It happened! The Volyn Oblast Territorial Election Commission has made a final decision regarding the elections to the oblast council in Turiisk district. This important event took place on February 28. According to the decision of the TEC, for which 10 members of the commission out of 12 present voted, Ivan Vasyliovych Dziamulych was recognized as the winner of the elections and, accordingly, as a deputy of the Volyn Oblast Council (the commission's decision is posted on the website ). However, the "Turiisk case" (as some observers have dubbed this process) will not end here. And the reasons for this are obvious - the court decision was not implemented. And if so, then someone must be held responsible for this. Read on for reflections on further possible actions. But first, about the "prelude" to the TEC's decision. As already reported, on February 27 another meeting of the territorial election commission was held, which "exercises control over the implementation of this Law in the relevant territory and ensures its uniform application" (para. 1, Art. 15 of the Law of Ukraine "On Elections of Deputies of Local Councils and Village, Settlement, City Heads"). As unpleasant as it is to admit (despite my purely human sympathy for the TEC members), even today's oblast election commission is not ready to make important decisions, not ready for the unequivocal implementation of the law, not ready to work under conditions of extraordinary pressure. And these are precisely the conditions of our reality. And this must, if not be accepted, then at least be taken into account. In the previous material I mentioned the extraordinary emotional intensity of the meeting. This time, despite the somewhat restrained request of Mr. Yastreb (the commission chairman) that there was no need to start debates, the meeting turned out to be no less "heated." Perhaps this was facilitated by the media materials that the commission members familiarized themselves with, or perhaps emotions were stirred by the presence of 4 trusted persons of Mr. Dziamulych, or by the meticulous attention to the work of the TEC by the author of these lines, who in the status of a journalist has already come to the commission's meetings several times politely. The meeting began with the introduction of guests - they turned out to be four trusted persons of candidate Dziamulych (among them - the director of Lukivska secondary school) and the head of the "Women's Council" of Turiisk district. Then Petro Ivanovych Yastreb read out the response from the CEC, which boiled down to the following: "You have the law, so decide how to act correctly." Of course, for the TEC members who were expecting a saving straw from Kyiv, this was a deep disappointment. They were once again left alone with the problem, and they did not know how to solve it. It became clear that there was no escape from making an independent decision. That's when the debates began again. At first they discussed trifles - what speaking regulations to establish for those present. But when it was time to submit proposals regarding the draft commission decision, an unexpected silence fell in the office. No one dared to go first. But eventually everything normalized and the meeting returned to its usual course - those present again began to discuss the court decision and express protest against it. Some of the commission members even stated that they did not believe the facts of violations found by the court, because they, supposedly, were collected in violation of legislation and submitted at a supposedly late deadline (although representatives of candidate Shyba assure that the statement to the court was filed within the deadlines established by law). And therefore these facts can be disregarded when considering the question of the future winner of the elections. Emphasis was placed on the fact that the commission on February 9 adopted a lawful decision, and therefore the lawsuit against the TEC is wrong. Moreover - how can a decision be made without hearing the guilty party. Phrases were thrown around: "we should not follow Bondar's lead, we will prove that we are unbiased." Journalists also got a bit - who supposedly do not always truthfully cover information. And therefore, as a possible option for exiting this situation, it was proposed: first, recognition of Dziamulych as the winner, or, if this is impossible, recognition of the elections as invalid. Thus a consensus was supposed to be reached. And one cannot go against the will of the voters of Turiisk district either; their expression of will must also be taken into account (the fact that it occurred in violation of legislation by one of the candidates was not taken into account by the commission). True, reasonable proposals could also be heard. They boiled down to the fact that according to the decision of the Lutsk city court, Mr. Dziamulych cannot be recognized as the winner, since he violated election legislation. And therefore, it would be entirely logical and lawful, when determining the winner of the elections in Turiisk, not to take into account the results of voting for him. Thus, Mr. Shyba should be registered as a deputy of the oblast council, because he received the largest number of votes (votes for Mr. Dziamulych are not counted). But this proposal for some reason caused the greatest rejection among the majority of TEC members. The reasons for this are hard to find. If we speak about formal grounds, the commission chairman stated that the Law of Ukraine "On Elections to Local Councils..." does not say that a candidate who took second place can become the winner of elections, and therefore this decision would be wrong (though Mr. Yastreb did not explain why the commission, in accordance with Art. 58 of the same law, did not punish the violator of election legislation, which it was simply obliged to do. As I see it, this clearly follows from the law). So the meeting of February 27 was fruitless. The next day everything was calmer and more pragmatic. TEC members, tired of endless "meeting-going," before the meeting on February 28 were resolutely determined to put an end to this tedious matter called "elections in Turiisk." At first they wanted to recognize the elections as invalid altogether. This proposal, by the way, was supported by the majority of commission members. But there was one factor that restrained the commission from this step - the problem of financing the elections (only individual persons spoke about the legal grounds for such a decision, whose voices drowned in the hum of general "approval"). The position of "saving budget money" taken by the commission members inclined them toward the first draft (recognizing Dziamulych as deputy). At the same time, what personally struck me was the complete rejection of the proposal to elect Shyba. It was deliberately ignored by the commission, and the people who put it forward were looked at as eccentrics and illiterate. So, after an hour-long meeting, the commission by an absolute majority of votes adopted a decision based on the first draft submitted by commission member Afanasiev V.H. But that was not the end of it. The commission began to ponder how to explain the motives for its decision to all interested parties. After all, there are always those who are dissatisfied. Therefore, by its second decision, the commission instructed the TEC chairman to inform the population of the oblast through the media about the grounds for adopting this decision, which in principle Mr. Yastreb began doing already from the beginning of March, when the text of the decision itself was officially made public. And what next? And next, Mr. Shyba's representatives filed a complaint against the commission's actions with the court and the prosecutor's office, motivating this by the fact that the TEC failed to implement the court decision of February 11 and violated the Law of Ukraine "On Elections of Deputies of Local Councils...". Who is right will be shown by time. But having carefully read the civil procedure and criminal codes, as well as the aforementioned law, I personally am inclined to believe that the matter of the elections in Turiisk is not yet finished, and that the TEC will gather for its meeting at least one more time. Only this time the commission will obviously be adopting a legally correct decision, because it will be obliged to do so. Moreover, as some lawyers assure, the annulment of the previous TEC decision is the minimum that awaits the commission, since, I believe, there are grounds for initiating proceedings against the commission members on the basis of possible violation of a number of laws on their part. And this is no joke. And here the responsibility for incompetent actions is far more serious than a reprimand or a fine. (which I personally do not wish on any commission member). But that is for the law enforcement agencies of the oblast to decide. And there is not long to wait for the resolution.