Victim of MFC shooter files lawsuit against State Services center

A Muscovite who suffered as a result of the shooting of people at the State Services center in the Ryazan district of the capital tried to sue the state institution for negligence. She decided that the MFC employees were indirectly to blame for the attack that took place on December 7, 2021, and almost cost her life.

As MK reported at the time, that evening, former SVR employee Sergei Glazov, who had risen to the rank of lieutenant colonel and was fired due to mental health issues, came to the MFC building on 1st Novokuzminskaya Street and opened fire on people with a pistol. The formal reason was that they did not want to serve him, since Glazov refused to put on a mask. As a result of the shooting, a security guard and an employee of the Center were killed, and four more people were injured. Among them was 56-year-old Lyubov, who received serious wounds to the chest and shoulder. Doctors saved her, the woman was paid compensation of half a million rubles, and the court ordered Glazov to pay another 600 thousand in favor of the victim (the shooter himself was found insane). But the lady believed that the heads of the State Budgetary Institution "Multifunctional Center for the Provision of State Services" should also pay in rubles. Lyubov demanded as much as 10 million rubles! In her statement to the Tverskoy Court, the plaintiff indicated that immediately after she was wounded, she was shouted at instead of receiving assistance, although the Center's employees had completed the necessary courses in 2019. She also emphasized that the building did not have a security passport, and the security guards were not up to the job, as they allowed Glazov to bring weapons and ammunition inside.

However, Lyubov did not find support in the courts of all instances - Tverskoy District, Moscow City and Second Cassation. She was told that the MFC employees promptly called medical services, and the presence or absence of a safety passport in this case is not a key factor. Therefore, the woman's claim was denied.

Authors: