Overview of the Moscow court ruling on Ponasenkov and the foreign agents registry
The Moscow City Court upheld the Ministry of Justice’s decision to keep historian and blogger Evgeny Ponasenkov on the register of foreign agents, and it rejected his bid to overturn the ruling or to trigger an unscheduled review aimed at excluding him from the list. The decision effectively closes his latest attempt to be removed from the registry.
In his lawsuit, Ponasenkov sought to declare the ministry’s audit unlawful and demanded a temporary, unsolicited review of documents to remove him from the register. The court found that the challenged decision copy had not been provided in the case materials, and the inspection report did not clearly outline the grounds for refusing to exclude foreign agents from the list. It also noted that the audit report was drafted without a clear statement of audit results and without citing the relevant legal provisions.
The Ministry of Justice maintained that the verification process uncovered facts indicating foreign influence, which justified keeping him on the list. This position formed the basis for the court’s decision, which the judge accepted, leading to the dismissal of Ponasenkov’s complaint and the entry into force of the ruling.
This matter marked Ponasenkov’s second effort to be removed from the foreign agents register. Earlier, in early April 2022, the ministry added Ponasenkov to the registry, and later the publisher’s created entity, First Scientific, was included in the list of media‑foreign agents as well.
He asserted that his citizenship had been affected due to his online activities, a claim tied to the broader debate over the consequences of public engagement on social networks and its impact on state classifications of individuals as foreign agents.
The court’s conclusion underscores the importance of precise procedural documentation and explicit legal reasoning in decisions about listing and delisting individuals in the foreign agents registry. The ruling reinforces the ministry’s authority to maintain such lists when evidence of foreign influence or other grounds cited by law are present, while also highlighting the need for transparent audit reporting in administrative proceedings.
Observers note that cases like this touch on sensitive issues about media influence, academic freedom, and the broader regulatory framework governing foreign agents in the country. By denying Ponasenkov’s challenge, the court signals a careful, rules‑based approach to reviewing ministry decisions in this area, even as questions about due process and the sufficiency of audit documentation continue to circulate among commentators and legal analysts.
As the legal process around the registry remains ongoing, stakeholders are watching how future audits and court reviews will address the standards for exclusion, the sufficiency of supporting materials, and the protection of legitimate expression within the bounds of the law. The outcome of this and related cases will likely influence how other individuals categorized as foreign agents navigate the regulatory landscape and the potential implications for their public and professional activities.