‘Disgraceful Attitude’: Acquitted Rostov District Head Back on Trial

In Rostov, the judicial proceedings against former head of the Voroshilovsky District Viktor Berezhnoy have begun anew. At the end of 2025, the Fourth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction in Krasnodar overturned the acquittal. The case was returned to the court of first instance with a different panel. The official was accused of negligence in connection with the collapse of an entrance to a building at 72/3 Narimanov Street. However, the residents of the controversial five-story building themselves have taken Berezhnoy«s side.

According to the investigation, Viktor Berezhnoy allegedly knew since 2020 about the threat of collapse of the dilapidated five-story building on Narimanov Street but did not resettle the residents. They stated that the guilty parties should be sought in the Rostov city administration. On April 28, 2025, Berezhnoy was acquitted. On June 2, the Rostov Regional Prosecutor«s Office appealed the acquittal issued by the court. The agency considered it illegal. On August 7, the Rostov Regional Court put an end to the matter and acquitted Viktor Berezhnoy.

City council deputy and lawyer Natalya Oskina, who is defending the victims« interests in court, is confident that the retrial will only prove that the acquittal is the only correct decision in this matter.

‘The case was returned to the court of first instance. There are objective reasons, such as procedural violations. Not all victims were properly notified and questioned during the judicial investigation. But there are, in our opinion, also political reasons — an attempt to drag out the process until the statute of limitations for this article expires,’ the lawyer believes.

The repeated questioning of the victims during the hearing showed that the residents are not changing their testimony. They all spoke about the disgraceful attitude of the city administration to their requests to have the building recognized as unsafe. The Rostov residents said that after the building was declared unsafe, officials ignored requests for resettlement and alternative housing.

‘The court asked who was to blame, whether there was a management company, who was monitoring the building? They also asked about the behavior of the Voroshilovsky District administration. Everyone unequivocally confirmed their previous testimony,’ said deputy Natalya Oskina. ‘People said that the district authorities fulfilled all their obligations: they always came to calls and meetings, but the residents did not see representatives of the city administration, just as they did not see representatives of the city prosecutor«s office. The city administration had a disgraceful attitude. The judge also clarified the issue of the management company and was very surprised that people had never seen representatives of the management company.’

Early in the morning of January 28, 2024, a wall of a residential building collapsed at 72/3 Narimanov Street in Rostov. Then 95 people were evacuated, and the building was disconnected from the gas supply. The residents left their apartments in a hurry, leaving their personal belongings behind. There were no casualties because everyone managed to leave the building before the collapse. The residents claim that they repeatedly applied to the city administration with statements about the need for resettlement, but for years received only formal replies.

Recall that the regional program for resettling residents from unsafe buildings is the function of the government of the Rostov Region. Only it allocates the main funds for payments for the seized unsafe housing or for providing a temporary housing stock. In light of this, the lawyers explained in court that they do not understand the accusations against the former district head in principle.

The sphere of housing and communal services, management of the housing stock, distribution of the temporary housing stock, and material assistance are the sole responsibility of the Rostov city administration, Viktor Berezhnoy«s lawyers insisted in court.