The Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia published clarifications on the rights of journalists in connection with recent publications about the filming of the Revizorro program (Pyatnitsa TV channel). The ministry explained that Rospotrebnadzor has the right to control the work of public catering, and journalists have no right to replace the activities of a state agency.
From paragraph 1 of the regulation on the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Welfare (approved by the government in June 2004), the organization and conduct of state sanitary and epidemiological supervision and federal state supervision in the field of consumer protection is carried out by Rospotrebnadzor, the clarification says.
The Media Law gives journalists the right to “seek, request, receive and disseminate information (paragraph 1), visit state bodies and organizations, enterprises and institutions, bodies of public associations or their press services (paragraph 2), make recordings, including using the means of audio and video equipment, film and photography, except as otherwise provided by law (paragraph 6), to verify the accuracy of the information communicated to him (paragraph 8)”. However, these provisions do not imply that a journalist is given any exclusive prerogatives inherent in public authorities, such as the use of coercive measures, the Ministry of Internal Affairs explains. “That is, the activities of a journalist cannot replace the activities of a state body,” the agency emphasizes.
The rules for the provision of catering services, approved by the government in 1997, “do not grant either the consumer or the journalist the right to independently enter the premises of the performer, to which access is restricted,” the interior ministry adds.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs also reminds all interested parties that the law on the media, along with liability for infringement of the freedom of the mass media, also stipulates liability for the abuse of freedom of the media.
“In our activities, we have not replaced and are not replacing state bodies, but we act in accordance with the law on the media, receiving information and disseminating information about the activities of public catering,” Natalya Abramochkina, a representative of the Friday TV channel, told Vedomosti. During the filming, journalists often had to call the employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and none of them ever doubted that the journalists acted illegally, continues Abramochkina.
“We have studied the statement of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, we categorically disagree with it. If our lawyers deem it necessary to provide additional explanations about our activities to the employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, we will do this,” says Abramochkina.
This article will not be about traditional checks of small businesses by regulatory authorities, because so much has already been written about the “anti-check” law (meaning the Federal Law of December 26, 2008 N 294-FZ) that it is already indecent to raise this topic. We would like to draw attention to a new wave of inspections carried out by other entities that have arbitrarily assumed such powers: inspections of the media and the public. And let's consider this difficult issue using the example of inspections of HoReCa industry establishments (hotels, restaurants, cafes). All this will be useful to read not only for the owners and managers of such a business, but also for the attendants, because, first of all, those who first came to hand are subjected to pressure: receptionists, hostesses, maids, bartenders, cooks, etc.
Many of us have seen the infamous Revizorro TV show, which airs on the Friday channel. For those who haven't watched, here's her idea in brief: TV presenter Lena Flying with a film crew visits various catering establishments and hotels, arranging checks there - they are mainly looking for dirt and garbage. The scandalousness (and therefore the high rating) of the program is that the film crew does not just act like restaurant critics: they came, ate quietly, appreciated the quality of service, filmed something in the hall, and left to write a devastating article. No, here everything happens in a much tougher version: the presenter, along with the operators, break into not only the common room, but also into all the office premises, mainly the kitchen. The program has been repeatedly accused of being a staged show, and most of the owners of the establishments know in advance about the visit, however, after the incident in Anapa, when the owner of the establishment did not tolerate uninvited guests and made a brawl, there was no doubt that the film crew was walking around without warning, not left (more details about this can be found in the material of Komsomolskaya Pravda - “Journalists beaten in the Anapa cafe can be brought for arbitrariness” http://www.kuban.kp.ru/daily/26294.5/3171578/).
No less scandalous is the “Test Call” program already on another TV channel - NTV, where several seemingly very strong men under two meters tall walk around officials in an attempt to get a comment on some high-profile case. On the air of this program, scenes of fights of the film crew with the protection of various state and municipal bodies are increasingly getting.
Moving away from the large scale of federal channels, let's turn to a similar practice in the field. You should not hope that only some very famous institution can get under the distribution, on the contrary, it is easiest to “nightmare” the small owner of some eatery on the outskirts of the city or a little-known nightclub. In our city, Dmitry Chukreev, an assistant to deputy Anatoly Petrovich Sukhov (deputy chairman of the Legislative Assembly of the Sverdlovsk region, ran for United Russia), is engaged in such a practice with the help of some friendly media. Basically, this public figure catches gambling establishments, but periodically visits nightclubs, bars, and sometimes even strip clubs. Here are just some of the establishments that survived the control measures from these public figures: Night club "Lift-12", Disco bar "Marusya", Night club "Eldorado", "Sandals", "Ramada", "Pushkin", Cabaret CHANCE, Night club "White House", Bar "Culture" and many others. It should be noted that not all of them found violations during inspections by law enforcement agencies.
