Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 29, 2009 N 16-В08-27 Case on an application for recovery of under-accrued, unpaid pension sent for a new consideration, since the court did not take into account the provision according to which the legislation governing the procedure, conditions for the payment of security under compulsory state pension insurance, as the body fulfilling the obligations to pay such security, the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation is determined, which is responsible for these obligations at the expense of the fund’s budget, formed legally.

SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

DEFINITION

Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court Russian Federation consisting of:

presiding T.E. Korchashkina

judges Gulyaeva G.A. and Kolycheva G.A.

considered in a court hearing on January 29, 2009 a civil case on the claim of K. against the State institution - the Office of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation for the Kirovsky District of Volgograd, the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation for the recovery of under-accrued and unpaid pensions on the supervisory complaint of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation against the decision of the Kirovsky District Court Volgograd dated March 7, 2008, which partially satisfied the claims, the ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Volgograd Regional Court dated May 14, 2008, which left the decision unchanged.

Having heard the report of the judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation G.A. Gulyaeva, Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

installed:

K. filed a lawsuit against the State Institution - the Administration of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation for the Kirov District of Volgograd for the recalculation of the insurance part of the pension. In support of her claims, she referred to the fact that since June 2004 she has been the recipient labor pension for old age in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Law of December 17, 2001 N 173-FZ, which was assigned to her not in full, that is, without taking into account insurance premiums for the period from May 1, 2002 to June 29, 2004, which Volgograd Motor OJSC the plant" did not transfer to management pension fund to her individual personal account. During the further recalculation of the pension, insurance contributions were not taken into account, which the employer did not transfer to the management of the pension fund for the period from June 30, 2004 to October 30, 2004, thereby underestimating the amount of the insurance part of the labor pension and violating the plaintiff’s rights to receive a full pension. volume, in connection with which she asked the court to oblige the pension authority to pay a labor pension from March 1, 2007, taking into account the amount of insurance contributions for compulsory pension insurance for the worked period from May 1, 2002 to September 30, 2004, to recover from the defendant the underpaid amount of the insurance part pensions in the amount of 3,507 rubles. 30 kopecks for the period from May 1, 2002 to March 1, 2007.

The defendant did not admit the claim.

By the decision of the Kirovsky District Court of Volgograd dated July 4, 2007, K.’s claims were satisfied. The court ordered the State institution - the Administration of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation for the Kirov district of Volgograd to pay K.'s labor pension from March 1, 2007, taking into account the amount of insurance contributions for compulsory pension insurance for the period worked from May 1, 2002 to September 30, 2004, recovered from the State institutions - Administration of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation for the Kirov district of Volgograd in favor of K. the underpaid part of the pension from May 1, 2002 to March 1, 2007 in the amount of 3,507 rubles. 30 kopecks

By the ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Volgograd Regional Court dated October 10, 2007, the specified court decision regarding the recovery from the State institution - the Administration of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation for the Kirov District of Volgograd in favor of K. of the underpaid part of the pension from May 1, 2002 to March 1, 2007 in in the amount of RUB 3,507. 30 kopecks canceled and the case in this part was sent for a new trial to the same court. The rest of the court's decision was left unchanged.

At K.’s request, the court invited the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation to participate in the case as a co-defendant.

By the decision of the Kirovsky District Court of Volgograd dated March 7, 2008, K.’s claims were partially satisfied. The court recovered from the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation at the expense of the treasury of the Russian Federation in favor of K. the underpaid amount of pension for the period from May 1, 2002 to March 1, 2007 in the amount of 3,507 rubles. 30 kopecks K.'s claims against the State Institution - the Administration of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation for the Kirov District of Volgograd - were denied.

By the ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Volgograd Regional Court dated May 14, 2008, the decision was left unchanged.

The supervisory complaint of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation contains a request to cancel the decision of the Kirovsky District Court of Volgograd dated March 7, 2008 and the ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Volgograd Regional Court dated May 14, 2008, with reference to the fact that the court of first instance and cassation made a significant error in the application and interpretation of substantive law.

