Members of the Higher Attestation Commission defended from fighters with plagiarism – comments Vadim Klyuvgant

The Supreme Court of the RF has refused to accept for consideration law suits of "Agora" and "Dissernet" who demanded that the new members of the Higher Attestation Commission (HAC) had to be recognized as invalid. Declarants state that the government violated the law by reappointing 17 members of the HAC in spring, for the law prohibits membership in the Commission for more than two terms. The SC even didn't take any arguments into consideration – the judges decided that membership in the HAC was no concern  of the declarants.

An advocate for "Agora" Kirill Koroteyev told the "Ъ" that the Supreme Court had given the same answers to all lawsuits about the new HAC members. "Each declarant had their own reasoning, but the Court issued the same judgement in every case: 'The disputed governmental act has no connection with your rights, freedom or legal interests'. The situation itself wasn't analyzed at all", – said the lawyer.

Don't forget that human rights activists together with fighters with plagiarism tried to challenge the May instructions of the government on the new HAC (in charge of granting and deprivation of scientific degrees) membership. Declarants pointed out that so far as in 2014 the regulation on the Attestation Commission had been adopted. It stated the limit on the membership – not more than two terms in a row. The regulation was slightly changed in 2016, but the norm of two terms still remains literal. In 2019 the government approved the new composition of the Commission – 179 members. It was the third term in a row for the twelve of them, the fourth term for the three, and the sixth one for the MSU principal Victor Sadovnitchy and the HAC chairman Vladimir Philippov. The Ministry of Education and Science which is superior to the HAC refused to recognize that as a violation. The department declared that approval of the 2016 regulation had "zeroed" all the previous terms of the Commission members.

Kirill Koroteyev explained to the "Ъ" that in order to challenge a governmental decision the one had to convince the court that the document violated declarant's rights. Thus, "Agora" accompanied a law suit of a doctor of philology Aleksey Kasyan who submitted to the HAC membership but was refused. The statement of claim said that 17 Commission members who had been included against the rules, had taken places of honest candidates, probably such as Aleksey Kasyan. Besides, Mr Kasyan participated in the publication of a scientific magazine "The Language Relationship Issues", and as the HAC established requirements for such magazines, the membership in the Committee was a matter of importance for the declarant. Physicist Andrey Zayakin, declarant for "Dissernet", had a different reasoning. He told the court that he had been regularly sending complaints about incorrect dissertations to the HAC, and that if it would be established some time later that the HAC composition had been formed unlawfully, all decisions on deprivation of scientific degrees could be challenged, and that meant that his efforts had been in vain.

Yesterday Mr Zayakin told the "Ъ" that the decision of the SC was "no surprise " to him, for in 2015 the "Dissernet" submitted a complaint to the HAC against the incorrect borrowings in the doctoral thesis of the deputy of the Supreme Court Chairman Oleg Sviridenko. Deprivation of the scientific degree could be used for questioning of his judge's status. The HAC didn't satisfy the "Dissernet" on the grounds that coincidences in the thesis were not plagiarism, but a kind of "collocations" and "scientific style standards" ("Ъ", 21 December 2015). Both "Dissernet" and "Agora" are going to appeal against the decision in the Appellation Board of the SC.

"Non-inclusion of Kasyan in the HAC does not necessarily mean that it is the result of the alleged breach of procedure. But the opposite supposition is quite natural. Refusal of the SC of the RF to accept the submission indicates that the court does not incline to interpret facts of the third persons' interests violation broadly. Such point of view will be regarded as guidelines in consideration of other disputes of that kind," - states the head of the GR-practice of the legal company BMS Legal Firm Dmitry Lesnyak.

"Juggling with such terms as "(not) in succession", "is interpreted", "is zeroed", has grown into an epidemic.  Moreover, "interpretation" and "zeroing" always happens in favour of those whom some people want to remain in their favourite places with authority, – thinks partner of attorneys at law Pen & Paper Vadim Klyuvgant.

"The situation with the "renovation" of the HAC composition looks exactly like that." The advocate is convinced that the issue of  lawfulness of the forming of the new composition of the Commission is of public interest, "for it concerns an indefinite circle of people who get into the scope of its powers". "it would be right if the Office of the Public Prosecutor defended public interests, but, somehow, its voice can't be heard," – he added. In Mr Klyuvgant's opinion the declarants substantiated their interest in the HAC composition in their claims "quite worthily". The advocate also said: "It's a pity that the SC has decided otherwise. I would like to see its explanation of the refusal to accept claims. Further development of the "art of interpretation" in that direction may lead to a situation when no one's and not any interest, except the one of the HAC, won't be recognized as violation in any circumstances".

Alexander Tchernykh