How it looks in practice, he told us the owner of one of the nightclubs in the city of Yekaterinburg, Andrey Vasiliev:
“Yes, indeed we faced this problem. When one company had an alcohol license under renewal, they came twice, at the second, recently opened club, at the stage of obtaining it, they came once. All this was organized by the same group of people, well known in the city. Where does the data come from, who to catch? Public organizations looked through the register of licenses, if it was confirmed that it was not available, they wrote an application to the internal affairs bodies (department for combating economic crimes). At the same time, they applied for holding a picket near the doors of the institution, but they were denied this due to a violation of the procedure for filing a notification. They actively attracted media friendly to them and went to test purchases. During the check, the security forces, unlike the public, behaved politely. The latter filmed on the territory of a private institution without permission, broke into the office premises, the dressing room of the artists, where people were changing clothes at that moment. At the request to stop - maliciously laughed and insulted. Walking around like at home, they went to the sink, the kitchen and commented on the camera as if according to the template: “Dirty, not cleaned, close everything.”
All requests to leave and stop were answered boorishly, the employees of the institution were intimidated, one of the public men told the DJ: “If you don’t turn off the spotlight, I will take you and your lamps ... (unprintable expression - ed.) I’ll break it, ”but when the administrator came close, he immediately fell silent.
In the former institution, all this was a surprise for us, none of the staff was prepared. I note that only a few succeed in obtaining an alcohol license within the prescribed period - 1 month, in practice it takes an average of 3 months. However, this does not mean that the institution has been selling “burnt alcohol” all this time - everything is sold the same as you buy in the store. Alas, this is a common practice among restaurateurs, and not only in our city.”
To illustrate: how it then looks in TV spots (example with a recent check of one of the bars):
It is not my task to condemn journalists or other people who simply hide behind the necessary crusts. Indeed, for a certain audience - the audience of our fellow lawyers, we ourselves also talk about how you can use the powers of a journalist in legal activities (on a course on journalism for lawyers). Everyone does their job for a specific purpose (even just to promote themselves by dancing on other people's bones). Good or bad, immoral or not, we will not argue. This is not the business of lawyers, because a lawyer can be on either side of the barricades, for example, in criminal law: today he defends a criminal, tomorrow - a victim, today he is a tax inspectorate lawyer, tomorrow - a taxpayer's legal adviser and is looking for an antidote for those actions that he once did then himself.
The purpose of this material is to tell entrepreneurs - owners of catering establishments and hotels, as well as their employees, how to counter the reputational risks associated with the visits of uninvited guests.
It should be noted right away that the legislation on the mass media will not give exhaustive answers to all our questions. Many norms on the powers of journalists can be interpreted both in favor of journalists and against them. Alas, already regretting the situation of the mass media in general, the law “On the Mass Media” was adopted already in 1991, and most of its norms are rather declarative: on the one hand, it seems to guarantee freedom of the media, and on the other, to dig deeper - practically nothing can be applied in full force. All this was very well shown by the various unrest during the election period. Or take at least the same procedure for providing information upon an editorial request - there is a right to demand information, but there is no normal mechanism for holding accountable for not providing it (only recently they began to think about introducing criminal liability for violating the procedure for providing information to a journalist).
That is, it all comes down to who can give more weighty arguments in favor of the necessary interpretation of a particular norm, who can remember more established rights and obligations, prohibitions from a wide variety of regulations, who, in the end, will be more convincing and arrogant.
Let us analyze in detail the question of the very possibility of admission (or non-admission) of journalists, social activists and other persons to the institution.
How do media representatives argue the opportunity to enter the institution? Standard phrase: "We are representatives of the media, we have an editorial task, we have the right to enter any public place." Let's sort it out in order.
Status of a journalist
First, it is necessary to establish whether this is really a journalist, whether such a mass media exists.
