Судебное Рассмотрение

2017-06-28 Submitted combined lawsuit under The Hague Convention regarding Child Abduction and Contra Claim regarding the rejection of Trafimovich Lawsuit regarding Custody Claim filled on the 27^th of April 2017.

Explanation:

Ms. Trafimovich managed to submit a lawsuit against me in 9 days. She and her representatives are worth mentioning in the Guinness World Records Book for their achievements.

APPEAL AGAINST THE LAWSUIT on the determination of the residence of underage children, the recovery of alimony, and the determination of a different procedure for leaving the Republic of Belarus.

I appeal to terminate the proceedings on the case of the residence of minor children, the recovery of alimony, and on the determination of a different procedure for the departure of minor children from the Republic of Belarus because of the lack of competence/jurisdiction of the Court to consider the dispute on the merits of custody of Children (Article 19 of the Convention).

2017-09-13 EN Motion-Petition on L.T. Custody Claim submitted 2017.04.27 regarding Custody, residency, alimony & different procedure for exit BY

2017-09-13 RU Motion-Petition on L.T. Custody Claim submitted 2017.04.27 regarding Custody, residency, alimony & different procedure for exit BY (send for translation)     

Explanation;

Preliminary proceeding on Trafimovich lawsuit from 2017-04-27 regarding the determination of custody, residence of my children, recovery of alimony (33%) and the determination of a different procedure for leaving the Republic of Belarus.  

My Motion-Petition dated 2017-09-13 was rejected!

Oktyabrsky District Court of 1st instance planned final proceeding 2017-10-18  on Ms. Trafimovich Law Suit submitted 2017-04-27.  I was physically present at the court but refused to participate. Decision was ruled 2017-10-19 in favor of Ms. Trafimovich.

What was obvious from the very beginning, was the fact that the Law Firm that represented Ms. Trafimovich didn’t have a clue about The Hague Convention. If they did, then they ignored it completely together with the High Court under the Judge Ms. Berulia! 

Explanation:
I refused to participate in the proceedings because it was an illegal action and denial of justice under the merits of The Hague Convention. 

The court under Ms. Berulia had no competence or jurisdiction to consider the dispute on the merits of custody of Children (Article 19 of The Convention). Only Sweden had the jurisdiction to decide about custody issues of my children. I made a clear statement/declaration about this in the beginning and announced that I refuse to participate in the proceedings. Therefore, I didn’t answer to any questions addressed to me under the court process. 

Final proceedings at the Oktyabrsky District Court of Minsk on Trafimovich lawsuit from 2017-04-27 regarding the determination of custody/residence of my children, recovery of alimony (33%) and the determination of a different procedure for leaving the Republic of Belarus. 

Explanation:

I was physically present at the court 2017.10.18 but refused to participate in the proceedings with a written declaration, therefore I didn’t answer to any questions addressed to me under the court process. The next day, 2017.10.19, when decision was taken, I took my flight back to Stockholm at lunch time. I didn’t expect any miracles to happen!

Later the same day, a written court decision dated 2017-10-19  was presented, which satisfied all Ms. Trafimovich demands, like sole custody, alimony of 33% and that her written consent was necessary for my daughters to travel outside Belarus. 

Excerpts from motivation part of the court decision dated 2017-10-27, Case 2-2017/17;

Exerpts; 

The ruled decision established the residence of the minor Cheropoulou Anthie’, Anthoula, dob 08.06.2012, and Cheropoulou Alexandra, dob 01.04.2015, at the place of residence of their mother Trafimovich Lyudmila Arkadyevna, having determined that all issues related to the care, education, health of her daughters will be decided by her.

To collect from Cheropoulos Nicolas in favor of Trafimovich Lyudmila Arkadievna alimony for the maintenance of underage daughters: at a rate of 33% from all kinds of earnings and other income, monthly, until the children reach the age of majority, starting from 04/27/2017.

Motivation; 

N. Cheropoulos turned to the court of the Oktyabrsky district of Minsk with a suit against LA Trafimovich about the return of children. The court ruling of August 23, 2017 was terminated proceedings in connection with the lack of the right to appeal to a court in view of his lack of jurisdiction. The court’s decision came into force 10/16/2017.

The arguments of N. Cheropoulos that the lawsuit of LA Trafimovich is not subject to the courts of the Republic of Belarus, that children must be in Sweden, all subsequent claims must be considered by competent courts of Sweden, and not by the courts of the Republic of Belarus, are not based on current legislation (Article 542 of the CCP).

2017-10-18 EN My Court pleading regarding Trafimovich Custody Claim Submitted 27th of April 2017 (send for transl.)

2017-10-18 RU My Court pleading regarding Trafimovich Custody Claim Submitted 27th of April 2017

2017-10-19 EN Ruled Decision on Trafimovich Custody Claim submitted 2017-04-27 3 pages 

2017-10-19 RU Ruled Decision on Trafimovich Custody Claim submitted 2017-04-27 3 pages (Send for Transl.)

2017-10-27 EN Motivation to decision Ruled 19th of Oct. 2017 on Trafimovich Custody Claim submitted 27.04.2017

2017-10-27 RU Motivation to decision Ruled 19th of Oct. 2017 on Trafimovich Custody Claim submitted 27.04.2017   

Cassation Appeal against Custody decision 2017-10-19 undersigned by me and sent by E-mail to Minsk City Court.  

Explanation; 

A Motion-Petition was made 2018-01-10 to the initial Cassation Appeal dated 2017.11.10 to postpone the planned proceedings 2018.01.15 to a later date so I could properly prepare all the necessary evidences related to my Appeal,  with their certification and translations and also because I wanted to personally participate in the consideration of my Appeal.

Worth to mention, I was in Minsk in an attempt to meet with my Children to celebrate Christmas between the 24th to 29th of December 2017. I rented a family room for my Children and Ms. Trafimovich,  but in the last minute, she refused to stay at the Hotel room I booked for her and our Children. It was a traumatic experience to face the authoritarian behavior of Ms. Trafimovich towards our Children.

My request to postpone the consideration of my Cassation Appeal  on 2018-01-15 to a later date was ignored. I was not even given an answer on my request sent to them. 

Also,  my new representative was asking me to undersign the Cassation Appeal despite the fact that she had a valid PoA from me! I raised this issue and asked what the purpose of having a PoA if she request me to undersign the Appeals?

Personally, although I did understand the reason, and I do respect it! But, not only I was facing denial of Justice and a Corrupt Judicial system in Belarus as a parent from a foreign country, I was also dealing with representatives who fear to fight for my  legal interests because the consequences could be fatal! 

2017-11-10 EN Cassation Appeal against Custody decision 2017-10-19 submitted by me Minsk City Court

2017-11-10 RU Cassation Appeal against Custody decision 2017-10-19 submitted by me Minsk City Court (send for transl.)

2018-01-10 EN Motion-Petition to my initial Cassation Appeal on Custody decision to postpone its consideration to a date later than 2018-01-15 as planned by Minsk City Court

2018-01-10 RU Motion-Petition on initial Cassation Appeal to postpone its consideration to a date later than 2018-01-15 as planned by Minsk City Court (send for transl.)  

Cassation Appeal on Trafimovich case was filled on November 10, 2017 via e-mail. It was sent to the Court of Oktyabrsky District. The court of Oktyabrsky district sent our appeal with the case to the Minsk City court for consideration. 

Выдержки:

Court decision with motivation dated 2018-01-31 to reject my Cassation Appeal;

According to the conclusion of the guardianship and custody agency of the Oktyabrsky district of Minsk in the interests of minor children, their place of residence must be determined with the mother.

The arguments of the Cassation Appeal that the Swedish court on May 30, 2017 decided to grant the father full custody of the children in connection with the release of the plaintiff from such a right in view of the illegal movement of children, do not result in the cancellation of the court decision, since April 2017 the children permanently reside and registered in the Republic of Belarus, are citizens of the Republic of Belarus,  N. Cheropoulos did not file a claim with the court at the place of residence of the children to transfer the children to their upbringing (to determine their place of residence).  

The arguments of the Cassation Appeal that the court of first instance, did not consider the provisions of the Convention on Civil Aspects and International Abduction of Children are unreasonable, since N. Cheropoulos, referring to the said Convention, applied for the return of minor children to their place of permanent residence. By the ruling of the court of August 23, 2017, which entered into force on October 16, 2017, the proceedings were dismissed due to the lack of jurisdiction of the dispute to the court.