On October 31, 2008, a judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation requested this civil case to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and on December 18, 2008, the supervisory appeal with the case was transferred for consideration at a court session of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

Having checked the case materials and discussed the validity of the arguments of the supervisory complaint, the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation finds the court decisions in the case subject to cancellation on the following grounds.

In accordance with Article 387 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the grounds for canceling or changing court decisions in the supervisory order are significant violations of substantive or procedural law that influenced the outcome of the case, without eliminating which it is impossible to restore and protect violated rights, freedoms and legitimate interests, and also protection of public interests protected by law.

When considering the present case of this nature, a significant violation of the norms of substantive law was committed by the court of first and cassation instances, which was expressed as follows.

In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 10 of the Federal Law of December 17, 2001 N 173-FZ “On Labor Pensions in the Russian Federation,” the insurance period taken into account when determining the right to a labor pension includes periods of work and (or) other activities that were performed on the territory of the Russian Federation by persons insured in accordance with the Federal Law “On Compulsory Pension Insurance in the Russian Federation”, provided that during these periods insurance contributions were paid to the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation.

The responsibility for insuring an employee, for timely and in full payment of insurance premiums for him to the budget of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation and for maintaining records associated with the calculation and transfer of insurance contributions to the specified budget is assigned to the insured (clause 2 of Article 14 of the Federal Law “On compulsory pension insurance in the Russian Federation”).

According to paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Federal Law of December 15, 2001 N 167-FZ “On Compulsory Pension Insurance in the Russian Federation,” the insurer is obliged to assign (recalculate) and timely pay compulsory insurance coverage (labor pensions) based on individual (personalized) accounting data.

By Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated July 10, 2007 N 9-P, paragraph 1 of Article 10 of the Federal Law “On Labor Pensions in the Russian Federation” and paragraph three of paragraph 7 of the Rules for accounting for insurance contributions included in the calculation pension capital, to the extent that they allow not to include periods of work for which insurance premiums were not paid in full or in part, in the length of service taken into account when determining the right to a labor pension, and to reduce the amount of its insurance when assigning (recalculating) a labor pension parts.

The court established and confirmed by the case materials that K. had worked at Volgograd Motor Plant OJSC since 2000, and since June 30, 2004, the plaintiff was assigned and paid an old-age pension. During this period labor activity K. was a person insured in the state compulsory pension insurance system, and from her earnings the employer withheld insurance contributions for compulsory pension insurance, but for the period from May 1, 2002 to September 30, 2004, the indicated no funds were transferred.

Resolving the case on the merits, the court proceeded from the fact that the said Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation ordered the legislator to establish a legal mechanism guaranteeing the implementation by insured persons working under an employment contract of the pension rights acquired by them in the compulsory pension insurance system, including the source of payment of that part insurance coverage that is not covered by the policyholder's insurance premiums.

Since the said Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation determines that, pending the establishment by the legislator of the appropriate legal regulation, this right of the insured persons must be ensured by the state (at the expense of the federal budget) in order to fulfill for the insurer the obligation to transfer the necessary funds to the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation in favor of those insured persons , to whom a labor pension is assigned (it is recalculated), the court came to the conclusion that the payment of debt on the insurance part of K.’s pension should be carried out directly by the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation.

The cassation court agreed with the conclusions of the trial court.

However, the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation cannot agree with the conclusions of the court of first instance and cassation, since they are based on incorrect interpretation and application of substantive law.

The Regulations on the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation, approved by Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation of December 27, 1991 N 2122-1, establishes that the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation was formed by the Resolution of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR of December 22, 1990 for the purpose of state management of pension finances in the Russian Federation . The Pension Fund of Russia is an independent financial and credit institution that operates in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation and these Regulations.

