The Court Recovered 70 Thousand Rubles On Rogozin's Claim Against Three Media Outlets

The Court Recovered 70 Thousand Rubles On Rogozin's Claim Against Three Media Outlets
The Court Recovered 70 Thousand Rubles On Rogozin's Claim Against Three Media Outlets

Video: The Court Recovered 70 Thousand Rubles On Rogozin's Claim Against Three Media Outlets

Video: The Court Recovered 70 Thousand Rubles On Rogozin's Claim Against Three Media Outlets
Video: Brussels COLLAPSED: Boris cause EU crushed in £14bn financial deal - extinguish attractiveness in EU 2024, May
Anonim

MOSCOW, December 16. / TASS /. The Ostankino court of Moscow on Wednesday recovered 70 thousand rubles from three media outlets and their representatives at the suit of the head of Roscosmos Dmitry Rogozin, who demanded 300 thousand rubles from them. TASS was informed about this in the press service of the court.

Image
Image

"The court partially satisfied Rogozin's claims and ruled to recover in his favor compensation for moral damage in the amount of 70,000 rubles: from Neohod-Media LLC - 30,000 rubles, from Premiermediainvest LLC - 10,000 rubles, from Argumenty Nedeli LLC. - 20,000 rubles, from the editor-in-chief of "Argumenty Nedeli" Andrey Uglanov - 10,000 rubles, "the press service said.

Earlier, the lawyer Alexander Dobrovinsky, representing the interests of the plaintiff, said that the court satisfied the requirement to remove the articles and video materials and to refute all information discrediting Rogozin's reputation.

As follows from the statement of claim, the reason for the claims of the head of Roscosmos was phrases from publications that he would become an "undertaker of Russian space", "under his leadership, the country's large design bureaus and institutes that worked on space projects were finally destroyed," and "he buries astronautics and this is how it will go down in history. " Rogozin demanded to collect 100 thousand rubles from each of the three media outlets.

Roscosmos did not comment on the details of the claim earlier, citing the fact that it was filed by an individual and does not concern the state corporation.

Recommended: