The Tagansky District Court of Moscow has returned a civil claim seeking compensation for moral harm filed against media figure Nastya Ivleeva. This update comes from a Telegram channel that covers Moscow courts of general jurisdiction, which tracks notable cases and procedural steps as they unfold in the capital’s judiciary.
The channel explains that the claim was sent back because the plaintiff’s lawyer, Alexander Treshchev, did not demonstrate that the alleged moral damage was caused by coordinated actions of Ivleeva and the other defendants. In the court’s assessment, the factual basis for joint liability did not meet the threshold required to establish direct causation between the defendants’ conduct and the harm claimed by the plaintiff. Because of this, the plaintiff’s right to pursue the matter at Ivleeva’s place of residence remains intact, but the case cannot proceed in its current form without strengthening the link to the defendants’ joint actions.
The timeline shows that on January 23, Treshchev initiated the suit against Nastya Ivleeva, seeking moral compensation in nominal terms and also proposing a substantial transfer of funds. Specifically, the plaintiff requested a symbolic one ruble in Ivleeva’s favor and urged the defendant to allocate one billion rubles to the Foundation of Defenders of the Fatherland, an organization that supports participants in special military operations. The unusual combination of symbolic and ceremonial relief appears to reflect the plaintiff’s strategy to draw public attention to what he characterizes as reputational harm linked to Ivleeva’s public persona.
The event that sparked the legal dispute took place on December 20, when Ivleeva hosted a party described by organizers and attendees as a bold, fashion-forward gathering. According to the established dress code, a portion of the guests chose to attend in a semi-nude or highly revealing manner, a decision that drew intense media scrutiny. Among the attendees were well-known figures such as Ksenia Sobchak, Anna Asti, Lolita Milyavskaya, Olga Orlova, Philip Kirkorov, Dzhigan, Oksana Samoilova, and Dima Bilan. The coverage and public reaction to the party were mixed, with substantive portions of the discourse focusing on the boundaries of decency, the responsibilities of public figures, and the impact of such events on Ivleeva’s reputation. Ivleeva herself, along with several other participants, publicly apologized for choosing to attend, signaling an awareness of the controversy and a willingness to acknowledge public concerns about the gathering.
In a related development, the court has previously considered a separate request from Gazmanov to protect his honor and dignity, indicating an ongoing pattern of legal actions in which public figures respond to questions about reputation, accountability, and the balancing of personal conduct with public duties. The current case sits within a broader context of high-profile personalities facing civil claims rooted in perceived reputational harm and the complexities of attributing responsibility for online and offline conduct. The legal process continues to unfold, with both sides preparing further arguments on issues of evidence, causation, and the framing of moral damages within the framework of Russian civil law. Observers note that the court’s decision to return the claim underscores the necessity of a clear, demonstrable connection between the alleged violation and the harm claimed, a standard designed to prevent frivolous or speculative suits while ensuring that genuine grievances have a path to remedy. As the proceedings advance, legal commentators will watch for how the parties articulate their positions, the strength of the evidentiary record, and any potential settlement or procedural adjustments that might shape the case’s trajectory in the months ahead.