According to paragraph 3 of Article 9 of the Federal Law of December 15, 2001 N 167-FZ “On Compulsory Pension Insurance in the Russian Federation,” payments of the insurance part of the labor pension are made from the budget of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation.

The right of the insured to receive compulsory insurance coverage in a timely manner and in full from the budget of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation is also regulated by Article 15 of the said Federal Law.

The legal position set out by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in Resolution No. 9-P of July 10, 2007 is consistent with the above regulatory provisions and states the need state provision the rights of insured persons to receive a labor pension in the event of non-payment or improper payment by their employers of insurance contributions to the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation by fulfilling for the employer the obligation to transfer the necessary funds to the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation in favor of the insured persons whose rights have been violated.

Thus, the current legislation regulating the procedure and conditions for the payment of security for compulsory state pension insurance, as the body fulfilling obligations for the payment of such security, determines the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation, which is responsible for these obligations at the expense of the Fund’s budget, formed in the manner prescribed by law .

The court of first instance did not take into account the provisions of the above norms and, refusing to satisfy the requirements to the State institution - the Administration of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation for the Kirovsky District of Volgograd, collected in favor of the plaintiff the debt for the insurance part of the pension directly from the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, while this federal executive body, acting within the limits of competence regulated by law, cannot act as a defendant in the dispute under consideration.

Under such circumstances, the court's conclusions are based on incorrect interpretation and application of these rules of substantive law.

Since, when considering the case by the court of first instance, a significant violation of the norms of substantive law was committed, the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation finds it necessary to cancel its decision, sending the case for a new trial to the same court. Accordingly, the ruling of the cassation court of the Volgograd Regional Court is subject to cancellation, since it upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which was rendered in significant violation of the norms of substantive law.

Guided by Art. 387, 390 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

determined:

the decision of the Kirovsky District Court of Volgograd dated March 7, 2008, the ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Volgograd Regional Court dated May 14, 2008 is cancelled, the case is sent for a new trial to the court of first instance.

Explained by the head of the department for supervision of compliance with federal legislation of the Moscow prosecutor's office Evgeniy Nikolaevich Manerkin

The Labor Code of the Russian Federation establishes guarantees for workers at the legislative level; its goals are: establishing state guarantees of labor rights and freedoms of citizens, creating favorable working conditions, protecting the rights and interests of workers and employers.

In accordance with Art. 129 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, wages (remuneration of workers) - remuneration for work depending on the qualifications of the employee, complexity, quantity, quality and conditions of the work performed, as well as compensation payments (additional payments and allowances of a compensatory nature, including for work in conditions deviating from normal, work in special climatic conditions and in areas exposed to radioactive contamination, and other compensation payments) and incentive payments (additional payments and incentive allowances, bonuses and other incentive payments).

Wages are paid at least every half month on the day established by the internal labor regulations, collective agreement, or employment contract. If the payment day coincides with a weekend or non-working holiday, wages are paid on the eve of this day. Payment for vacation is made no later than three days before it starts. It should also be remembered that the possibility of receiving wages does not depend on the organization making a profit, selling products, selling goods, or performing services.

In case of delay in payment of wages for a period of more than 15 days, the employee has the right (by notifying the employer in writing): to suspend work for the entire period until the delayed amount is paid. During the period of suspension of work, the employee has the right: to be absent from the workplace during his working hours. An employee who was absent from the workplace during his working hours during the period of suspension of work is obliged to return to work no later than the next working day after receiving written notification from the employer of his readiness to pay the delayed wages on the day the employee returns to work.

Currently, three Codes provide for liability for violation of labor and labor protection legislation: Labor Code, Code of Administrative Offences, Criminal Code. Accordingly, an employer who violates labor legislation, is subject to each of them.

Article 142 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation provides for the employer's liability for failure to meet the deadlines for payment of wages and other amounts due to the employee. An employer (its authorized representatives) who has committed delays in paying employees wages or other violations of wages are liable in accordance with the Labor Code and other federal laws.

