The Moscow Golovinsky District Court recently corrected a name error that appeared in the administrative case record. In the case file, the individual listed was initially identified as artist Maxim Galkin, who was designated as a foreign agent in the Russian Federation. The correct individual is journalist Maxim Glikin, who has likewise been labeled a foreign agent in Russia. The court’s press service confirmed that the mix up occurred and provided clarity on the correction.
According to the court, there was indeed a mistake. The court statement conveyed that the person involved is actually Glikin, and that the card had been filled in incorrectly. The correction has been updated in the court file to reflect the accurate identity of the defendant. The case pertains to the charge of failing to report activities of a foreign agent organization as required by Part 2 of Article 19.34 of the Administrative Offenses Code. The next hearing date is set for November 13, and Glikin MA is now listed as the defendant.
Historically, Maxim Galkin was placed on the foreign agents list in September 2022, while journalist Maxim Glikin was recognized as a foreign agent by the Ministry of Justice in the summer of 2021. This distinction between the two individuals, both sharing the same first name, has significant implications for how media figures and public figures are tracked within official registries. The incident underscores the importance of accurate record keeping in administrative litigation and the potential consequences of misidentification in legal documents.
Earlier in the proceedings, the court rejected a request by Maxim Galkin to revoke his status as a foreign agent. The decision to maintain the designation for Galkin reflects broader legal and regulatory considerations surrounding foreign agent designations in the Russian system, including criteria, evidence, and procedural steps that govern the continuation or withdrawal of such status. The correction in the case file does not alter the underlying legal framework but ensures that the proper individual is associated with the case file and the related charges. It also clarifies the procedural posture for the upcoming hearing and the parties involved.
In this context, observers and stakeholders may watch to see how the case proceeds with Glikin as the defendant, including any further developments on reporting obligations and the application of the relevant law. The episode illustrates how human errors in court administration can affect the management of cases involving sensitive political and media-related designations, and it highlights the need for meticulous record-keeping and verification in judicial processes. The current trajectory will likely influence discussions about procedural safeguards and accuracy in official documentation going forward.