In accordance with Art. 52 of the Law of the Russian Federation of December 27, 1991 No. 2124-1 “On the Mass Media” (hereinafter referred to as the Law “On the Mass Media”), the professional status of a journalist established by this Law applies to both full-time employees of editorial offices engaged in editing, creating, collecting or preparation of messages and materials, and on authors who are not connected with the editorial office of the mass media by labor or other contractual relations, but recognized by it as their freelance authors or correspondents, when they fulfill the instructions of the editorial board. Thus, the official status of a journalist can be confirmed by: a) an official ID issued by the media; b) an editorial task (for freelance journalists), c) in addition, there are also certificates of the Union of Journalists of Russia and international professional cards of a journalist (International Press Card) issued by the International Federation of Journalists (through the Russian Union of Journalists).
You can check whether there really is a media outlet, of which a person appears to be an employee, in the Roskomnadzor registry - http://rkn.gov.ru/mass-communications/reestr/media/. Although there may be a situation when the media is not registered - this is allowed, for example, for newspapers with a circulation of less than 1000 copies. But the vast majority of well-known media outlets are, of course, registered. It will be more difficult to check the journalist's certificate issued by the Union of Journalists - there is no similar register. Unless you have to contact the regional office http://www.ruj.ru/_about/regional_offices_of_journalists_of_russia_soyuz.php. On the other hand, if we have doubts and consider the person who came as an impostor, then we have the right to ask to wait until the credentials are verified. After all, we were all taught to check police officers in this way - before launching him to your home or office, you need to call the department and check whether there really is such an employee and whether he was sent to you.
Contrary to common misconception, in order to be recognized as a journalist and have the appropriate status, it is not at all necessary to have a specialized education as a journalist.
Are journalists allowed to visit any establishments?
Suppose we have decided on the status - yes, indeed, an uninvited visitor has the authority of a journalist. But how far do these powers extend? Does a journalist really have the right to enter wherever he pleases? Especially considering that, as we have just learned, almost anyone can get the status of a journalist: for this you do not need to have any special education or official employment in the editorial office, but only an editorial assignment from a friendly media is enough.
Yes, indeed, a journalist has the right to visit state bodies and organizations, enterprises and institutions, bodies of public associations or their press services (clause 2, article 47 of the Law “On Mass Media”). But nowhere is it written in what order he has the right to do this. In general, a journalist must, in the performance of his official duties, obey the law, respectively, there is a general procedure for visiting these very state bodies and organizations. In the same way, any citizen has the right to visit state bodies, enterprises and institutions, there is no difference. Visitors are accepted taking into account the opening hours of the organization, access control, visiting rules, etc. You should not consider this norm as an opportunity to freely break into anywhere. It is the operatives of the Ministry of Internal Affairs who have the authority to freely enter any premises of enterprises and institutions. But do not confuse the powers of law enforcement agencies and persons not endowed with such rights.
Thus, a journalist must follow the same procedure for visiting an organization as any other citizen (there are certain bonuses in the status of a journalist, but this is more about a shortened period in providing information). Further, the question may arise: to what extent, in general, can we prohibit access to certain premises to any citizens (whether journalists or our visitors).
In such cases, visitors often operate with the concept of "public place". A pier, in a public place there should be free access. However, there is nothing of the kind in the Mass Media Law. The concept of "public place" is used in the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and is deciphered in detail only in Art. 20.21 (Appearance in public places in a state of intoxication: these are streets, stadiums, squares, parks, public vehicles, as well as some other places). A similar list is contained in Art. 20.20 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (Consumption (drinking) of alcoholic products in prohibited places or consumption of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances in public places). It is clear that it would be absurd to add bars, restaurants and other catering establishments here. Otherwise, where, if not there, to appear in a state of intoxication.
What conclusion can be drawn from all this: firstly, nowhere is the special right of a journalist to conduct his activities, depending on whether this or that place is public or not (there are general rules established for all citizens), and secondly , a catering establishment or a hotel does not fall under the definition of a public place.
The public may be indignant at all this: what about civil society, freedom of the media, and who, if not them, will check all this.
If not them, there are the relevant authorities: Rospotrebnadzor, the Fire Protection Inspectorate, Rosalkogolregulirovanie, and they, believe the experience of a lawyer who has worked in this area for more than five years, check very well. Even any kindergarten has never been left without a fine for a single check, and they know SanPiNs better than any restaurant owner.
Well, to the question of freedom. Above, I gave a link to the Komsomolskaya Pravda material about the beaten employees of the Friday TV channel. Yes, it is felt that the author of the material showed guild solidarity and sided with the reporters. But for interest, read the numerous comments on the article. Most readers do not encourage their actions in any way, and give a lot of examples where, using this logic, the reporters of the Revizorro program could still penetrate:
In the operating room (suddenly they are sewn in the wrong place or in the wrong place);
In a cash vault or a cash collection machine: suddenly our money is stolen or stored incorrectly;
For hazardous production: check whether safety precautions are observed correctly;
In the cockpit - and suddenly the pilot is drunk;
to a nuclear power plant;
In the dressing room of the theater - suddenly there the artists, in violation of all laws, smoke and swear.
And how is the kitchen different from all this? Moreover, not even every employee of the institution has the right to enter the kitchen, for this you need to comply with a lot of requirements. Read more about these requirements in the comment. restaurateur Max Kovalenko (Moscow):
“The public place referred to by the presenter is only the dining room. The service hall is a service place, and admission to it is allowed only after passing safety briefings, if there is a medical book with a mark on passing a periodic medical examination for catering employees and an admission to work, and in the presence of sanitary clothing. I note that the use of sanitary clothing is possible only if there is an agreement with the laundry for the processing of textiles for catering establishments. Bathrobes brought with you without accompanying contracts are not allowed. The exception is disposable gowns in the package. Also, admission to the catering unit is allowed only after an external examination (the well-known "pustular magazine"). In addition, the controller of the supervisory authority is obliged to inform the production manager about the presence of gastrointestinal diseases in himself and his family members. So the appearance of this lady in the kitchen is completely illegal.”
So how much such actions are in the public interest is a big question.
Is it possible to ban entrance to the institution at all?
Let's say we figured out the office space. We must not allow any outsiders into office premises, especially into the kitchen, even if they have TV channel IDs or even an international journalist's card. Any material should be prepared on the terms of mutual understanding and cooperation - please come to the director during office hours, he will answer all your questions. And checking the SanPiNs is still a matter for specially trained people from Rospotrebnadzor, and one visual inspection with shouts of “Dirt, close everything” or using sophisticated equipment in the form of a white glove is indispensable here. In general, with competent work, journalists act covertly, conduct a real journalistic investigation (such materials could often be found in the Russian Reporter magazine).
Here is how he comments on the situation Dmitry Voinov, Director of SoftBusiness (Omsk):
“My company is engaged in complex automation of the restaurant business, and because of this, we communicate very often with restaurant owners, managers and directors. I would like to note that the above example with "Revizorro" is not the most objective. It is worth reading only reviews of past programs. I am sure that some of the issues were custom-made. As for the expulsion of such figures, I see one obvious way out - calling the guards and the police. In addition, one can refer to Art. 40 of the Mass Media Law (Refusal and delay in providing information). Before the arrival of the above structures, I would not let anyone in, even if for this I would even have to use force.
What should we do if we do not want to let people with a camera go not only to the office premises, but also to the hall? And this is not a whim of the owner of the establishment, but to a greater extent - concern for the visitors themselves. Let's say it's a nightclub or, even spicier, a strip club. It is clear that the majority of guests do not even want to get into the photo reports of the institution, not to mention the news releases of TV channels.
Let's again proceed from the thesis that in this case journalists enjoy the same rights and obligations as other visitors. In general, the issue of face control needs a separate detailed analysis. In short, the relationship between the guest and the institution is regulated by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, because when entering a cafe, restaurant and ordering dishes there, we always conclude a contract for the provision of services (even if we don’t sign any document at the same time). As a general rule, the institution does not have the right to refuse service to a visitor due to the fact that he “did not come out with his face” (again, contrary to the common misconception about the legality of face control). After all, all this is regulated by Art. 426 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on a public contract - services must be provided to everyone who applies to the organization. That is why competent restaurateurs, in order to somehow resolve the issue of admission to the institution, initially reserve all tables and an unexpected guest (drunk, in dirty clothes and in other cases when this may cause inconvenience to other guests) is denied due to the lack of free tables. tables. Indeed, paragraph 3 of the same Article 426 states that a refusal to provide a service is illegal only if there is an opportunity, and if there is no such opportunity (all tables are occupied or reserved), then the refusal will not be a violation.
The second reason why we can refuse admission to the institution is the holding of a closed event (special service).
The success of communication with aggressive public figures and media representatives largely depends on how competently the briefing was carried out with the staff and, in particular, with the security guards, who should be the first echelon on the path of intruders.
In the following articles, we will consider more complex cases: when public figures and media representatives came to an institution accompanied by law enforcement officers: who and where should we launch, who and what has the right to film on a video camera, and other issues.
All these questions can also be discussed at seminar in Yekaterinburg Checks of the media and public figures - a hidden reputational threat to the HoReCa industry, April 21, 2015
Copying any materials from the site is allowed only if you indicate the source with an active link to the site
The Ministry of Internal Affairs stated that the journalists of the program do not have the right to independently check restaurants and break into kitchens, thus carrying out the activities of the state body - Rospotrebnadzor.
In response to the claims of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Revizorro reported that a whole group of lawyers was working on the Pyatnitsa TV channel (where the program is aired), which, even before the start of the first filming, worked through all legal issues and carefully instructed the film crew. Representatives of the program explained that the presenter Lena Letuchaya is guided not only by the law on the media, but also by the decree of the government of the Russian Federation No. 1036 (“On approval of the rules for the provision of catering services”).
The Ministry of Internal Affairs claims that this resolution does not allow either the consumer or the journalist to independently enter the premises of the performer, access to which is limited.
"According to paragraph 1 of the regulation on the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Welfare (Rospotrebnadzor), approved by a decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of June 30, 2004, the function of organizing and implementing state sanitary and epidemiological supervision and supervision in the field of consumer protection carries out Rospotrebnadzor," the Ministry of Internal Affairs stressed, noting that journalists do not have the right to perform the functions of state bodies."The rights of a journalist, provided for in Article 47 of the Law "On the Mass Media", including the right to seek, request, receive and disseminate information, visit state bodies and organizations, enterprises and institutions, bodies of public associations or their press services, make recordings with the use of audio and video equipment, film and photography, do not predetermine the existence of any other exclusive prerogatives inherent in state bodies (in particular, the use of coercive measures), that is, the activities of a journalist cannot replace the activities of a state body and in in this sense, it is isolated," the press center of the ministry noted.
The rules for the provision of public catering services, approved by the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of August 15, 1997, do not grant either the consumer or the journalist the authority to independently enter the performer's premises, access to which is limited. "In this regard, we draw the attention of all interested parties to the fact that the law on the media (Article 58) provides for liability both for infringing on the freedom of the mass media and for the abuse of this freedom (Articles 4 and 59)," the Ministry of Internal Affairs concluded.
TASS
The editors of "Revizorro" responded to the statements of the police about the illegality of the actions of the project team. The explanation, which turned out to be at the disposal of Life, states that the lawyers of the program had worked out the legal issue even before it went on the air."A separate team of lawyers works on the Friday channel, which deals only with the Revizorro project. Even before the start of the first filming, they worked out all legal issues and carefully instructed the film crew," the editorial staff replied.
In addition, on "Friday" they told what kind of legal acts the host Elena Letuchaya uses when filming.
"In addition to the Media Law, Lena Letuchaya is guided by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1036 "On Approval of the Rules for the Provision of Catering Services", which establishes the duty of the contractor to provide the consumer with the opportunity to familiarize himself with the conditions of service, both in the hall and outside the service hall, and the consumer has the right to receive additional information about the main consumer properties and quality of the offered public catering products, as well as about the conditions for preparing dishes.In fact, the conditions for preparing dishes most often become the main reason why establishments do not pass the Revizorro check, the editorial office said.
The Revizorro program - a custom show or a real test?
Modern television offers us many reality shows and projects, the task of which is to entertain the viewer and satisfy his need for spectacle. Revizorro is one of them. But if most reality TV is limited to discussions and savoring the details of someone else's life, almost every issue of "Revizorro" ends with a scandal, and sometimes with litigation. As a rule, after that the public is divided into two camps. Some stand up for the program and its host, stigmatizing Russian public catering and rejoicing that they finally found justice for those who poison us with expired products. Others suspect the show of bias and believe it is a well thought out and highly paid way to "bleed" the competition.
It is quite difficult to figure out who is right and who is not right in this situation, but we tried to do it.
For those who are not in the subject
Maybe someone did not watch this show, or did it "under the eye", so let's briefly recall the essence. A film crew led by TV presenter Olga Romanovskaya, who replaced the country's chief "auditor" Elena Letuchaya, rides around our vast homeland and checks various restaurants, cafes, and sometimes hotels for cleanliness. The revision script does not change from transfer to transfer. The presenter enters the establishment and orders something from the menu. While the staff, who do not understand anything, are whispering excitedly, the TV personality is preparing for a check: he looks under tables, chairs, sometimes tries to reach a lamp or air conditioner to find dirt and dust there. Most often, he finds what, without hiding, rejoices. Then the girl puts on a white coat, a special hat, shoe covers and enters the kitchen, where, of course, no one is waiting for her. There, the inspector begins to run the house to the fullest - she opens refrigerators, feels and sniffs food, looks into pots, tries to get into the most inaccessible places to find dirt there and, again, finds it.
However, sometimes the sequence of actions changes and the presenter bursts into the kitchen literally from the doorway, very skillfully using the effect of surprise. Why this is necessary and who chooses the institution-victim is a big question.
Usually at this stage, either the administrator or the owner of the establishment appears and tries to drive the uninvited inspectors out. To which the brave presenter reminds everyone present of the rights and laws, while not forgetting to crawl through cabinets and pans.
After that, the film crew goes to the toilet to find something terrible there too, but by this time, as a rule, the police drive up and turn the uninvited visitors out into the street. Having made a noise in a restaurant (cafe, barbecue, bar), spoiling everyone's mood, depriving people of their jobs, or even breaking several lives, the pleased Romanovskaya (and earlier Flying) in most cases declares that Revizorro does not recommend this place. The curtain.
I was there
Here is what the owner of a cafe from Yekaterinburg writes about the guests from the Revizorro program in his blog:
Literally sweeping away everything in their path, they immediately burst into the kitchen from the street ... It seems that they had a script written in advance, and they did not listen to any arguments, arguments, explanations. They did not try to "on the spot" to understand the essence of events. There are two things that confuse me about everything that happened. The first is that all this pandemonium greatly interferes with current activities. And the second thing is that my employees got under the kneading, the quality of whose work I rate very highly and for whom all these television provocations are a strong shock.
And here is the reaction of Omsk restaurateurs:
The film crew of "Revizorro" looks like an angry group of riot police, which rushes, sweeping away everything in its path. Without any words, explanations, poking everyone in the face with their ID, the guys just rush ahead, straight to the kitchen. It still remains a mystery to us how the presenter knew to the millimeter where we have the entrance to the kitchen. Our waiters, who are undergoing an internship, get used to the location of all the premises for at least three days, because the restaurant is four-story. The work of the host "Revizorro" resembled a custom task, which was calculated and thought out with the study of all the details.
In fact, there are many such reviews. Entrepreneurs are outraged not so much by the fact of the check, but by the way it is carried out. After all, situations are different. According to one of the St. Petersburg restaurateurs, in the restaurant business there is such a thing as a general cleaning of the kitchen: “It is carried out, you know, not every day, but they are cleaned in full: they move refrigerators, clean hoods, climb into the very corners that "Revizorro" likes to check so much. If you're lucky and the check comes after the general, everything will be fine, if the day before - problems cannot be avoided. Well, as for the dirty floor and stains, then just think: how can you ensure sterile cleanliness in the kitchen, where the smoke is If this is a popular establishment with good traffic, then the chefs work in emergency mode. And yes, sometimes food falls on the floor, sauces spill, crumbs fly, oil splashes. All this is wiped hastily until the evening, when, after the restaurant closes, the kitchen is put in order ".
Undoubtedly, there are places where chic and glitter are everywhere, the food is excellent, and the staff smiles even in stressful situations. But let's be honest to the end ... A lot depends on the combination of circumstances. From how to look and how to present the same situation.
Against the background of such details from the life of public catering enterprises, the programs look rather strange when a Moscow celebrity visits little-known cafes, bars and restaurants of the middle class and gives them an excellent rating.
Why is it necessary?
For marketers and psychologists, everything that happens in Revizorro is obvious. It is difficult to survive in the current economic conditions, and not everyone is ready to do it in honest ways. Fierce competition is doing its job. All companies want to present themselves in the most favorable light, but not all succeed. In this case, some leave the market, while others try by all means to gain a foothold in it, using all methods, including unclean ones, such as undermining the reputation of competitors.
As a rule, it is difficult for the average person to figure out where the information is true and where it is false. Many still trust the media in this matter. The only advice that can be given is to evaluate the results of various investigations from an ethical point of view.
psychologist Alexandra Makrenitskaya
From idea to implementation
In fairness, let's say that the idea of the authors of the program, in principle, is not bad. We all know how official inspections of catering establishments can go. There is more trust in independent inspectors or, as in our case, auditors. Moreover, such checks are needed! They are the best way to keep food service workers on their toes and protect the consumer from bored salads, tired appetizers and expired specialties. The only question is execution.
