The Supreme Court refused to remove the mask regime in Russia

The applicants substantiated their demand by the ineffectiveness of masks in the fight against coronavirus.

Julia Suntsova

Rospotrebnadzor was appointed as the administrative defendant in the case. In the process, the plaintiffs dispute two resolutions of the Chief State Sanitary Doctor of Russia No. 15 of 05/22/2020. and No. 31 of October 16, 2020, which approved the sanitary rules for the period of the spread of the new coronavirus infection.

The court session was scheduled for 10.00 o'clock. the morning of April 1.

There were empty seats in the hall, but about two dozen applicants did not get inside the building because they refused to put on masks.

The outcome of the case was actually a foregone conclusion, the plaintiffs comment. A few days before the appointed date of the hearing, one of them turned to the judge Anna Nazarova with a written statement: he asked not to demand a mask at least for the duration of the court hearings, because it is the obligation to wear masks that will be contested in the upcoming process.

The judge did not allow to come without masks. In its definition, referring to Art. 85 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation, she pointed out: “the application of measures of preliminary protection is allowed if, before the court makes a decision on the administrative case, there is a clear danger of violation of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of the administrative plaintiff or an indefinite circle of an administrative statement of claim has been submitted”. “There are no such circumstances in the present case”, concluded the judge.

“Access to justice without masks is prohibited. A Supreme Court judge has already decided on the mask issue. The process began before the court session, ”the plaintiffs comment.

On Thursday, a few minutes after the start of the hearing, the court also turned off the video broadcast. Those watching the broadcast were content with audio.

"The defendants did not present any documents to the court, except for their own opinion. We still do not understand how they substantiate their position, why they continue to advocate the mask mode. But the most surprising thing is that in court they stood up and said that they were obliged not to wear masks, but obliged the territorial authorities to independently consider a set of measures to protect the population during the epidemic.

Professors, doctors of sciences, doctors spoke from our side. We give them scientific conclusions, studies, WHO recommendations, they give us some vague explanations that masks for effectiveness and safety are being tested in 26 regions. That is, people have already been forced to wear masks, they are fined for their absence, and they are not yet completely sure of their harmlessness. In their reasoning, the defendants refer to the June WHO standards, while our December standards are already in effect. A complete mss. Rospotrebnadzor has a very weak line. They believe that we do not know how to read, we believe that they are”, - one of the plaintiffs, Alexander Saversky, commented on the course of the trial to Novy Izvestia.

The decision of the first instance will be appealed to a higher court, he said.

The defendant, represented by a representative of Rospotrebnadzor, called the plaintiffs' arguments subjective and emotional, adding that the norms approved by the chief sanitary doctor did not violate the rights of Russian citizens. The position of the department was supported by a representative of the Prosecutor General's Office, who participated in the process as a third party.

A class action lawsuit to abolish the mandatory wearing of masks was filed with the Supreme Court of Russia on January 22, 2021.

The applicants ask to declare clause 4.4 of the Sanitary and Epidemiological Rules of SP 3.1.3597-20 "Prevention of new coronavirus infection (COVID-19)" in terms of mentioning "medical masks" as contrary to the law and invalid.

This paragraph of the rules reads: "Measures aimed at" breaking "the mechanism of transmission of infection are:

- compliance by all individuals with the rules of personal hygiene (washing hands, using antiseptics, medical masks, gloves), maintaining a social distance of 1.5 to 2 meters".

The plaintiffs believe that this clause of the sanitary and epidemiological rules established the “general mandatory mask regime”. Citizens who violate it began to be subject to administrative fines and criminal prosecution. The mandatory mask regime has generated a large number of conflicts (up to beatings and murders) and litigation between citizens, law enforcement agencies, trade and other organizations.

At the same time, the mentioned norm of the Sanitary Regulations requires the wearing of medical masks, which are designed to filter the air from bacteria, and do not protect against viruses, which include SARS-CoV-2, the plaintiffs substantiate their position.

GOST R 58 396−2019 also established the places and purposes of the use of medical masks: "Medical masks are intended for use in operating rooms and medical rooms with similar requirements for complete protection of the working environment".

The plaintiffs emphasize that any barriers to breathing are a threat to human health and life, lead to suffocation, lack of oxygen (acute and chronic hypoxia) and other diseases.

In addition, they refer to the interim WHO recommendations, which list the disadvantages of widespread use of masks by healthy people, including headaches and skin lesions (section "Evidence on the preventive role of mask use in the population").

“In the absence of full scientific data, the universal compulsory wearing of masks has become“ an experiment on people without their consent, ”which directly contradicts Art. 21 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Such an experiment is a humiliation of the dignity of an individual, violence and a threat to life and health from the state in the form of the imposition of mandatory wearing of masks under the threat of fines”, the statement of claim says.