Article 236 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation provides for the financial liability of the employer for delays in payment of wages and other payments due to the employee. If the employer violates the established deadline for payment of wages, vacation pay, dismissal payments, or other payments due to the employee, the employer is obliged to pay them with interest (monetary compensation) in the amount of not less than one three hundredth of the refinancing rate of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation in force at that time from unpaid amounts on time for each day of delay starting from the next day after the due date for payment up to and including the day of actual settlement. At the same time, the obligation to pay the specified monetary compensation arises regardless of the employer’s fault.

Responsibility for violation of labor and labor protection legislation is provided for in Art. 5.27 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences. In accordance with this article, violation of labor and labor protection legislation entails: the imposition of an administrative fine on officials in the amount of one thousand to five thousand rubles. For individual entrepreneurs - from one thousand to five thousand rubles or administrative suspension of activities for up to ninety days. In accordance with paragraph 2 of Art. 5.27 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, violation of labor and labor protection legislation by an official who was previously subjected to administrative punishment for a similar administrative offense entails: disqualification for a period of one to three years.

In accordance with the provisions of Art. 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for non-payment of wages, pensions, scholarships, benefits and other payments provides for the following liability.

Partial non-payment of wages, pensions, scholarships, allowances and other payments established by law for more than three months, committed out of selfish or other personal interest: by the head of an organization, by an employer - an individual, by the head of a branch, representative office or other separate structural unit of the organization, is punishable by a fine in the amount : up to one hundred twenty thousand rubles; or in the amount of wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to one year; or deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a period of up to one year; or forced labor for a term of up to two years, or imprisonment for a term of up to one year.

Complete non-payment for more than two months: wages, pensions, scholarships, benefits, other payments established by law or payment of wages for more than two months in an amount lower than that established by federal law minimum size payments made out of mercenary or other personal interest: by the head of an organization, by an employer - an individual, by the head of a branch, representative office or other separate structural unit of the organization, is punishable by a fine in the amount of: from one hundred thousand to five hundred thousand rubles, or in the amount of wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to three years, or forced labor for a period of up to three years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a period of up to three years or without it, or imprisonment for a term of up to three years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions, or engage in certain activities for a period of up to three years or without it.

If the above acts entail grave consequences, then they are punishable by: a fine in the amount of two hundred thousand to five hundred thousand rubles; or in the amount of wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of one to three years; or imprisonment for a term of two to five years with or without deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to five years.

What to do if social payments are delayed

Currently, the state takes care of families in which children are born, pensioners, disabled people, students and other vulnerable categories of the population. Since 2014, a significant increase in many compulsory insurance benefits is expected, and monthly child care benefits and other government payments are increasing every year. However, the problems don't end there.

Today, branches of the Social Insurance Fund of the Russian Federation are increasingly receiving calls and letters with complaints about delays in social payments.

There are several reasons that lead to late payment of this type of assistance:

I pay benefits from funds that go to the branches of the Social Insurance Fund as payment of the unified social tax transferred by enterprises and organizations. However, there is often not enough money to pay all the benefits because expenses exceed income. This is due to the presence of a large number of debtors. Moreover, among them there are not only bankrupt enterprises, but also completely solvent ones.

The situation in the state's economy is not entirely favorable. The thing is that the state budget is planned based on the positive dynamics of the economy. But in reality, everything may look different, and then you have to save.

According to statistics, only 6% of the population consider their labor rights to be sufficiently protected. For others, the issue of arrears and non-payment of wages, pensions, benefits, scholarships and other social benefits has become a pressing issue.

To resolve this issue, the Federal Law “On the procedure for compensation for damage in connection with violation of the terms of payment of wages, pensions, benefits, scholarships and other social payments to citizens of the Russian Federation” was adopted.

Basic concepts discussed in this law:

payment period – the last day of crediting funds to the recipient. A delay in payment by more than 5 days after the due date is considered a violation of payment terms.

material damage – payments not received on time.