In Europe, and in our country, the practice is common when a restaurant, hotel, construction site, shop is visited by a mystery shopper, a critic, gets an impression, and only then writes a devastating or laudatory article. A review published in a popular magazine or on a popular website can either end or start a business. But most importantly, it will become a problem for one or more people - the owners of this business. But when everything happens for show, noisily, rudely and obviously not with the aim of reaching out to the truth, ordinary people suffer.
Indeed, on TV they will show an ordinary waiter, cook, administrator, and it is this unfortunate one who will eventually be exposed to the whole country as a villain who stores milk on the same shelf of the refrigerator next to meat, and washes his hands only on holidays. It is difficult for residents of a metropolis to imagine what it is like to live and work in a small city after such "popularity", where everyone knows each other. There was a hype, there were participants in it, and how and why they got involved in it - hardly anyone will understand. As a result, the unfortunate worker can be fired if the owner does not bother to understand the situation, then it is difficult for a person to get a job in this area, because he turned out to be an accomplice in arbitrariness in public catering. In addition, people on the street recognize him and giggle behind his back. And sometimes, after especially revealing checks, restaurants or cafes are closed altogether, because people, having seen enough horrors about dust falling into soup and cockroaches in the kitchen, simply stop going there.
Terpelka ends
Authoritative sources have repeatedly spoken out on the topic of the legality of the actions of the film crew.
Roskomnadzor explained that, according to the Civil Code, "property rights are violated when property is used by other persons without the consent of the owner." In addition, the chief sanitary doctor of Russia "has introduced a ban on the presence of unauthorized persons in the production and storage facilities of public catering organizations."
That is, the violations of "Revizorro" are obvious, and the court has repeatedly proved this. So, in 2014 in Anapa, the film crew was literally pushed out of the cafe. The journalists went to court and lost the case, as neither the owner nor the administrator of the restaurant gave permission to shoot in the kitchen. Moreover, in the actions of the film crew were seen signs of a crime under the articles "arbitrariness" and "beatings."
And in 2015, another lawsuit was filed against Revizorro by a fast food restaurant in Vladivostok. The company accused the TV show of spreading false information and damaging the business reputation of its cafe. The court sided with the owners of the catering establishment. In July of this year, the next court session will take place, at which the court will consider the claims against Revizorro of Smolensk restaurateurs. On the way - a lawsuit from the Chelyabinsk newlyweds, whom Olga Romanovskaya ruined the wedding. After another "check" of the restaurant, the inspector, together with the film crew, burst into the hall where the celebration took place and began to frighten the guests with alleged violations. By the way, even the ex-host of "Revizorro" Elena Letuchaya condemned such actions of her predecessor.
Instead of output
Rules, norms and requirements are not invented in vain. And if outsiders are not allowed into the kitchen, then there is a reason for this. For example, the preparation of some dishes requires mathematical precision, otherwise they will be spoiled. Now imagine that in the process of cooking, strange people burst into the kitchen and demand to explain why the dill in the refrigerator lies next to the smoked meats. And aggression on the part of those being checked in such a situation is quite understandable.
The most annoying thing is that a very good idea, which could really improve the quality of work of domestic catering enterprises, has been ruined in the bud. Why don't the program, for example, launch a website where any restaurant could officially submit an application for participation. And the authors of the program would decide for themselves where and when they would visit. This would be useful and would encourage a huge number of restaurants to put things in order and compete for a sticker from Revizorro! And negative assessments in this case would not cause such a strong public outcry.
But, perhaps, the most terrible thing in this situation is that the consequences of such a great popularity of this program go far beyond the actions of its presenter and film crew. A bad example, as you know, is contagious, and many may want to try on the image of a restless auditor, acting, as it is presented, in the interests of ordinary people, albeit in violation of the law.
11/28/2017 - 5 answers about the legality of the actions of the "checkers" of the Revizorro program
"Revizorro"- a well-known TV show, a journalistic project related to checking the quality of services of various public institutions: Russian restaurants, cafes, hotels, nightclubs, etc.
Questions often arise about the legality of the actions of these "verifiers" (members of the film crew).
QUESTION #1:
Do such "checkers" have the right to come to a restaurant/cafe for a public "inspection" (check)?
ANSWER: Yes, they can, as follows from Art. 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation (the right to seek information) and from the Law of the Russian Federation "On the Mass Media", regarding the actions of journalists in a public place and / or in the public interest.
