Press Release, 6.06.2026

Photo: Lev Shlosberg at the court hearing on 5 June 2026 / Photo by Pskov Yabloko

A judge of Pskov Regional Court dismissed the appeals lodged by defence counsel Vladimir Danilov and Vera Kovalchuk against the ruling of a judge of Pskov City Court, by which Yabloko Deputy Chairman Lev Shlosberg’s pre-trial detention had been extended by six months.

The hearing took place on 5 June and was open to the public. The politician participated via video link, Pskov Yabloko reports.

Lev Shlosberg requested an adjournment, having been informed of the hearing only the previous evening; that morning he had been unable to speak with his defence counsel because inmates at the remand centre were sitting state examinations in the secure consultation rooms.

However, the prosecutor objected to postponement, arguing that the politician could communicate with his counsel via video link. The judge called a recess until 15:00.

After the recess, the court proceeded to consider the appeals. Vladimir Danilov spoke first. He argued that the prosecution had presented no evidence to justify Shlosberg’s continued detention. There were no factual circumstances or reliable grounds to conclude that he might abscond, exert pressure on witnesses, or continue “engaging in criminal activity”. Rather than evidence, the prosecution had relied on conjecture and supposition, invoking the formulation “high risks exist”, contrary to the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Ruling of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 41 of 19 December 2013.

Адвокат подчеркнул, что Лев Шлосберг соблюдал все ранее избранные меры пресечения, у него есть постоянное место жительства, семья и работа, а загранпаспорт хранится в полиции. Это говорит о том, что скрываться политик не намерен, как и продолжать заниматься преступной деятельностью, которой и раньше не занимался. Защитник напомнил: председатель ВС РФ Игорь Краснов на совещании судей в феврале 2026 года сказал, что судам рекомендовано шире применять домашний арест и переходить к более строгой мере лишь в случае её нарушения.

The defence counsel stressed that Lev Shlosberg had complied with all previously imposed restrictive measures, had a permanent place of residence, a family, and employment, and that his foreign travel document was held by the police. This demonstrated that the politician had no intention of absconding, nor of continuing any criminal activity – activity he had not engaged in previously. The counsel further recalled that Supreme Court Chairman Igor Krasnov, at a judicial conference in February 2026, had stated that courts were recommended to apply house arrest more widely and to move to more stringent measures only in the event of a breach.

Lev Shlosberg then addressed the court. He began by noting that 5 June marked exactly six months since he had been held in pre-trial detention.

The politician stressed that the representative of the regional public prosecutor’s office had not submitted any written justification for a further six-month extension at the city court hearing, and that the ruling of the first-instance court had not even identified by name the individuals who had provided personal surety guarantees for his compliance with non-custodial measures.

Since one of the prosecution’s arguments for continued detention was the gravity of the alleged offence — Article 207.3 Part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“false statements about the armed forces”) — Lev Shlosberg considered it necessary to address this directly:

“The publication attributed to me does not contain a single word of mine, which means it is impossible to establish the motive of political hatred used to classify the offence as a serious crime.”

The politician noted that the case had been opened by an unauthorised body — the Department of the Interior for the Pskov Region — and that the sole body empowered to bring proceedings under the article in question, the Investigative Committee, had twice declined to do so.

“The police have no right to investigate this criminal case, and the court had no right to accept it,” Lev Shlosberg concluded.

Lev Shlosberg drew particular attention to the fact that, while in pre-trial detention, he had been denied contact with his father, with whom he had lived his entire life. His father, who had turned 97, was a person with a disability and was financially dependent on his son.

The prosecutor cited the grounds, repeated on numerous previous occasions at other hearings, on which the prosecution considered it impossible to relax the restrictive measure imposed on Lev Shlosberg: his status as a foreign agent, the risk of absconding, and the risk of continuing “criminal activity”. Jurisdiction, in her view, had not been violated: the decision on jurisdiction had been taken by the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Pskov Region.

At Lev Shlosberg’s request, the judge read out the character reference submitted by Yabloko party Chairman Nikolai Rybakov.

Following a further recess, the judge delivered the decision: the ruling of the first-instance court was left unchanged and the appeals were dismissed.