay awake at such a time, including the judges who signed the decision, who effectively eliminated the main independent candidate from Sochi," Didenko stated.

In her opinion, several violations can be seen in the case.

"This is a violation of the deadline for submitting complaints. This is the failure to hand him a copy of Titov's appeal. This is the acceptance and conduct of the court almost at midnight and on a Sunday when everyone is resting and most are already asleep. Finally, this is the failure to notify Atamanchuk himself about the court in a reasonable time to give the person a chance to prepare, familiarize himself, and hire a lawyer," Didenko listed.

The court stated that Atamanchuk was notified

In the appellate ruling, a copy of which is available to "Caucasian Knot", the court outlined its position regarding Atamanchuk's notification about the session.

"The administrative defendant Atamanchuk V. L. was notified by the appellate court by sending him an SMS message to the phone number he provided in the notice addressed to the district election commission of the single-member electoral district 'Krasnodar Krai South single-member district No. 54', as well as by sending a notice to the email address, the ownership of which by the administrative defendant was confirmed by him personally in the first instance court, as follows from the audio protocol of the court session. The appellate court took all possible measures to notify the administrative defendant about the time and place of the court session, including by sending a request for delivery of the notice through the OP (Lazarevsky district) of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Sochi." According to the report of the senior officer of the OP (Lazarevsky district) of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Sochi, due to the absence of the addressee at the place of registration, the notice for the latter was left at the registration address, the appellate ruling states.

"The administrative plaintiff Titov A. V., a representative of the election commission of Krasnodar Krai, requested that the administrative case be considered in the appellate procedure in their absence," the document also states.

Atamanchuk, commenting on the court's assertion that he was notified and that all possible measures were taken for notification, stated that he had not received any notifications.

"I did not receive any SMS, notifications by email, or notices from the Ministry of Internal Affairs. And how could I be notified at night by SMS, by email, and by the police at the moment the complaint from Titov was submitted on a Sunday? Even with a great desire, I would not have been able to run from Sochi to Krasnodar in one hour at night on a Sunday. I perceive all this as deliberate mockery. My complaints are not considered for years or are completely ignored, but if there is a complaint against me, it is even considered at the moment of submission. At midnight. On a Sunday," Atamanchuk stated.

Didenko doubted the validity of the expertise

Elena Didenko believes that the appellate ruling of the court from September 13 was prepared with violations. According to the expert, doubts arise about the qualifications of the specialist who conducted the examination of the election material.

Didenko claims that conducting a linguistic examination of the text for signs of extremism directly at the ANO "Sochi Judicial Expert Criminalistic Center" is unlikely, as the organization's profile areas are traditional forensic studies.

"Analyzing the text for extremism is a narrow specialized task that is handled by a comprehensive judicial psychological-linguistic examination," she explained her doubts.

The expert also stated that, in her opinion, the parties participating in the elections sometimes do not initially have real support and are used as spoilers working for the victory of "United Russia".

"We have repeatedly seen that the regime puts parties in the elections, knowing full well that they will not pass, that these parties essentially do not exist. These are paper spoiler parties that work for the victory of 'United Russia'," Didenko believes.

Conducting a comprehensive linguistic and political examination of the election material in one day, without involving independent experts and without providing the candidate the right to ask his questions to the expert, is a standard sign of a commissioned nature of the case.

According to her, the sequence of events outlined in the court decision raises questions. According to the document, the Center "E" of the Ministry of Internal Affairs began an inspection, and on the same day, September 10, the ANO "Sochi Judicial Expert Criminalistic Center" issued a conclusion about the presence of "signs of extremism" in the leaflet. Already on September 11, the regional court issued a decision to cancel Atamanchuk's registration.

"Conducting a comprehensive linguistic and political examination of the election material in one day, without involving independent experts and without providing the candidate the right to ask his questions to the expert, is a standard sign of a commissioned nature of the case," Didenko stated.

Didenko also drew attention to the personality of the plaintiff, Titov. She suggested that the coverage of the case might draw attention to Titov.

It is sad when honest, adequate citizens believe that they can win these elections, just as in our Russian court. In the example of Atamanchuk, we see that this is currently virtually impossible.

The expert stated that she considers the situation with Atamanchuk's exclusion from the elections a telling example of the obstacles candidates face when trying to achieve participation in elections through the courts.

"It is sad when honest, adequate citizens believe that they can win these elections, just as in our Russian court. In the example of Atamanchuk, we see that this is currently virtually impossible," she said.

At the same time, Didenko emphasized that she considers Atamanchuk a principled person.

"Atamanchuk tries every election to show his fellow citizens by his personal example that they should not despair, but should fight and believe in victory through the legal and accessible way for all of us through elections to power," the expert stated.

In her opinion, Atamanchuk's case shows that courts easily and without punishment violate the principle of adversarial proceedings and equality of the parties, enshrined in Article 14 of the Administrative Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

"We see that in the presence of such principled citizens, the courts directly violate the principle of adversarial proceedings and equality of the parties, Article 14 of the APC of the Russian Federation, and any other violations," Didenko noted.

She advised Atamanchuk to file a cassation complaint against the appellate ruling.

"Of course, the court will not recognize violations of Atamanchuk's rights, but it is interesting to see how far the system can go in protecting the ruling party," the expert concluded.