Heads of organizations, enterprises, institutions, etc. bear administrative responsibility for untimely payment of funds to recipients. Misuse of these funds will result in criminal liability. Also these persons are subject to a fine of 10% of the amounts payable. The fine is imposed by court decision. For late payment of funds A penalty of 2% of the amount is also paid for each day of delay.

According to Federal Law, The main sources of compensation for delayed payments to citizens of the Russian Federation are:

Targeted reserve funds for the payment of wages, benefits, pensions, scholarships. They are formed at enterprises, organizations and institutions and account for 50% of the remaining funds after settlements of mandatory payments.
Targeted bank loans provided in case of late receipt of funds to the accounts of an enterprise, organization or institution.
Insurance premiums received upon the occurrence of insured events for insurance of wages, pensions, benefits, etc. from delay.
Funds from the federal budget, budgets of the constituent entities of the Federation and local budgets.

Recipients may apply to the court for compensation for damages due to violation of payment deadlines wages, pensions, benefits, scholarships and other social payments. These claims are considered within five days.

Often, the problem of delayed social payments is associated with the employer’s negligent and conniving attitude towards this issue. And, despite the existence of the Federal Law, it is quite difficult to bring this person to justice. Therefore, this issue is still unresolved and requires further innovations. Make sure that all existing social payments for children you were paid on time.

Think about it:

pensii-posobii-nalogi.ru

Violation of wage payment deadlines: employer's responsibility and employee's rights

Several years ago, during a period of total unemployment, a very popular joke was about the delay in wages for employees. Two “new” Russians meet. One says to the other: “Can you imagine, I haven’t paid wages to my workers for three months, they still go to work. So I’m thinking: maybe I should take money from them for entry?”

In the article brought to your attention, we will try to understand what the employer faces by non-payment or delay of wages to an employee of an enterprise, and will also consider controversial issues related to the employee’s use of the right to self-defense in accordance with Art. 142 Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

Employer's liability for failure to pay wages on time

So, according to Part 1 of Art. 142 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the employer and (or) his representatives, authorized by him in the prescribed manner, who have delayed the payment of wages to employees and other violations of wages, are liable in accordance with the Labor Code of the Russian Federation and other federal laws. Formally, these actions (inaction) contradict labor, administrative and criminal legislation.

Material liability

First of all, Article 236 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation establishes the employer’s financial liability for delayed wages.

Extraction

from the Labor Code of the Russian Federation

Article 236. Financial liability of the employer for delay in payment of wages and other payments due to the employee

If the employer violates the established deadline for payment of wages, vacation pay, dismissal payments and other payments due to the employee, the employer is obliged to pay them with interest (monetary compensation) in the amount of not less than one three hundredth of the refinancing rate of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation in force at that time from unpaid amounts on time for each day of delay starting from the next day after the due date for payment up to and including the day of actual settlement. The amount of monetary compensation paid to an employee may be increased by a collective agreement or employment contract. The obligation to pay the specified monetary compensation arises regardless of the employer’s fault.

The rule, according to which the obligation to pay the specified monetary compensation arises regardless of the employer’s fault, appeared only in October 2006. Until that moment, the employer only had to prove that the non-payment of wages was not due to his fault in order not to bear financial liability to the employee. In other words, previously, if an employee sued the employer, the employer could:

Appeal to the fact that the safe with the money was taken away by thieves;

Refer to the fact that wholesale buyers have not paid for the shipped products, and now the organization is on the verge of bankruptcy;

Claim that the employee resisted and did not want to take the remuneration for his work.

All these examples, of course, are comic, but previously, by using one of these arguments, the employer could be released from financial liability to the employee. Now this is impossible.