The arguments of the Cassation Appeal that the children were born in Sweden, attended the kindergarten, additional classes, in Sweden for the children created better living conditions, do not attract the satisfaction of the court collegium. During the proceedings, the court established that the place of residence of children in the Republic of Belarus, are favorable and living conditions, children attend pre-school institutions, adapt well to a new place of residence, the separation of young children from their mother will have a negative impact on their psychological state and can lead to irreparable consequences.

In addition, in accordance with principle 6 of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child (adopted on November 20, 1959, Resolution 1386 at the plenary session of the UN General Assembly) “A child for complete and harmonious development of his personality, needs love and understanding. The responsibility of their parents and in any case in an atmosphere of love and moral and material security; a young child should not, except in cases where there are exceptional circumstances, be separated from his mother”.

The court did not reveal any exceptional circumstances that involve the separation of young children from their mother.

Under such circumstances, the arguments of the Cassation Appeal about the issuance of a court decision without considering all the facts that are of significant importance are unfounded.

Circumstances and facts relevant to the case have been clarified by the court fully and correctly, the evidence submitted by the parties and their arguments have been given due assessment, the decision was made in accordance with the law, in the interests of minor children, and therefore the judicial board of grounds does not find any grounds for its abolition.

The court collegium considers the decision of the court regarding the collection of alimony and the establishment of a different procedure for the departure of minor children outside the Republic of Belarus legal and justified, since it is reasonably motivated, in accordance with the interests of the children, decided in accordance with the requirements of articles 91/1992 Republic of Belarus, Part 2 of Art. 12 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus “On the Procedure for the Exit from the Republic of Belarus and Entry into the Republic of Belarus of Citizens of the Republic of Belarus”.

For these reasons, the arguments of the Cassation Appeal do not contain grounds for the cancellation of the court decision.

Guided by paragraph 1, paragraph 4 of Art. 425 ГПК of the Republic of Belarus, judicial board 

DETERMINED:

To exclude from the operative part of the court’s decision an instruction that all issues related to care, education, health and education are addressed solely by the mother, for Anhie’, Anthoula and Alexandra Cheropoulou. In the remainder of the same decision to leave the court unchanged, and the cassation appeal, protest – without satisfaction.

Would it be too much to say that this is the ultimate form of Vandalism, Breach of Law & Denial of Justice?

Once Again, The Wheel was Invented in Belarus! 

2018-01-15 EN Motivation to reject my Cassation Appeal from Minsk City Court on ruled Custody Decision 2017-10-19 (dated 2018-01-31)

2018-01-15 RU Motivation to reject my Cassation Appeal from Minsk City Court on ruled Custody Decision 2017-10-19 (dated 2018-01-31)  

Complaint by way of Supervision was submitted to the Public Prosecutor on the ruled custody decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Minsk on October 19, 2017, and the determination of the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Minsk City Court on January 15, 2018.

Explanation;

We filed the Supervisory Appeal on the ruled Custody Decision, somewhere on March 3-7, 2018.  A Motion-Petition was also submitted, to stop the execution of Ms. Berulia’s decision from 2017-10-19 during consideration of our “Appeal by way of Supervision” to the Public prosecutor’s office. This motion was rejected on 2018-03-16. 

Complaint by way of supervision on the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Minsk on October 19, 2017, and the determination of the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Minsk City Court on January 15, 2018.

Выдержки:

We consider the decisions ruled by the court (the decision of the court of the Oktyabrsky district of Minsk on October 19, 2017, and the determination of the judicial collegium for civil cases of the Minsk City Court of January 15, 20018) to be illegal. The court violated material and procedural law norms.

The decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Minsk of October 19, 2017 and the determination of the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Minsk City Court of January 15, 2001, are subject to cancellation for the following reasons;

1. Illegality of the decision

Article 237 of the Marriage and Family Code of the Republic of Belarus (hereinafter referred to as the “CBS”) and Article 541 of the CCP of the Republic of Belarus (hereinafter – GIC) establishes the principle of priority of international treaties.

2. Violation by the court of substantive law

The court did not consider and did not give any assessment to the fact that the whole life of the children from birth to April 18, 2017 was in Sweden. There they were born, they attended a kindergarten, mugs, additional classes. There was their home. There was a developed circle of dialogue of children from which the plaintiff pulled them out and illegally transferred them to the Republic of Belarus.

Now children live in an alien language and social environment, on the working fringes of the city of Minsk, attend a kindergarten, where the number of children in the group exceeds 20 people, and does not study foreign languages.

After coming to Belarus, children are constantly ill, which in Sweden, they never were.

None of these facts has been taken into account by the court in making the decision, and none of them is given a legal assessment.

3. Violation of the rules of procedural law by a court

As we indicated in paragraph 1 of this complaint, the court was not entitled to take a decision regarding the right to the residence until it was established that the child should not be returned in accordance with the Convention – Article 16 of the Convention.

According to its legal nature, proceeding from Article 19 of the Convention, the decision under the Convention applies exclusively to the place of residence of children and does not affect the right to stay with the child.

This complaint raises the issue of the cancellation of judicial decisions and the referral of the case for a new trial to the court of the first instance.

According to part 4 of paragraph 1 of Article 160 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Belarus, the court is obliged to suspend the proceedings in case it is impossible to consider the case before the resolution of another case, which is considered in civil, criminal or administrative proceedings.

On January 15, 2018, the defendant addressed the Judicial Board of Civil Cases of the Minsk City Court and sent a petition (stated by the representative) to suspend the consideration of the present case until the end of the supervisory proceedings in the Nicolas Cheropoulos case on the return of children to their place of permanent residence.

On the basis of Article 166 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Belarus, the suspension, termination of proceedings in the case and the abandonment of the application without consideration are made by the court’s decision.

In turn, the petition for suspension of proceedings in the case, announced on January 15, 2018, was not considered by the court, and the court’s ruling on this issue was not carried out. 

Taking into account those arguments set forth above, the court of Cassation instance violated the rules of procedural law. The violation is significant since it influences the legality of the decision of the first instance court in the case.

Our appeal/complaint was accepted on 02-05-2018 by the decision from the Public Prosecutor regarding the Custody Case.

2018-03-07 EN Supervisory Complaint on Custody decision 2017-10-19 & Cassation Appeal Minsk City Court 2018-01-15 

2018-03-07 RU Supervisory Complaint on Custody decision 2017-10-19 & Cassation Appeal Minsk City Court 2018-01-15  (send for transl.)  

My Supervisory Appeal, submitted 2018-03-07, was accepted on 25-04-2018 by a decision from the Public Prosecutor, Mr. S. K. Khmaruk, regarding the Custody Case (also my Hague Case Appeal was accepted). We were notified about it on 2018-05-02.

Выдержки:

PROTEST (in the exercise of supervisory powers) against the judgment of the Oktyabrsky District Court of the City of Minsk on 19 October 2017 and the ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Minsk City Court of 15 January 2018 in the case involving the lawsuit by L. A. Trafimovich against Nicolas Cheropoulos for the determination of the minor children’s place of residence, recovery of alimony, and the establishment of the procedure for the minor children’s travel outside the Republic of Belarus.

The judicial decrees cannot be recognized as legal and consistent, they are subject to reversal. The reason for the termination of the proceedings was the judicial conclusion that The Hague Convention does not provide for the consideration of disputes over the illegal removal or retention, as well as the return of minor children to the country of their permanent residence in the course of civil proceedings.

At the same time, at present, the protest is raised against the judicial decrees on termination of proceedings in the case by the prosecutor’s office of the city of Minsk in the exercise of supervisory powers due to misinterpretation of the national statutes by the court.

Thus, in accordance with Law of the Republic of Belarus No. 90-3 of 13 November 1997, “On Joining the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction”, the republic joined The Hague Convention, which entered into force for the Republic of Belarus on 01 April 1998 and is now part of the national legislation.

By virtue of Article 16 of The Hague Convention, after receiving notice of the illegal removal or retention of a child in accordance with Article 3, the judicial or administrative authorities of the State Party to which the child has been removed or in which he/she has been retained shall not decide on the merits of rights of custody until it has been determined that the child is not to be returned under this Convention or unless an application under this Convention is not lodged within a reasonable time following receipt of the notice.

This circumstance was also indicated by the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Belarus, which performs the functions of the central body for the purposes of The Hague Convention (vol. 1, case, sheet 199).

