Today, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation overturned the lower courts' decisions in the "Dolina case": the apartment remains with the buyer, Polina Lurye. However, the singer's eviction will be handled by the Moscow City Court, which has returned the case. How long the eviction process will take is unknown. A lawyer with extensive experience in apartment disputes commented on the Supreme Court's decision to the Cheka-OGPU and Rucriminal.info:
"The Supreme Court's decision was expected and legally correct. There simply could not have been any other outcome.
But everything that happened before it and is still happening around it is a disgrace and a degradation of the judicial and supervisory system.
Three consecutive courts issued unjust decisions. And we're not talking about cash in envelopes here, but about a far more dangerous form of corruption—connections, administrative resources, and status. A court artist, the "correct" position, loyalty—and the law is pushed aside. Much has already been said about this, including by the Cheka-OGPU, and there should be no illusions about it.
But the prosecutor's office's position deserves special attention.
Instead of raising the issue of lustration of judges who made obviously unjust decisions (and such an article exists in the Criminal Code) and dealing with colleagues who should have had a clear and principled position even at the criminal case stage, the prosecutor's office is doing exactly the opposite.
It's trying to cushion the judges' awkward position. Essentially, it sounds like this:
— the courts did everything correctly;
— the prosecutor's office supports them;
— the apartment should have remained with Dolina;
— and they simply "forgot" to pay compensation to Lurye—a minor violation, they say.
And all this—under a cloud of grandiose rhetoric about "fairness" and "balance of interests."
But the prosecutor dug his own hole. Because a simple and awkward question arises:
What kind of compensation settlement can they even discuss if Dolina herself explicitly stated during the trial that she has no money?
It turns out that the prosecutor's entire position boils down to one thing: proposing a patently unenforceable settlement, knowing full well it will never be implemented. This isn't about balancing interests; it's about legal fiction and covering up judicial arbitrariness.
Now let's imagine for a moment that Lurye hadn't made a deal with Dolina, and there would have been no public outcry.
What then?
Nothing. The settlement would have remained in place.
And it's here that we see the state to which the prosecutor's office has fallen—not in one specific case, but everywhere.
They call black white. The patently illegal is acceptable. The unenforceable is fair.
And yet they bear no accountability.
The Supreme Court in this story acted not as a systemic element, but as an emergency button.
But if we reduce everything again to a "miscarriage of justice," rather than calling a spade a spade, such stories will be repeated again and again.