In addition, the employer should remember that in accordance with Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 2 “On the application by the courts of the Russian Federation of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation” (hereinafter referred to as Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 2), the accrual of interest in connection with late payment of wages does not exclude the employee’s right to indexation of amounts of delayed wages due to their depreciation due to inflationary processes. However, in order to exercise this right, the employee must obtain an official report on the level of inflation for the period of delayed wages. Having analyzed the legislation, it is difficult to come to a conclusion which body is competent to issue the corresponding conclusion: can an independent expert do this, can one rely on data published in the media, etc. Moreover, often court proceedings in cases of wage recovery drag on several months, and even if the employee received some kind of conclusion on the level of inflation by the first court hearing, then during the months that will take to conduct the remaining meetings, the inflation level may increase noticeably.

In accordance with the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, wages can be recovered from the employer in the order of writ proceedings (simplified procedure) and in the usual manner (in a district court). However, in practice, it is possible to recover wages from an employer through writ proceedings only if there is no dispute about the amount of wages and if the employee can present both an employment contract and a 2-NDFL certificate. Otherwise, the employee will have to defend the right to his salary in the district court.

In addition, it should be taken into account that according to the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation No. 2, when considering a case on the claim of an employee, whose employment relationship has not been terminated, for the recovery of accrued but unpaid wages, the courts take into account the fact that the employer’s statement about the employee’s absence the period of application to the court in itself cannot serve as a basis for refusing to satisfy the claim. In this case, the deadline for going to court cannot be missed, since the violation is of a continuing nature and the employer’s obligation to pay wages on time and in full, and even more so the delayed amounts, remains throughout the entire period of validity of the employment contract (clause 56 of the Resolution Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation No. 2).

It seems that the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is on the side of the employee: if an employee whose wages are delayed continues to work, then the deadline for filing a lawsuit does not apply to him. However, when you read this explanation of Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 2, one phrase is somewhat confusing, namely “on the collection of accrued wages.” What this is connected with, we will explain using a specific situation that took place in real life(example 1).

Example 1

A lawyer came to work for a company engaged in the construction of residential real estate. At the interview, he agreed on the amount of salary he would receive in person. Since he had previously worked in companies where wages were paid in accordance with the law, it did not occur to him to inquire whether this organization offered wages “in an envelope.” When on his first working day they brought him a job order for review, he saw that his salary was a ridiculous amount - 8,000 rubles. At first, the employee thought that it was better to come to terms with this, because in a crisis it is difficult to find a job, and signed to read the order. But by the end of the working day he realized that if the employer decided to deceive him, the situation would not turn out in his favor. Then he went to the director and proposed the following: either they draw up an employment contract for him, which will indicate his salary in full, and another order, or he leaves. The employer agreed. But one day the employer told the lawyer that he would not pay wages for the month worked.

The employee, having an employment contract in hand, according to which his salary was 75,000 rubles, went to court. The “creative” employer began to prove in court that the lawyer’s monthly salary was 8,000 rubles, according to the hiring order (which he never destroyed), the staffing table (which he quickly “drew up”) and certificate 2- Personal income tax. In other words, the salary accrued by the employer was 8,000 rubles. per month, and not 75,000, as indicated in the employment contract presented by the employee.

In court, the employer was unable to show either another employment contract, which indicated a salary of 8,000 rubles, or statements in which the lawyer would sign for this salary, or a personal T-2 card, which also indicated the amount of the salary and required the employee’s signature , no bank orders for the transfer of taxes on this amount. And in those documents that he was able to draw up retroactively and sign together with the chief accountant, there were a lot of discrepancies. Five months later, the employee won the trial and proved the amount of his salary.

Thus, if you carefully read the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation No. 2, it will become clear that the “privileged” category of employees includes those to whom the employer pays a “white” salary or, at least in the event of a dispute, will accrue the one specified in the employment contract . But if the employer accrues a salary, for example, in the amount of 500 rubles. and indicates it in the 2-NDFL certificate, then, even if other relevant documents indicate a different amount, the employee is formally deprived of the right to skip the statute of limitations, despite the fact that the employer did not accrue the real amount of salary to him.

Thus, the calculation of wages in the correct amount depends on the integrity of the employer, but it is completely unclear why the statute of limitations depends on it.