In view of the foregoing, bearing in mind that, in accordance with Part 1 of Article 448 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Belarus, the grounds for cancellation in the exercise of supervisory powers of judicial decrees are their inconsistency or material breaches of the substantive and procedural law, and guided by paragraph 2 of Article 439 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Belarus,

I APPEAL to cancel the judgment of the Oktyabrsky District Court in Minsk of 19 October 2017 and the ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Minsk City Court on 15 January 2018 in the case involving the lawsuit by L. A. Trafimovich against Nicolas Cheropoulos for the determination of the minor children’s place of residence, recovery of alimony, and the establishment of the procedure for the minor children’s travel outside the Republic of Belarus.

The Prosecutor of the city of Minsk, S. K. Khmaruk.

2018-05-02 EN Protest & Decision of acceptance of the Custody complaint from the Public Prosecutor dated 25.04.2018 No. 44-г-77

2018-05-02 RU Protest & Decision of acceptance of the Custody complaint from the Public Prosecutor dated 25.04.2018 No. 44-г-77  

2018-05-16 Honorary Greek Consul as Observer

Explanation:

Acceptance of the Public Prosecutor protest/complaint regarding the wrongful/illegal decision regarding decision on my Hague Case. This was by the way, the only time we had a small victory in the Belarusian courts, and this because the Greek Honorary Consul participated as an observer. The Greek Consul has dual citizenship (Belarusian also), he is well-respected.

In some way, however, the Law Office representing Ms. Trafimovich , managed to take  him off the stage and he was unwilling to support me with his presence as an Observer after May 16, 2018. Later on, I found out that he received a letter of complaint/protest from Ms. Trafimovich which of course was not written by her. When Ms. Trafimovich also told me in one of our meetings and with happiness in her face: “We fixed your Greek Consul” I stopped to have any doubts about why the Greek Honorary Consul was unwilling to participate as an Observer. Questions were raised about the methods used by the Law Office Ms. Trafimovich and about the connections they had with the Belarusian authorities and high ranked officials!

Both my Appeals (Hague & Custody Case) were satisfied with decision taken by Minsk City Court on the 16th of May 2018 which we received in written form 2018-05-21. The Greek Honorary Consul participated as observer. Important to read are the arguments of the Prosecutor Mr. S. K. Khmaruk which later on was completely ignored in my ongoing legal battle, as well as of Mr. S. K. Khmaruk later on. Thus, I don’t judge him knowing under what circumstances and conditions he is performing his work.

DECREED:

No. 44-Г-77-2018

To cancel the judgement of the Oktyabrsky District Court in Minsk of 19 October 2017 and the ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Minsk City Court of 15 January 2018 in the case involving the lawsuit by Liudmila Arkadeyevna Trafimovich against Nicolas Cheropoulos for the determination of the children’s place of residence, recovery of alimony, and the establishment of the procedure for the children’s travel outside the Republic of Belarus.

The case shall be sent to a new trial by a court of first instance.

Presiding Judge                         signature                    P. I. Korshunovich

2018-05-21 ΕΝ Minsk City Court Decree No. 44-Г-77 Regarding Custody decision 2017-10-19 & 2018-01-15

2018-05-21 RU Minsk City Court Decree No. 44-Г-77 Regarding Custody decision 2017-10-19 & 2018-01-15    

2018-06-05 Arzinger Law Firm in Minsk is representing  my Hague Case from this date & consults me on ongoing legal issues

Explanation;

Rapid visit to Minsk between the dates 3rd to 5th of June 2018 to change representative who exposed me heavily by sending confidential information to Ms. Trafimovich, and my attempt to postpone The Hague Case hearings on the 5th of June 2018. I undersigned contract with Arzinger Law Firm 2018-06-05 and managed to postpone The Hague Case Hearing together with my translator O.K. and the given instructions from the legal team of Arzinger Law Firm.

At the airport in Minsk on the 5th of June on my way boarding my flight to Stockholm, Ms. Trafimovich phoned me around 12:45 to inform me that our children will go thru a psychological survey on the 6th of June!! On the question who ordered this examination, I was given the answer that the judge, Ms. Berulia did! When I told Ms. Trafimovich that this is an illegal action and it’s not recognized or accepted by International law, because our children are too young, she closed the phone. Later on we understood the reason of the ordered psychological survey of my children, thus, the survey didn’t go out at all as Ms. Berulia and Ms. Trafimovich counselors expected, despite the heavy Manipulation, Brainwashing and Alienation my children were exposed to! 

I also strongly believe and with most certainty, that the psychological survey conducted on my children was far away from objective and has been manipulated to fit the purpose of Judge Berulia and the Law Office representing Ms. Trafimovich. 

My Hague case was meant to be processed on 2018-06-26, but was postponed with very short notice for reasons I don’t know. It was postponed 2 times already after the 5th of June and most likely the reasons was related to the results of the Psychological Survey of my Children! Most likely, another survey has been conducted on my children after the 6th  of June and the one I have in my hands, are a mix of two surveys which was more suitable for Ms. Trafimovich and her Counselors to use on the Hearing of my Hague Case 2018.07.12.

2018-06-06 EN Anthie’ Psych. Survey Binder1

2018-06-06 EN Alexandra Psych. Survey Binder1

2018-06-06 RU Anthie’ Psych. Survey Binder1

2018-06-06 RU Alexandra Psych. Survey Binder1

I returned to Minsk after 3 days, on the 8th of June, in my attempt to celebrate my beloved daughter Anthie’s birthday at the restaurant “Panorama”, unfortunately in presence of a guard as usual. I didn’t have a choice! Ms. Trafimovich and the perverted counselors around her did whatever they could to cut me off from my children! I guess that this is their definition of what is “In The Best Interest Of The Children”! I consider those people to be monsters  and products of a system with severely degenerated brains.

From the 5th of June 2018, I was represented by the legal team A.K., E.M., J.M.& T.N. at Arzinger Law Firm  regarding my Hague Case and battle for my children Anthie’ and Alexandra Cheropoulou. 

This is the only Law Firm who has shown dedication, responsibility and engagement in my battle for my children without being hesitating to stand up for my legal rights in the authoritarian state of Belarus. Our cooperation went smooth without anything serious to remark. The Legal Team of Arzinger  worked with consciously, responsibility and professionalism without overcharging me. 

Thus, in April 2019, I was informed that Arzinger Law Firm will proceed in internal reorganization and that Mr. A.K. will be away for a while. My personal and Ms. Martha P. conclusion was that something happened early in 2019 which lead to this decision. After a few months, we realized that our conclusion was justified.

At the end of 2019, I decided to continue my cooperation solely with Mr. A.K. who I consider to be a bright and skilled professional with high standards, professional ethics, who also speaks English fluently. Something very rare in Belarus.    

For the Record:

The cassation Appeal (regarding my Hague Case) has been processed at Minsk City Court and was rejected. The observer from the Swedish Embassy was present together with my representative, E.M. (Arzinger Law Firm).

Explanation;

Parallel, the final decision was ruled at Södertörns Tingsrätt in Stockholm-Sweden regarding my ongoing Custody Case, where sole custody was ruled in my favor. This was a “Marathon” with many people involved because Ms. Trafimovich was hiding and the Swedish court authorities were not able to legally notify her earlier in Minsk.

The notification to Ms. Trafimovich was achieved after one year by the County of Stockholm thru the Central Organization of Belarus. With initiative by me, together with Martha P. (Attorney from Greece), we start to research together with the legal team from Arzinger Law Firm and the Court Authorities in Sweden. We escalated the pressure and forced the Court Authorities in Minsk to handle over the notification report dated 2nd of August 2018, to the Swedish Court Authorities on the 5th of September 2018! 

Worth to mention is that the notification report was dated 2nd of August 2018 but was “hidden” by the court authorities in Belarus. Without Martha Poni, Judge B.B. in Stockholm, Arzinger Law Firm, and the County of Stockholm, we would never get this notification report in our hands on time. If this would happen, then the court hearing on the 10th of September 2018 in Stockholm would have been postponed once again because of insufficient follow-up of my case by the Swedish Lawyers and corrupt administration procedure in Belarus!

2018-09-05 RU Confirmation of Notification to Trafimovich in BY Södertörns TR T6168-17 Aktbil 95

2018-09-06 EN Translation of Mr. Makarov notification Report to Södertörns TR T 6168-17 Aktbil 97

2018-09-06 SW Translation of Mr. Makarov notification Report to Södertörns TR T 6168-17 Aktbil 97

2018-10-10 EN DECISION IN FORCE from Sweden RULED 2018-09-19

2018-10-10 RU DECISION IN FORCE  from Sweden RULED 2018-09-19

2018-10-12 EN REGARDING the SUMMONS of Correct Notification from Sweden to L.T.