That is, the TV report of the Revizorro program, including the actions of the film crew and the journalist in it, that sanitary standards are violated in such and such a public catering facility, which could cause harm to visitors, is protected by public interest.
Catering establishments (a hall where visitors are served) during its operation are, indeed, a public place.
QUESTION #2:
Do "inspectors" have the right to enter the kitchen, warehouse and utility rooms without the permission of the owner of the restaurant/cafe?
ANSWER: No. can not.
Article 209 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation indicates that the owner has the right, at his own discretion, to take any actions in relation to the property belonging to him that do not contradict the law and other legal acts and do not violate the rights and legally protected interests of other persons.
In other words, the owner of the public catering has the right to prohibit visiting the kitchen, warehouse and utility rooms, where the service of visitors is not carried out.
In particular, "SP 2.3.6.1079-01. Public catering organizations. Sanitary and epidemiological requirements for public catering organizations, the manufacture and circulation of food products and food raw materials in them. Sanitary and epidemiological rules", approved. Chief State Sanitary Doctor of the Russian Federation on November 6, 2001, in clause 2.5. "in organizations ... works and services not related to the activities of public catering organizations are not carried out ... In production and storage facilities should not be outsiders faces".
QUESTION #3:
What gives the presence of a medical book and an editorial task for the "checker"?
ANSWER: A personal medical book only confirms that the person has undergone periodic professional hygienic training and certification.
The presence of a medical book is not a basis for the presence in the kitchen of persons who are not employees of a public catering establishment engaged in the production process of preparing food.
"Editorial assignment" - in its essence, for the owner of a restaurant / cafe - a "filkin's letter", a document that only defines a common goal, tasks, and in rare cases - a plan of action for a journalist.
The argument that the "verifier" is performing an editorial task cannot serve as a basis for not fulfilling the legal requirements of the owner of the restaurant / cafe - to leave the production and storage facilities, since, in accordance with the provisions of clause 8, part 1, art. 49 of the Law "On the Mass Media", the journalist is obliged to refuse the assignment given to him by the editor-in-chief or the editorial office if it or its implementation is associated with a violation of the law.
Thus, these documents are not sufficient legal grounds to conduct a "verification".
QUESTION #4:
Do "checkers" have the right to coercion (use of force) during their "check"?
ANSWER: The journalist does not have the right to coercion (use of force) and cannot be authorized by anyone.
QUESTION #5:
What to do if the "checkers" invade the kitchen, warehouse and utility rooms?
ANSWER: In accordance with the provisions of Art. 209 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the owner has the right, at his own discretion, to take any actions in relation to the property belonging to him that do not contradict the law and other legal acts and do not violate the rights and interests of other persons protected by law. Ownership is violated when property is used by others without the consent of the owner.
In order to protect the right of ownership, the owner may demand the elimination of any violations of his right, even if these violations were not connected with the deprivation of possession.
Primarily,
Immediately report the violation to law enforcement authorities,
Take measures to protect the violated property rights, not only by physical obstruction against persons committing unlawful acts, but also, including ( if necessary) and by applying measures of active physical pressure to detain them and transfer them to law enforcement agencies.
(!) ATTENTION
The actions of such "verifiers" may be further, depending on the significance of the harm caused to citizens or legal entities, qualified as arbitrariness.
At the same time, one should distinguish administrative and criminal responsibility for self-management.
Article 19.1. Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (CAO RF) establishes that:
arbitrariness, that is, unauthorized, contrary to the procedure established by a federal law or other regulatory legal act, the exercise of one's real or supposed right, which did not cause significant harm to citizens or legal entities, -
shall entail a warning or the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of one hundred to three hundred roubles; on officials - from three hundred to five hundred roubles.
Article 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) establishes that:
1. Arbitrariness, that is, unauthorized, contrary to the procedure established by law or other regulatory legal act, the commission of any actions, the legality of which is disputed by an organization or a citizen, if such actions caused significant harm, -
shall be punishable by a fine in the amount up to 80 thousand roubles, or in the amount of the wage or salary, or any other income of the convicted person for a period up to six months, or by compulsory works for a term of up to 480 hours, or by corrective labor for a term of up to two years, or by arrest for a term of up to six months.
2. The same act committed with the use of violence or with the threat of its use, -
shall be punishable by compulsory labor for a term up to five years, or arrest for a term up to six months, or imprisonment for a term up to five years.
