A resident of Vitebsk Alexander Antonenko was a witness in administrative proceedings. At the end of the trial, he filed a petition on his acquaintance with the minutes of the meeting to present their observations regarding its completeness and correctness of the. However, the judge of the Oktyabrsky district of Vitebsk Ales Zharikova refused to grant the application. Vitebsk resident was forced to appeal to the Supreme Court...

The judge said Zharikova writing in response to a request that the grounds for review of the applicant to the court records are not available. Alexander Antonenko considered that the judge violated his rights, and appealed to the supreme judicial institution of the country. In his complaint to the Supreme Court, he wrote:

"The judge is obliged to provide participants with the opportunity to review the administrative process with the record of the hearing, and the members of the administrative process have the right to submit comments regarding its completeness and correctness of the. I believe the judge's decision Oktyabrsky district court of Vitebsk Zharikova A.S. not based on the law."

The Supreme Court sent the complaint to Mr. Antonenko in Vitebsk Regional Court, whose chairman Nicholas Hamichenok recognized its validity. He confirmed that in accordance with Article 11.8 Procedural-Executive Code of Administrative Offences of the administrative process, all participants are eligible for three days to submit their comments on the completeness and correctness of the trial transcript. This right is granted including witnesses as participants in the process.

"Thus, the judge wrongfully refused to familiarize you with the record of the hearing. In connection with the judge of the court in October district of Vitebsk Zharikova A.S. strict instructions to prevent further work such violations and providing you with the opportunity to realize their right to examine the record of the hearing. The outcome of this month the judge Zharikova A.S. deprived of the award" – the head of the regional court said on the complainant.

Vitebsk Spring