2018-10-12 RU REGARDING the SUMMONS of Correct Notification from Sweden to L.T.

2018-10-12 SW REGARDING the SUMMONS of Correct Notification from Sweden to L.T.    

Hearing of Trafimovich Custody Claim in Belarus, which was planned to be processed again after the rejection of our Hague claim 2018-09-10.

The hearing was postponed because of no legally correct notification to me under the Convention regarding services abroad and also because there was no PoA issued for an Attorney to represent me in the Custody Claim of Trafimovich in Belarus.   

Hearings of Trafimovich Custody Claim in Belarus, which was planned to be processed again after the rejection of our Hague claim 2018-09-10.

The hearing was postponed because of not legally correct notification to me under the Convention regarding services abroad.    

Motion/Application to enforce the Swedish Custody Decision from 2018-09-19 submitted to Minsk City Court 2018.10.24

“Dear Nicolas,

We want to inform you that today E.M. Was at the reception at the Minsk City Court. All documents were submitted together with the request for recognition of the Swedish decision in force from 2018.09.19. Our request was registered under the number 13083 and dated 24.10.2018″.

Our Application to enforce the Swedish decision from the 19th of September 2018 was rejected as expected, though, we received some valuable statements in the decision, unexpectedly!   

Rejection of filled application regarding the enforcement of the Swedish custody decision (final) from the 19th of September 2018. 

Our application was rejected as expected, but we got in writing that they recognize the Swedish decision in Belarus (but it will not be enforced).

Excerpts of Motivation;

We are rejecting your motion for recognition and permission for enforcement of the decision ruled by the Södertörn District Court (Kingdom of Sweden) on 19 September 2018, which was received by the Minsk City Court.

“In accordance with Part 2 of Article 1 of Annex 4 to the Civil Procedural Code of the Republic of Belarus, decisions by foreign courts, which do not require enforcement, are recognized in the Republic of Belarus even in the case when it is not stipulated by law of the Republic of Belarus”.

“Custody and guardianship determined for minor Belarussian citizens while complying with the laws of the respective states are recognized effective in the Republic of Belarus if there are no objections against the determination of custody and guardianship or against their recognition from a diplomatic mission or a consular agency of the Republic of Belarus, which should receive a competent opinion of the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Belarus in the manner prescribed by the Government of the Republic of Belarus. Such issues do not require recognition in a judicial proceeding”. 

Nicolas Cheropoulos is recognized as the sole guardian of Anthie and Alexandra Cheropoulou. This decision automatically spreads its effect on the territory of the Republic of Belarus in accordance with par. 2 tbsp. 234 of the Code of the Republic of Belarus of 09.07.1999 No. 278-З (as amended on 07.17.2018)

This conclusion is confirmed in the response of the Vice-President of the Minsk City Court of 08.11.2018 No. 13083 on the recognition of this Swedish custody decision of 09/19/2018 – that the fact of the sole custody of Nicolas Cheropoulos does not require judicial recognition. That is, this decision is automatically recognized, and from 19.09.2018, it is valid on the territory of Belarus.

Despite the statement on the received decision, the rights of my children and my rights are totally ignored, and I am not allowed to participate in their upbringing or have access to them! I guess that this is what counselors and judicial authorities in Belarus define as “In the Best Interest of The Children”!  

2018-11-08 EN Decision of Rejection to the enforcement of SW Custody Decision from 2018.09.19

2018-11-08 RU Decision of Rejection to the enforcement of SW Custody Decision from 2018.09.19    

Planned hearing of Trafimovich Custody Claim in Belarus after the rejection of our Hague claim 2018-09-10. 

The hearing was postponed once again because no legally correct notification to me under the Convention regarding services abroad.       

Went to Minsk to celebrate Christmas with my children between dates of 23-29 of December 2018. 

Explanation;

I was allowed to meet them twice, 24th and 25th of December, for about 2 hours each time in the presence of a guard. On the 25th, Ms. Trafimovich treated our children very badly, and both my girls were crying. Alexandra was not allowed to follow me to get a banana from the restaurant because she was hungry. Liudmila threatened her that she and her sister would not see me again if they don’t obey her. Alexandra was crying together with her sister. Anthie’ cried because she wanted to be with me again, but was forcibly put in a Taxi, so I could not talk with her to comfort her and calm her down.

“Ms. Trafimovich tried to notify me in a restaurant on the 26th of December 2018 while I was in Minsk with the hope of meeting with my children for Christmas. I refused this kind of action and informed the County of Stockholm once again regarding the wrongful and illegal attempt to notify me. I also informed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Stockholm regarding this issue”.

I received a Viber message from Trafimovich on 2018.12.26 that we could meet around 18:30-19:00, and I was happy. The message was sent at 16:20 local time, but I could not respond to her because my mobile ran out of energy! I answered her as soon I come up to my Hotel room and took a Snapshot of the conversation between us.

I hurry up and took a Taxi to the restaurant Il Patio. I was there on time and waited for her and our children for almost 30 minutes. When she arrived, she only had Alexandra with her, and I asked her why she didn’t bring Anthie’ with her.

I got the answer that Anthie did not feel well and that she wanted to stay at home. I understood that this was not true and asked her if Anthie’ is alone at home. Trafimovich answered, “of course not,” and I told her that then I will call to talk with Anthie’. Trafimovich told me that she will not pick up the phone. And so, it was. I try to call 3 times from the restaurant to the home phone, but nobody answered my calls. 

I told Trafimovich to stop lying to me because the day before Anthie’ was crying and wanted us to meet again! Then Ms. Trafimovich start to accuse me that it was because of me Anthie’ did not want to come today (!?). 

I suspected that the reason Ms. Trafimovich came alone was another. After a while, she popped up that there will be a court hearing tomorrow  (2018.12.27), and she picked up a document from her bag to give me! I told her that I don’t know what she is talking about and that the document she was trying to handle over, she could clean her a…… with it! I asked if she is a representative of the legal authorities in Belarus and with what right she is trying to notify me about a Court Hearing with a document. I did not accept anything from her and asked her to get serious. What she was trying to do is an illegal action and breach of law! This, her Counselors and the Judicial Authorities in Belarus should know better than anyone, or is the Judicial Corruption and Breach of Law standard procedure in Belarus if somebody has a “Roof” (Krysha)? 

The reason she did not take Anthie’ with her was that Trafimovich knows that if Anthie’ will see what was happening this evening, she would most likely take my part! Trafimovich cannot take that, she hates it, and this was the reason she did not let Anthie’ be with her this evening! 

I ordered some extra food so she could take with her to Anthie’ so she could eat when she returned home. We split after some time, and I was not allowed to meet with my children again for the rest of the days I was in Minsk.

2018-12-27 Trafimovich custody claim was processed without me being legally notified, and the decision was ruled in her favor. The decision was taken on the 27th of December 2018 in Minsk without my participation, which was sent to me in the Russian language by email on the 28th of December 2018 before lunch! I did not participate in this parody!

I received a decision of rejection from the Chairman of Minsk City Court, dated 2020.03.02, regarding my Appeal on the illegally ruled decision, which justifies that I was legally notified by Ms. Trafimovich because I was on the territory of Belarus! More on this issue at the end of this Chronology of performed actions.

2018-12-27 EN Illegally Ruled Custody Decision

2018-12-27 RU Illegally Ruled Custody Decision   

Cassation Appeal sent from Sweden by DHL regarding the illegally taken decision from the 27th of December 2018 to the District Court of Oktyabrsky District in Minsk made solely by me with advice from my representatives in Minsk. 

2018-12-21 EN Gmail – Violation of The Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Docs  (send for transl.)

2018-12-21 RU Gmail – Violation of The Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Docs 

2019-01-16 EN Gmail – Violation of The Hague Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters

2019-01-16 RU Gmail – Violation of The Hague Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters

2019-01-24 EN CASSATION Appeal to Minsk City Court on Custody Decision from 2018-12-27

2019-01-24 RU CASSATION Appeal to Minsk City Court on Custody Decision from 2018-12-27  

Additional documentation to the Appeal from 2019-01-24 was sent by DHL after the request from Oktyabrsky District Court of the City of Minsk and Ms. Berulia.

Excerpts of received letter from Ms. Berulia; 

On provision of a copy of the court decision

Hereby the Oktyabrsky District Court of the City of Minsk sends a copy of the court order of January 28, 2019 concerning the provisional deference of appeal in a civil case based on the claims of L.A. Trafimovich against Nikolas Cheropoulos on the determination of the place of residence of minor children, the recovery of alimony for the maintenance of the minor children, on the determination of the procedure for the departure of the minor children from the Republic of Belarus for information purposes.

