Editorial staff of newspaper "Respublika" was failed for just another trial again
8 february 2013
February 08, 2013
While, a court decision on closure of 8 newspapers and 23 Internet-resources with word "Respublika" in the title did not came into effect, editor-in-chief of the newspaper "Golos Respubliki – Kaleydoscop Sobytiy Nedeli" Tatiana Trubacheva attempted to appeal a decision of Medeu District Court of Almaty, dated November 21, 2012, according to it, these editions were prohibited in security of a claim of public prosecutor.
On February 08, 2013 Almaty City Court has considered private complaint of Tatiana Trubacheva on this subject. On a trial, Tatiana Trubacheva attempted to prove, as before that this decision has been illegal and it should be denounced, because legislation of Kazakhstan had no norms of compulsory amalgamation of the property of different legal entities. The Public Prosecutor Autalipov, who supported the charge, he could not explain the reason of claim of the General Prosecutor's Office to acknowledge these newspapers as universal media and existence of extremist trend of these newspapers. After hearing of all arguments, judge of Board of Appeals of City Court N. Kalikeyeva has dismissed private claim of T. Trubacheva.
We would remind you, that on November 20, 2012 Public Prosecutor has filed suits and claims on recognition of 8 newspapers and 23 Internet-resources as universal media "Respublika" and on suspension of its issue and dissemination within territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan; on suspension of issue and dissemination of the newspaper "Vzglyad" within territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan and its dubbing Internet-resources; on suspension of foreign media output within territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan – television channel "K+" and its dubbing Internet-resources; on suspension of foreign media output within territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan – Internet video portal "stan.tv".
The General Prosecutor's Office has considered that these media outlets propagandized extremism. Editorial staffs thought that this suit as interference to freedom of speech, censorship and ban on profession.
While, a court decision on closure of 8 newspapers and 23 Internet-resources with word "Respublika" in the title did not came into effect, editor-in-chief of the newspaper "Golos Respubliki – Kaleydoscop Sobytiy Nedeli" Tatiana Trubacheva attempted to appeal a decision of Medeu District Court of Almaty, dated November 21, 2012, according to it, these editions were prohibited in security of a claim of public prosecutor.
On February 08, 2013 Almaty City Court has considered private complaint of Tatiana Trubacheva on this subject. On a trial, Tatiana Trubacheva attempted to prove, as before that this decision has been illegal and it should be denounced, because legislation of Kazakhstan had no norms of compulsory amalgamation of the property of different legal entities. The Public Prosecutor Autalipov, who supported the charge, he could not explain the reason of claim of the General Prosecutor's Office to acknowledge these newspapers as universal media and existence of extremist trend of these newspapers. After hearing of all arguments, judge of Board of Appeals of City Court N. Kalikeyeva has dismissed private claim of T. Trubacheva.
We would remind you, that on November 20, 2012 Public Prosecutor has filed suits and claims on recognition of 8 newspapers and 23 Internet-resources as universal media "Respublika" and on suspension of its issue and dissemination within territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan; on suspension of issue and dissemination of the newspaper "Vzglyad" within territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan and its dubbing Internet-resources; on suspension of foreign media output within territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan – television channel "K+" and its dubbing Internet-resources; on suspension of foreign media output within territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan – Internet video portal "stan.tv".
The General Prosecutor's Office has considered that these media outlets propagandized extremism. Editorial staffs thought that this suit as interference to freedom of speech, censorship and ban on profession.
