Press Release, 3.07.2026

Photo: Zhanna Shlosberg and Lev Shlosberg / Photo by Pskov Yabloko

On 2 July, the Pskov City Court held the second hearing on the merits of the consolidated criminal case against Yabloko Deputy Chairman Lev Shlosberg. The court allowed the politician’s wife, Zhanna Shlosberg, to join the case as a lay defender. At the same time, the court did not admit lawyer Vitaly Isakov to the defence, since Isakov was to appear as a witness in the trial.

For the first time, three prison convoys were present in the courtroom on 2 July. Several bailiffs stood in different parts of the hall, while the rest took seats among the public. One bench had been removed from the courtroom altogether. Nevertheless, everyone wishing to attend was able to find a seat. The prosecution side had also been reinforced, and was now represented by two prosecutors.

It should be noted what the “consolidated criminal case” against Lev Shlosberg means. On 3 December 2025, a case had been opened against the politician under Article 207.3(2) of the Criminal Code over the repost of a Telegram post made in February 2022 (the relevant article had only been introduced into the Criminal Code in March 2022). The politician has claimed that the date of the “crime” of which he stood accused had been falsified. At the same time, 8 December 2025 marked the expiry of the maximum six-month term of house arrest permitted under the criminal case over “repeated discrediting of the army” (Article 280.3 of the Criminal Code), which had been opened over the publication on Odnoklassniki of a recording of a debate between Lev Shlosberg and historian Yuri Pivovarov on the Zhivoy Gvozd channel. The two cases were consolidated. The politician did not plead guilty to any of the charges. He has been held in a pre-trial detention facility since 5 December 2025.

The hearing on 2 July began with a discussion of a motion filed by lawyer Vera Kovalchuk to postpone the session, as she was on leave and therefore unable to attend the court. She had informed the court of this in person as far back as 22 June, when the date of the next hearing was being discussed, but the judge had not taken this into account. Lev Shlosberg explained that he needed both lawyers present and asked for the hearing to be postponed to another day.

The prosecution objected: lawyer Vladimir Danilov was taking part in the proceedings, so Lev Shlosberg’s right to a defence had not been violated. The judge dismissed Vera Kovalchuk’s motion, and the hearing continued.

The court returned to consideration of Vera Kovalchuk’s motion to return the case to the prosecutor’s office, on which the 22 June hearing had ended. The lawyer had at that time based the defence’s position on the following grounds: the wording of the charges had changed over the course of the case, and the case had been opened by a person without the authority to do so — an investigator of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

One of the prosecutors read out the prosecution’s position on the motion, for the preparation of which the 22 June hearing had been adjourned. According to the prosecutor, the wording of the charges set out in the indictment was identical to that of the resolution charging him as a defendant on 7 April, and Deputy Prosecutor, who had made the decision to transfer the case for investigation to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, had acted lawfully; there were therefore no grounds for returning the case to the prosecutor’s office.

The court dismissed the lawyer’s motion, as well as the next one, for a preliminary hearing to be held.

Lev Shlosberg then filed a motion to have his wife, Zhanna Shlosberg, admitted to the case as a lay defender. He said that the Code of Criminal Procedure guaranteed him the right to bring a close relative into the proceedings, and cited a ruling of the Supreme Court in which a verdict had been overturned (solely on the grounds that a defendant’s father had been refused admission as a lay defender).

“I believe my wife is my best defender,” Lev Shlosberg concluded.

The other prosecutor objected, stating that Zhanna Shlosberg had been questioned as a witness in the case. Lev Shlosberg explained to the court that his wife had indeed twice been asked to give testimony in both cases, but she had refused, invoking Article 51 of the Constitution, and that her testimony did not feature in the case file.

“This is an attempt to restrict my right to a defence. Her right to be my defender is provided for by procedural law,” the politician said.

Having heard both sides, the judge ruled to allow Zhanna Shlosberg to become her husband’s lay defender.

Lev Shlosberg then stated that another defender needed to be brought into the case was his lawyer Vitaly Isakov.

“Vitaly Isakov has led my defence over the course of 26 court hearings at first instance and on appeal, and is my permanent defender in administrative, civil and other cases considered by the courts of Pskov Region and higher courts since 2023,” Lev Shlosberg explained to the court.

The politician added that it was important to him for two defenders with legal training to take part in the hearing simultaneously, and that bringing in Vitaly Isakov would help the case to be heard more quickly.

The same prosecutor objected, stating that the case file contained certain operational-search materials in connection with which the prosecution planned to call Vitaly Isakov to testify as a witness.

Lev Shlosberg countered, citing Article 56 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, under which lawyers and defenders may not be questioned about circumstances that became known to them in the course of their work with a client. He said that while he had been under house arrest, a listening device had been installed in his flat. According to him, the case file contained a “fragmentary compilation” of a conversation with Vitaly Isakov in which they had discussed the defence in the case of “the missing ‘foreign agent labels’”, and the overwhelming majority of the statements were his own.

He stressed that Vitaly Isakov could not, as a witness, provide anything material to the case, and that the prosecution was attempting to prevent a qualified and consistent defender of his rights and interests from joining the case.

The judge granted the prosecution’s motion to summon Vitaly Isakov to court as a witness and dismissed Lev Shlosberg’s motion to have him admitted as a defender, following which the lawyer was removed from the courtroom.

Lev Shlosberg asked that his wife be given a week to familiarise herself with the case file. The judge agreed.

The hearing will resume on 13 July at 10 a.m.