The missing documents shall be submitted to office 2115 until March 01, 2019.

2019-01-31 EN Reply to my Appeal from 2019-01-24 regarding the decision from 2018-12-27 

2019-01-31 RU Reply to my Appeal from 2019-01-24 regarding the decision from 2018-12-27 

2019-02-04 EN Gmail – Regarding our Appeal and court order 29th of January from Berulia (send for transl.)

2019-02-04 RU Gmail – Regarding our Appeal and court order 29th of January from Berulia  

Complaint submitted to the Ministry of Justice CO of Belarus regarding notifications from Court Authorities in the Russian language, by Email and not through official channels!

Guided by;

– the Convention on the delivery abroad of judicial and non-judicial documents in civil and commercial matters by Decree of the President of the Republic of Belarus of April 7, 1997, No. 229,

– and taking into account, in view of the task of ensuring the unity of the law enforcement practice In the Republic of Belarus, the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Economic Court of the Republic of Belarus of October 31, 2011, No. 21 “On some issues of the consideration of cases involving foreign persons by the economic courts of the Republic of Belarus”, which contains instructions for the proper delivery of court documents to foreign citizens into account in the context of the task of ensuring,

Please specify the court on the need to respect international law, which establishes an appropriate procedure for the delivery of judicial documents to foreign citizens. To forward all judicial correspondence through the official state authorities, properly executed and translated.

2019-03-04 EN Received document from Minsk City Court regarding Appeal

2019-03-04 RU Received document from Minsk City Court regarding Appeal

2019-03-05 RU&EN Complaint sent to the Ministry of Justice of Belarus by Email

2019-03-05 RU&EN Complaint sent to the Ministry of Justice of Belarus Original

2019-03-13 EN Reply from Ministry of Justice on my complaint 5911280

2019-03-13 RU Reply from Ministry of Justice on my complaint 5911280    

CUSTODY CASE ANSWER Received from Oktyabrsky District Court Chairman Ms. Makarevich on Appeal

Explanation;

Received by mail the following answer in English (bad English) on our appeal regarding the illegally taken decision from the 27th of December 2018. The attached document in the email to me was sent for authorized translation from Russian into English.

The court of the Oktyabrsky district of Minsk to your appeal reports the following.

The civil case under the claim of L.A.Trafimovich to you about the determination of residence of minor children, alimony for the support of minor children, and the definition of a different order of departure from the Republic of Belarus of minor children was sent to the City Court of Minsk for consideration in the appellate court. As of 03/20/2019, the court of the Oktyabrsky district of Minsk has not been returned.

Taking into account the above, it is reported that it is currently not possible to provide any information on the arguments of your appeal.

After returning to the court of the civil case, an additional response will be prepared and sent.

In case of disagreement with the decision taken on the appeal, you have the right to appeal it to the City Court of Minsk. 

2019-03-21 EN Received document from Oktabyrsky regarding appeal to Minsk City Court District Court

2019-03-21 RU Received document from Oktabyrsky regarding appeal to Minsk City Court District Court  

CUSTODY CASE COMPLAINT&APPEAL sent to District Court Ms. Makarevich regarding illegal notification

Explanation; 

Last time I was not officially notified about the court hearing of this case and that the dispute was being considered in court. Furthermore, 1 was not notified of all previous case hearings with my participation. Those actions infringed on my rights to defense and justice. 

Therefore, 1 ask you to officially notify me (through the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Belarus) of the date of the hearing, so that I can come and take part in it. 

I ask you not to ignore the international obligations of Belarus to notify foreign citizens through the official state bodies. Please send me a written explanation regarding the procedure for filing a complaint about the actions of judges and the court, with specifying the body to which I can appeal in cases when they violate the law.

2019-03-27 EN&RU Complaint sent to the Chairman of Oktyabrsky District Court of Minsk

2019-03-27 EN&RU G-mail Complaint sent to the Chairman of Oktyabrsky District Court         

Answer on my Appeal from Ms. Makarevich regarding the illegal notification, the Oktyabrsky District Court of the City of Minsk reports the following 

Excerpts;

It is not possible to assess the legality of court actions in administering justice and to give a legal assessment of court orders outside the scope of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Belarus since this contradicts the current legislation and can be regarded as interference with the activities of a judge, which is unacceptable. These issues can only be resolved through procedural arrangements.

Authors note: Don’t you love this Absurdity?

The legality and validity of the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of the City of Minsk dated December 27, 2018, on appeal will be checked by the Judicial Board on Civil Cases of the Minsk City Court. In case of disagreement with the decision taken on the appeal, you have the right to appeal it to the Minsk City Court.  

Received by 2019-04-05 Legal Notification from BY thru the County of Stockholm by Email 2147-14911-2019 about the planned hearing on my Cassation Appeal on the illegal Custody Decision ruled 2018.12.27. I received the same legal notification personally handed over to me by the Swedish Authorities on the 9th of April 2019. This was the first and only time Belarussian Judicial Authorities Notify me legally under the provisions of The Hague convention regarding services abroad!

2019-04-05 Legal Notification from BY thru the County of Sthlm by email 2147-14911-2019

2019-04-11 EN Answer from Oktyabrsky Court Chairman Ms. Makarevich on my complaint dated 2019-03-27

2019-04-11 RU Answer from Oktyabrsky Court Chairman Ms. Makarevich on my complaint dated 2019-03-27  

PETITION-MOTION to Postpone the Hearing on the 29th of April 2019, with authorized translation, was sent to the Judge of the Minsk City Court, I.N. Ugnivenko,  both by Email and officially thru the County of Stockholm under The Convention regarding the Services Abroad.  

My petition-motion was totally ignored. I never received any answer! 

I was also informed by E.M. when I went to Minsk at the end of March in my attempt to celebrate Alexandra’s birthday 2019.04.01, that A.K. will be away for a while from Arzinger Law Firm, something which made me anxious and worried.

2019-04-12 EN Gmail – PETITION Regarding Hearing 29th of April 2019 sent to the Minsk City Court

2019-04-12 SW&RU PETITION to Postpone Hearing 29th of April sent to Judge of the Minsk City Court, I.N. Ugnivenko 

2019-04-15 SW&RU PETITION to Postpone Hearing 29th of April sent Officially thru  the County of Stockholm    

Minsk City Court; HEARING on my CASSATION Appeal regarding the illegally taken Custody decision from 27th of Dec 2018 was processed without me knowing it! Later on, I was informed that my Cassation Appeal was REJECTED!

I never received any answer from the Minsk City Court on my Petition-Motion if it was accepted or rejected to postpone the hearing on the 29th of April 2019!       

Without me knowing that my Cassation Appeal regarding the illegally ruled decision on the Custody Case 2018.12.27 was already rejected, I continued to attempt to get answers from the Judicial Authorities in Belarus!

Excerpts of communication;

On the 17th of April 2019, I was informed by Swedish State Authorities that my petition/request has been delivered and received by the Competent Authorities of the Republic of Belarus. 

However, until this day, I have not received any answer from you as a representative of Minsk City Court, if my petition/request to postpone the hearing on the 29th April 2019, was accepted or rejected! In case my petition/request was accepted, then I kindly ask you to inform me of the new date so I can proceed with the booking of my ticket to Minsk so I can participate in the hearing, which is of the highest importance to me. But also, my attempt to meet with my children, give them their presents, and celebrate my daughter Anthie’s birthday, who will become 7 years old on the 8th of June 2019.

My meeting with them is solely depending on Liudmila Trafimovich’s intentions to allow me to meet with my children or deny them and me this fundamental right. For this reason and purpose, Liudmila Trafimovich has been sent an extrajudicial letter, dated 24.04.2019, to inform her on time about my plans, and proposed arrangements and wish to meet with my children and her to spend some quality time all together. Though, until this day, Liudmila Trafimovich has not given me any answer to my request, and wish to meet with my children and her. 

My arrival in Minsk will most likely be on the 6th of June around 17:00. My departure is pending and depends on Liudmila Trafimovich’s intentions if she will let me meet with my children and for how many days. It also depends on when a new hearing will take place at Minsk City Court.

2019-05-13 EN&RU Letter to Judge  at Minsk City Court regarding my Petition to Postpone Hearing 29.04.2019          

Received 2019-05-15 recommended letter dated 23.04.2019 from Ms. Makarevich, Chairman of Oktyabrsky District Court.

