On 14 May, at an unusual time for such matters — near the end of the working day — deputies of the Kurgan City Duma convened. At their extraordinary session, they hastily amended the decision by which, back in February, they had stripped their colleague — Ivan Kamshilov, the sole CPRF deputy — of his mandate. The matter had become urgent because of a lawsuit the elected representative had filed against the local parliament; in the course of the court proceedings, it emerged that the decision had not been substantiated by any provision of law.
Who is Ivan Kamshilov
Kamshilov was first elected to the Kurgan City Duma back in 2004, and in September 2024 he became a deputy for the fourth time, posting the best result among the territorial groups of candidates on the CPRF list. All those years the deputy’s work focused on a field that was maximally inconvenient for both local and regional authorities: public oversight. Moreover, as a rule, his initiatives were regularly backed up by successful litigation.
The formal reason for stripping Ivan Kamshilov of his mandate was that he had not formed a deputy faction and, consequently, had not reported on its plans and activities.
During the court hearing, it emerged that the initiators of the mandate-stripping were Tatyana Fedorova, head of the United Russia faction in the Kurgan City Duma, and Lyubov Silantyeva, the recently appointed head of the representative body. Both are former schoolteachers — the first taught elementary classes, the second, French. Fedorova first graduated from the Kurtamysh Pedagogical College and then from the Shadrinsk Pedagogical Institute; Silantyeva graduated from the Kurgan Pedagogical Institute. In other words, the deputies have no legal education, which fully explains why the decision was not underpinned by any current provision of law.
In reality, however, the strongest motive for cutting short the opposition politician’s activity was held by the head of the region, Vadim Shumkov. On his social-media page, Kamshilov pointed to the true reasons for his fall from favour.
It’s all about the utilities
In May, Governor Shumkov asked the deputies to adopt a decision to raise housing and utility tariffs by the maximum permissible amount as of 1 July. Representatives of all parties, save the CPRF, supported the regional head’s initiative. Ivan Kamshilov, however, turned to the prosecutor’s office with a request to review the legality of the tariff increase, as no justification had been presented.
Afterwards, the head of the region decided to postpone the capital repair schedules of multi-apartment buildings by 8–10 years, while simultaneously doubling the capital repair contribution. In response, Kamshilov organised the filing of lawsuits; the courts began to grant them, ordering the Capital Repair Fund to pay compensation for the delay of previously scheduled works. At the same time, the deputy turned to the Investigative Directorate with a request to verify the reliability of the expert reports on the basis of which the capital repair schedules had been postponed.
On the deputy’s initiative, lawsuits were also filed to overturn illegally established rates for the accumulation of municipal solid waste. It transpired that the rates had been adopted without the required calculations and were, naturally, inflated. The court struck down the tariffs, after which claims were filed seeking a recalculation of waste-removal charges.
Ivan Kamshilov’s posts garner millions of views, drawing attention to the mismanagement by the region’s authorities at the federal level, which directly threatens their political ratings.
How the court proceedings went
Over the course of five court hearings in his lawsuit against the Kurgan City Duma, Deputy Ivan Kamshilov argued that the decision to strip him of his mandate was unlawful on a whole series of grounds.
First, Article 18 of Federal Law No. 33 “On the General Principles of Organising Local Self-Government Within the Unified System of Public Authority” does not envisage liability for failing to form a faction.
That is why the chairwoman of the Kurgan City Duma, Lyubov Silantyeva, was unable to answer the judge’s question as to what ground had served as the reason for the early termination of the deputy’s powers.
Dialogue between the judge and the witness:
“Why does the decision not specify the clause that served as the ground for the early termination of the deputy’s powers?” the judge asked.
“Because Ivan Alexandrovich did not form a faction,” Silantyeva replied.
“Why did you not indicate in the decision precisely which clause of Article Eighteen is the ground for the early termination?”
“I cannot explain.”
“What ground served as the reason for the early termination of the deputy’s powers?”
“Because Ivan Alexandrovich did not form a faction.”
“Does Article 18 contain such a ground as the failure to form a faction?”
“It’s in the 33-FZ, though, to be honest, I cannot tell you the article number right now.”
“Article 18 sets out several cases for termination, but the grounds in clauses 4 through to 6 are not cited. You refer to Part One, but it does not envisage liability for the failure to form a faction. What was the ground for the termination of powers?”
“I have already said.”
Second, under the rules of procedure of the local representative body, forming a faction is not an obligation but a right of a deputy. And, representing the CPRF, Kamshilov is obliged to carry out the party’s instructions. Yet there was no decision of the party’s city committee to form a faction.
Third, according to the Charter of the City of Kurgan, the city duma does not have the power to prematurely strip a deputy of his mandate, with one exception — on the basis of a submission from the prosecutor’s office — which, of course, did not exist.
Kamshilov also described as a gross violation of the rules of procedure the fact that he was not invited to the meeting of the commission that examined the matter and was given no opportunity to provide any explanations, as well as the fact that the matter was added to the agenda of the duma’s scheduled session as an additional item, without notifying him, and was considered first. In Kamshilov’s view, this was done to prevent him from speaking at that session on an important issue for which he had prepared.
Realising that the course of the case in court was unfolding far from as they would have wished, the deputy corps controlled by United Russia decided to retroactively amend the decision that had already been adopted, supplementing it with references to provisions of law. This took place a day before the decisive hearing on 15 May. The court took note of those amendments, although the legally required procedures for the official publication of the new version of the decision had not been observed for it to enter into force.
By its ruling, the court dismissed Ivan Kamshilov’s claim. The part of the ruling setting out the reasoning will be ready in early June. The ruling has not entered into legal force — the deputy intends to appeal it. We will continue to follow this story.