Excerpts of the letter;

In response to your appeal received by mail, the Oktyabrsky District Court of the City of Minsk reiterates the following. The civil case based on the claims of L.A. Trafimovich against you regarding the determination of the place of residence of the minor children, recovery of the alimony for the maintenance of the minor children, the determination of the procedure for the departure of the minor children from the Republic of Belarus, as well as your appeal, was referred to the Minsk City Court for consideration in the court of appeal.

The appeal hearing is scheduled for 11:00 on April 29, 2019, of which you were notified in accordance with the provisions of the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters. Taking into account the above, we inform you that it is currently not possible to provide any information on the arguments of your appeal.

2019-05-15 EN Received (2019.05.15) recommended letter from Chairman of 1st Instance Court Ms. Makarevich dated 2019.04.23

2019-05-15 RU Received (2019.05.15) recommended letter from Chairman of 1st Instance Court Ms. Makarevich dated 2019.04.23   

Received an answer from chairman Ms. Makarevich first instance regarding the rejection of my Cassation Appeal from Minsk City Court!

Excerpts from Ms. Makarevich letter;

The arguments you cited concerning not informing you about the time and place of the court hearing in the case of L.A. Trafimovich against you about determining the place of residence of minor children, collecting alimony for the maintenance of minor children, about determining a different procedure for the departure of the minor children from the Republic of Belarus, regarding violations, in your opinion, of procedural rules in a civil case, are subject to verification only in the manner prescribed civil procedural legislation and, accordingly, cannot be considered within the framework of the legislation governing the procedure for considering appeals of citizens and legal entities.

Примечание авторов:
Don’t you love this Absurdity? I was notified by Liudmila Trafimovich in a restaurant, on the 26th of December 2018, one day before the hearing on the 27th of December 2028, using our children as a pretext to handle over a document to me, which I never accepted.

This is the “Rule of Law à la Belarus”.

SUBMITTED SUPERVISORY Appeal to Prosecutor Mr. Khmaruk on Ruled CUSTODY Decision 2018.12.27 Oktyabrsky District Court & 2019.04.29  Minsk City Court.

Excerpts from the submitted Appeal;

APPEAL in Exercise of Supervisory Power against the Decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of the City of Minsk of 27 December 2018 and the Ruling of the Judicial Panel for Civil Cases of the Minsk City Court of 29 April 2019 Based on the Statement of Claims by Liudmila Arkadeyevna Trafimovich against Nikolas Cheropoulos on the Determination of the Place of Residence of Minor Children, Recovery of Alimony for the Maintenance of the Minor Children, on the Establishment of a Different Procedure for the Travel of the Minor Children Outside the Republic of Belarus.

We consider the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of the City of Minsk on 27 December 2018 and the ruling of the Judicial Panel of the Minsk City Court on 29 April 2019 to be illegal, unreasonable, and subject to cancellation on the following grounds. 

1. The defendant, who is a subject of the Kingdom of Sweden, was not properly notified of the date and time of the first instance court hearing. 

– the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Belarus (p. 167 of the case file) stating that the Stockholm District Administrative Chamber, which acts as an authorized body of the Kingdom of Sweden in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters of 15 November 1965, asks to remind about the proper procedure for the service of court documents abroad. In this regard, the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Belarus also reminded the court of the need to comply with the obligations undertaken by the Republic of Belarus of international obligations for the service of documents abroad. 

2. This decision is illegal since it is not within the jurisdiction of the court of the Republic of Belarus, the identical case was previously considered by a foreign court, which ruled the defendant to be the sole guardian of the minor children Anthie Anthoula Cheropoulou, born on 08 June 2012, Alexandra Cheropoulou, born on 01 April 2015, and this decision entered into force. 

WE REQUEST;

– file a procurator’s appeal against the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of the City of Minsk dated 27 December 2018 and the ruling of the Judicial Panel for Civil Cases of the Minsk City Court of 29 April 2019 based on the statement of claims by Liudmila Arkadeyevna Trafimovich against Nicolas Cheropoulos on the determination of the place of residence of minor children, recovery of alimony for the maintenance of the minor children, on the establishment of a different procedure for the travel of the minor children outside the Republic of Belarus for their cancellation.

2019-06-28 EN  SUBMITTED SUPERVISORY COMPLAINT on Ruled CUSTODY Decisions 2018.12.27 & 2019.04.29 to Mr. Khmaruk

2019-06-28 RU SUBMITTED SUPERVISORY COMPLAINT on Ruled CUSTODY Decisions 2018.12.27 & 2019.04.29 to Mr. Khmaruk     

REJECTION of my Supervisory Appeal on ruled Custody Decision 2018-12-27 & 2019-04-29 Minsk City Court

Excerpts of Rejection;

The Office of the Prosecutor for the City of Minsk, with the demand for the case files, examined a supervisory appeal in the interests of Nicolas Cheropoulos against the decision of the Minsk City Court of the Oktyabrsky District of December 27, 2018, and the ruling of the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Minsk City Court of April 29, 2019, in a civil case brought by L.A. Trafimovich against Nikolas Cheropoulos on determining the place of residence of underage children, recovery of child support, determining a different procedure for the departure of underage children outside the Republic of Belarus.

The appeal is not subject to the satisfaction on the following grounds;

 -taking into account the psychological test of underage children and other evidence in the case, the court reasonably satisfied the claims of L.A. Trafimovich. 

-when making the decision, the Court also took into account that L.A. Trafimovich is described in a positive light, has a permanent place of work, and also created the appropriate material conditions for the full upbringing and development of her daughters. Since moving from Sweden, the children have been living in the Republic of Belarus for more than one year. They are fully integrated into the living environment; attend various hobby groups and sections where they have no problems with communication. 

-in addition, according to the conclusion of the custody and guardianship authority of the Minsk City Court of the Oktyabrsky District, the place of residence of Alexandra and Anthie’, Anthoula must be living with their mother. The departure of young children outside the Republic of Belarus is unadvisable without her consent and accompaniment. 

-the arguments of the complaint about the improper notification of Nicolas Cheropoulos about the court hearings are refuted by the materials of the civil case, from which it appears that the court sent the correspondence about the time and place of the hearing of the case with a copy of the statement of claim attached, including translations into English and Swedish, both to the place of the defendant’s residence and via email. During the trial, Nikolas Cheropoulos was on the territory of the Republic of Belarus and was notified of the need to appear in court. 

Since the court gave a proper assessment of all the evidence presented in the case, including the evidence referred to in the supervisory appeal, the Office of the Prosecutor for the City of Minsk does not find grounds for protesting the appealed judicial decisions. 

Acting Prosecutor for the City of Minsk  A.V. Karpovich (instead of Mr. Khmaruk!)

I leave it to the Audience to Judge Mr. Karpovich’s conclusions!  This is DENIAL and PERVERSION of JUSTICE in pure form from another Political Prostitute! 

2019-08-08 EN REJECTION of SUPERVISORY Appeal on Decisions Ruled 2018.12.27 & 2019.04.29 (Cassation Appeal) Mr. Karpovich

2019-08-08 RU REJECTION of SUPERVISORY Appeal on Decisions Ruled 2018.12.27 & 2019.04.29 (Cassation Appeal) Mr. Karpovich         

Submitted SUPERVISORY APPEAL to the General Prosecutors Office Mr. Aleksandr Vladimirovich Koniuk on the illegally Ruled Custody Decision 2018.12.27 & 2019.04.29 on Ms. Trafimovich Lawsuit from 2017.04.27. 

Excerpts from Submitted Supervisory appeal;

SUPERVISORY APPEAL against the Decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of the City of Minsk on December 27, 2018, in the Civil Case Based on the Statement of Claims of the Citizen of the Republic of Belarus Liudmila Arkadyevna Trafimovich against the Citizen of the Kingdom of Sweden Nikolas Cheropoulos on Determination of the Place of Residence of Minor Children, on Alimony and Determination of the Procedure for the Travel of the Minor Children outside the Republic of Belarus.

1. The Defendant, who is a subject of the Kingdom of Sweden, was not properly notified of the date and time of the first instance court hearing. 

2. This decision is illegal since it is not within the jurisdiction of the court of the Republic of Belarus. The identical case was previously considered by a foreign court, which ruled the Defendant to be the sole guardian of the minor children Anthie Anthoula Cheropoulou, born on June 08, 2012, and Alexandra Cheropoulou, born on April 01, 2015, and this decision entered into force. 

 3. The court based its decision on facts not supported by reliable evidence. 

WE REQUEST:

– to file a supervisory appeal against the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of the City of Minsk dated December 27, 2018, and the ruling of the Judicial Panel for Civil Cases of the Minsk City Court of April 29, 2019, based on the statement of claims by Liudmila Arkadeyevna Trafimovich against Nikolas Cheropoulos on the determination of the place of residence of minor children, recovery of alimony for the maintenance of the minor children, on the establishment of a different procedure for the travel of the minor children outside the Republic of Belarus for their cancellation. 

Worth to notice, the Judicial Authorities and officials ignore their own legislation in Belarus! Most likely, it is derived from their incompetence and ignorance.

“In accordance with Part 2 of Article 548 of the Civil Procedure Code, in case of double jurisdiction of a dispute, a case in a court of the Republic of Belarus is subject to termination if an identical case in a court of a foreign state has been opened earlier”. 

In any other Country/State, they would at least respect their own legislation. However, in Belarus, this is not an issue! Judicial Security is performed by “Political Prostitutes” and, therefore, does not Exist!

2019-10-25 EN SUPERVISORY APPEAL Submitted on Trafimovich CUSTODY CLAIM Gen. Prosecutor

2019-10-25 RU SUPERVISORY APPEAL Submitted on Trafimovich CUSTODY CLAIM Gen. Prosecutor 

REJECTION of SUBMITTED Supervisory Appeal to the General Prosecutors Office Mr. Aleksandr Vladimirovich Koniuk 2019.10.25 on the illegally Ruled Custody Decision 2018.12.27 & 2019.04.29 on Ms. Trafimovich Lawsuit from 2017.04.27. 

Explanation;

I received the rejection of my Supervisory Appeal submitted 2019.10.25 from Mr. Stuk on the 19th of December 2019. I decided to present the complete content of this decision which is inconsistent and proves that Mr. Stuk didn’t bother to pay any attention or consideration of my Appeal, which is also in line and in harmonization with his colleagues’ previous assessment of my Appeals since 2017! Beneath, you will find the complete content of Mr. Stuk’s decision to reject my Supervisory Appeal.

Please, have the following in mind when you consider Mr. Stuk’s decision and draw your own conclusions;

“In accordance with Part 2 of Article 548 of the Civil Procedure Code, in case of double jurisdiction of a dispute, a case in a court of the Republic of Belarus is subject to termination if an identical case in a court of a foreign state has been opened earlier”. 

The General Prosecutor’s Office examined the supervisory appeal against the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of the City of Minsk dated December 27, 2018, upheld by the ruling of the Judicial Panel for Civil Cases of the Minsk City Court on April 29, 2019, on the satisfaction of the claims of L.A. Trafimovich against Nikolas Cheropoulos on the determination of the children’s place of residence, recovery of alimony, and the establishment of the procedure for the children’s travel outside the Republic of Belarus.

In accordance with Article 74 of the Code on Marriage and Family, the child’s place of residence is considered the place of residence of his or her parents, unless otherwise provided by legislative acts of the Republic of Belarus. The child’s place of residence in the event of separate residence of the parents due to divorce or for other reasons shall be determined by mutual consent of the parents, unless otherwise provided by legislative acts of the Republic of Belarus. The disputes between the parents concerning the place of residence of the child shall be resolved in a judicial proceeding based on the interests of the child.

It is established in the case materials that from 2008 to 2017, L.A. Trafimovich and Nicolas Cheropoulos lived together in Stockholm, Kingdom of Sweden, have two young daughters in common. In April 2017, L.A. Trafimovich left with the children for Minsk. The mother carries out the actual custody of the daughters, who are citizens of the Republic of Belarus.

In accordance with the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of the City of Minsk dated July 12, 2018, which entered into legal force, Nikolas Cheropoulos was denied the claim against L.A. Trafimovich against the return of the children.

The court in the present case found that L.A. Trafimovich lives with the daughters in Minsk in a comfortable three-room apartment. The children have a normal psychological atmosphere and proper material and living conditions. They are fully integrated into the environment, attend preschool, and art studios. The mother has a permanent job and is characterized positively. 

These circumstances are confirmed by the act of inspection of living conditions, character references, certificates, and testimony of a witness.

The court, having assessed the evidence presented, taking into account the interests of the minors, their affection for the mother, the degree of care and attention shown by her, the permanent residence of their father in Sweden, came to the correct conclusion that L.A. Trafimovich is able to create the best conditions for the education of daughters, and reasonably determined their place of residence at the place of residence of the mother.

The conclusion of the court is consistent with the conclusion of the guardianship authority, according to which it is advisable to determine the place of residence of the minors at the place of residence of their mother L.A. Trafimovich This conclusion was upheld at the hearing by the representative of the Department of Education, Sports and Tourism of the Administration of the Oktyabrsky District of the City of Minsk.

In addition, taking into account the above, as well as the young age of the daughters, the court correctly established the procedure for the travel of the children outside the Republic of Belarus with the consent of their mother.

Since the place of residence of the minors is determined at the place of residence of the mother and the father takes part in the upbringing and maintenance of children only occasionally, by virtue of the requirements of Articles 91 and 92 of the Code on Marriage and Family court lawfully satisfied the claim of L.A. Trafimovich to recover alimony from Nikolas Cheropoulos for the maintenance of the daughters from April 27, 2017 (the date of filing the claim) and until the termination of the grounds for such recovery.

The court established the circumstances of the case fully and correctly, the decision was made in accordance with the law.

The grounds presented in the appeal were subject to judicial review and were given a proper assessment.

There were no grounds for initiating the procurator’s appeal.

Deputy General Prosecutor of the Republic of Belarus   A.K. Stuk

2019-12-19 EN REJECTION of Supervisory Appeal from General Prosecutor on Submitted Custody APPEAL 2019.10.

2019-12-19 RU REJECTION of Supervisory Appeal from General Prosecutor on Submitted Custody APPEAL 2019.10.    

SUBMITTED Supervisory Appeal to the Chairman of the Minsk City Court P.I. Korshunovich on Custody Decision 2018.12.27. IS PENDING!

Excerpts from Supervisory APPEAL; 

Against the Decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of the City of Minsk on December 27, 2018, and the Ruling of the Judicial Panel for Civil Cases of the Minsk City Court on April 29, 2019, in the Case in the Civil Case Based on the Statement of Claims of the Citizen of the Republic of Belarus Liudmila Arkadyevna Trafimovich against the Citizen of the Kingdom of Sweden Nicolas Cheropoulos on Determination of the Place of Residence of Minor Children, on Alimony for the Maintenance of the Minor Children and on Establishment of a Different Procedure for the Travel of the Minor Children Outside the Republic of Belarus.

1. The Defendant, who is a citizen of the Kingdom of Sweden, was not duly notified.

– the Embassy of the Republic of Belarus in the Kingdom of Sweden (sheet 178, volume 2 of the case file) in which the Ambassador of the Republic of Belarus in the Kingdom of Sweden notes that according to a letter from the General Directorate for the International Service of Documents of the Regional Council of the Stockholm City Administration, “any attempt to summon a Swedish citizen to appear before the court without sending such a summons through the Directorate shall not have legal force”.

These letters are aimed at stopping violations by the Oktyabrsky District Court of the City of Minsk regarding the improper notification of a foreign citizen and non-compliance with the norms of international law.

In addition to these letters, I have repeatedly appealed to the courts and state bodies of the Republic of Belarus for more than two years with a request to comply with the international notification procedure, which is a part of the national law of the Republic of Belarus.

In addition, the case file contains the document “Receipt”, which L. Trafimovich received on October 19, 2018, as well as a similar document, “Receipt”, which was served to Plaintiff, who had not been authorized by Defendant, on October 19, 2018. Based on the superficial analysis of these documents, it can be concluded that both receipts are filled out and signed by the same handwriting, which is similar to the plaintiff’s handwriting (L.A. Trafimovich). This is confirmed by at least the same signature on the two receipts. I did not sign this document, and also never and in no way authorized L.A. Trafimovich to obtain court documents intended for me. L.A. Trafimovich L.A. obtained a notification for the Defendant illegally.

2. This decision is illegal since it is not within the jurisdiction of the court of the Republic of Belarus. The identical case was previously considered by a foreign court, which ruled the Defendant to be the sole guardian of the minor children Anthie Anthoula Cheropoulou, born on June 08, 2012, and Alexandra Cheropoulou, born on April 01, 2015, and this decision entered into force.

3. This decision is illegal since the courts of the Republic of Belarus were not entitled to consider the case on determining the place of residence of the minor children in connection with the consideration of the return of the children Anthoula Anthie’ Cheropoulou and Alexandra Cheropoulou in accordance with The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of October 25, 1980 (hereinafter – the Convention).

4. The court based its decision on facts, not supported by reliable evidence.

I Ask: 

– to file a procurator’s appeal against the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of the City of Minsk dated December 27, 2018, and the ruling of the Judicial Panel for Civil Cases of the Minsk City Court of April 29, 2019, based on the statement of claims by Liudmila Arkadeyevna Trafimovich against Nikolas Cheropoulos on the determination of the place of residence of minor children, recovery of alimony for the maintenance of the minor children, on the establishment of a different procedure for the travel of the minor children outside the Republic of Belarus for their reversal.

2020.01.17 EN CUSTODY CASE SUBMITTED FINAL SUPERVISORY APPEAL Chairman of Minsk City Court

2020.01.17 RU CUSTODY CASE SUBMITTED FINAL SUPERVISORY APPEAL Chairman of Minsk City Court     

Answer received on my Supervisory Appeal Submitted 2020.01.17 to the Chairman of the Minsk City Court P.I. Korshunovich on ruled Custody Decision 2018.12.27.

Excerpts of Decision;

The Minsk City Court examined your complaint against the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Minsk dated December 27, 2018, upheld by the ruling of the Judicial Panel for Civil Cases by the Minsk City Court.

In the appeal, you ask for the revocation of the court decisions, considering them illegal and unreasonable, made in violation of substantive law, without taking into account all the circumstances of the case. You believe that the findings of the court are contrary to established facts.

Your appeal cannot be satisfied based on the following;

The plaintiff work has exclusively positive references from the place of work. The minor children attend the preschool institution.

As established by the court, the plaintiff has been actually raising and supporting children since April 2017, you do not pay child support, yo. You take part in the lives of the children just occasionally.

According to the results of a psychological examination of the minor children for the parent-child relationships of June 6, 2018, it is difficult for Alexandra to understand the fact of separation of parents due to age. In some of the proposed methods, the girl puts the father first, which usually corresponds to high authority and significance for the child. She puts herself closer to the figure of the mother, which speaks of close, trusting relationships, and the need and the importance of communication with the mother. In relation to the mother and father, the child shows a high degree of affection. Alexandra has a comfortable, close, trusting relationship with her older sister. 

Anthoula demonstrates an emotional attachment to both the mother and father. The child has the closest relationship with the mother. In the “family drawing”, the figure of the father is absent. 

The figures of both parents and their relationship with them are positively colored. Since the parents do not live together and there is discord between them, the girl experiences anxiety and tension when it comes to the family. She wants to meet with her father, to visit him, but to live with her mother.

According to the report of the guardianship authority of the Administration of the Oktyabrsky District of the City of Minsk, the place of residence of the minor daughters must be determined by the place of residence of their mother. Considering the age of the minors, the guardianship authority considers it inappropriate for young children to travel outside the Republic of Belarus without the consent and support of the mother.

The court also established that by the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of the City of Minsk dated July 12, 2018, which entered into legal force, you were denied the satisfaction of the claims against L.A. Trafimovich regarding the return of the children.

Based on the circumstances, having assessed the evidence presented in aggregate, the court lawfully satisfied the claims of L.A. Trafimovich.

Having correctly applied Article 92 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, the court also lawfully satisfied the plaintiff’s claim for the recovery of alimony from you.

Your arguments in the appeal regarding the violation by the court of the procedure for notifying you in accordance with the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters of November 15, 1965 are not grounds for revoking the court decisions, since you were in the territory of the Republic of Belarus during the consideration of the case and the plaintiff notified you of the need to appear in court.

Your arguments regarding the immunity of this dispute from the jurisdiction of the court of the Republic of Belarus do not correspond to the materials of the case, since the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the court on April 27, 2017, that is, before you filed a lawsuit regarding the establishment of custody of children in a court of the Kingdom of Sweden (May 30, 2017).

The children are citizens of the Republic of Belarus, they have been living in the territory of the republic with their mother, who is a citizen of the Republic of Belarus, for more than a year. The stated claims for the place of residence of the children are interrelated with the requirements for the recovery of alimony. And therefore, this dispute is within the jurisdiction of the court of the Republic of Belarus, and the court lawfully applied the legislation of the Republic of Belarus to the disputed legal relations.

The argument of your appeal stating that the court was not entitled to consider the claim due to the fact that the dispute on the return of the children was being considered at that moment may not serve as the grounds for the revocation of the court decision, since the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of the City of Minsk dated July 12, 2018, which denied the satisfaction of the claim for the return the children, has entered into force.

Therefore, there are no grounds for protesting the court decisions.

Chairman of the Minsk City Court           /signed/                 P.I. Korshunovich

Mr. Korshunovich seems not to be ashamed to sign this decision, any other professional with little ethics and self-respect would have a problem doing so, but in Belarus, this is not a problem! Perhaps he had a professional blackout and forgot Decree No. 44-Г-77-2018 he undersigned 2018.05.16!

2020.03.02 EN REJECTION of Submitted 2020.01.17 Supervisory Appeal to the Chairman of Minsk City Court

2020.03.02 RU REJECTION of Submitted 2020.01.17 Supervisory Appeal to the Chairman of Minsk City Court      

SUBMITTED APPEAL to the Chairman of the Supreme Court of Belarus V.O. Sukalo regarding the illegally Ruled Custody Decision 2018.12.27 & 2019.04.29 on Ms. Trafimovich Lawsuit from 2017.04.27. 

Raised Arguments in our APPEAL to the Supreme Court; 

1. The Defendant, a citizen of the Kingdom of Sweden, was not duly notified.

REJECTION of SUBMITTED APPEAL  2020.04.01 to the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus V.O. Sukalo regarding the illegally Ruled Custody Decision 2018.12.27 & 2019.04.29 on Ms. Trafimovich Lawsuit from 2017.04.27.

For the Record;

Previously, in my litigation process for my children, I have received pitiful decisions (except for one) from mediocre professionals with no ethics and competence in the judicial system of Belarus, which is under the managerial responsibility of the Minister of Justice, Mr. Slizhevskiy. I wonder with what criteria those incompetent clowns in key positions are chosen? It is impossible that it can be their skills, competence, or professional ethics! The only conclusion left must be, how much those clowns are willing to support the corrupt judicial and political system of Belarus and the Head of the State. 

Excerpts from Ruled Decision by Ms. A.A. Zabara to Reject our APPEAL;

#Studying the case materials and verifying the arguments of the appeal showed that there were no grounds for its satisfaction.

#Resolving the Plaintiff’s claim for determining the place of residence of the minor children, the court came to the correct conclusion that the place of residence shall be that of their mother L.A. Trafimovich.

#The court takes into account which of the parents shows greater care and attention to the child, the age of the child and attachment to each of the parents, the personal qualities of the parents, the ability to create proper material and living conditions, as well as a moral and psychological atmosphere, to ensure the proper level of education.

#Of course, the court took into account the young age of the children, the fact that they have lived together with their mother since their birth, and the need for maternal care, affection, love. In the case, it has been established with certainty that the Plaintiff has created all the necessary conditions for the development of the children: they live in a comfortable living space, and visit a preschool institution, interests, and groups.

#The arguments of the supervisory appeal regarding the violation of the requirements of the Civil Procedure Code during the consideration of the case are ungrounded.

#Thus, the materials of the case show that Defendant was duly notified of the time and place of the hearing of the case. Judicial correspondence, as well as a copy of the statement of claim with translation into English and Swedish, were sent to him at the place of residence and by e-mail.

#Moreover, according to Plaintiff, on December 27, 2018. (day of consideration of the case) the Defendant was in the Republic of Belarus, knew about its consideration, but did not appear in court and did not authorize his representative to do this by proxy.

#The position taken by Defendant to ignore participation in the consideration of disputes regarding the children in the courts of the Republic of Belarus, believing that the dispute should be resolved only by a competent court of the Kingdom of Sweden, is erroneous.

#The circumstances of the case have been examined fully and correctly. The court rulings in the case comply with the requirements of substantive and procedural law. There are no grounds for canceling court decisions.

For the reasons stated above, the supervisory appeal was dismissed.

A.A. Zabara

2020.05.22 EN REJECTION of APPEAL from A.A. Zabara Supreme Court regarding Custody Decision 2018.12.27

2020.05.22 RU REJECTION of APPEAL from A.A. Zabara Supreme Court regarding Custody Decision 2018.12.27