Administrative responsibility

For delays and non-payment of wages, the employer also bears administrative liability in accordance with Art. 5.27 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses (hereinafter referred to as the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

from the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses

Article 5.27. Violation of labor and labor protection legislation

1. Violation of labor and labor protection legislation entails the imposition of an administrative fine on officials in the amount of one thousand to five thousand rubles; for persons carrying out entrepreneurial activities without forming a legal entity - from one thousand to five thousand rubles or administrative suspension of activities for a period of up to ninety days; for legal entities - from thirty thousand to fifty thousand rubles or administrative suspension of activities for a period of up to ninety days.

2. Violation of labor and labor protection legislation by an official who has previously been subjected to administrative punishment for a similar administrative offense shall entail disqualification for a period of one to three years.

In our opinion, it is necessary to clarify the terms “similar offense” and “disqualification”.

The application of disqualification means that an individual is deprived of the right to:

Hold leadership positions in the executive body of a legal entity;

Be a member of the board of directors (supervisory board);

Carry out entrepreneurial activities to manage a legal entity;

Manage a legal entity in other cases provided for by the legislation of the Russian Federation.

An administrative penalty in the form of disqualification is imposed by a judge. Disqualification may be applied to persons carrying out organizational, administrative or administrative functions in a body of a legal entity, to members of the board of directors, as well as to persons carrying out entrepreneurial activities without forming a legal entity, including arbitration managers.

An explanation of the concept of “similar offense” is given in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 24, 2005 No. 5 “On some issues that arise for courts when applying the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses” (as amended on November 11, 2008). In particular, it says that under a similar offense specified in Part 2 of Art. 5.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, it should be understood that an official has committed the same, and not any violation of labor and labor protection legislation. For example, if the head of the organization has already been subject to administrative punishment for non-payment of wages to an employee, but did the same with another employee.

Criminal liability

Criminal liability in such a case is provided for in Article 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

from the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

Article 145.1. Non-payment of wages, pensions, scholarships, benefits and other payments

1. Failure to pay wages, pensions, scholarships, allowances and other payments established by law for more than two months, committed by the head of an organization, an employer - an individual out of mercenary or other personal interest, is punishable by a fine in the amount of up to one hundred twenty thousand rubles or in the amount of wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to one year, or by deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to five years, or by imprisonment for a term of up to two years.

2. The same act, which entailed grave consequences, is punishable by a fine in the amount of one hundred thousand to five hundred thousand rubles or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of one to three years, or by imprisonment for a term of three to seven years with imprisonment the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a period of up to three years or without it.

The investigation of a criminal case regarding non-payment of wages is within the competence of the prosecutor's office. However, in practice, criminal liability under this article is rarely brought. Firstly, it is extremely difficult to prove that the head of the organization had “selfish or other personal interests.” Secondly, in the event of a dispute regarding the amount of wages between the employee and the employer law enforcement agencies often rely on the documents and information provided by the employer.

Hypothetically, one can try to prove that by not paying wages, the employer is violating Article 127.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. This article punishes the use of slave labor by a person in respect of whom the powers inherent in the right of ownership are exercised, if the person, for reasons beyond his control, cannot refuse to perform work (services).

The reader may have a reasonable question: what does non-payment of wages have to do with the use of slave labor? The fact is that Article 4 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, which, as we know, prohibits forced labor, includes violation of established deadlines for payment of wages or payment of wages not in full. The terms “forced labor” and “slave labor” are basically similar. Of course, in the event of non-payment of wages, an employee of the organization must prove that for reasons beyond his control he could not refuse to perform work (services). This is difficult to do, but we will try to give an example of such circumstances (example 2).

Example 2

There is only one enterprise in the village where women can work - a garment factory. Thus, female workers have no alternative when choosing a place of work, and in the event of a lawsuit, they can refer to the fact that, for reasons beyond their control, they had to work in this particular organization in order to feed themselves and their children.

Employee protection of their labor rights

According to Art. 142 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, in the event of a delay in payment of wages for a period of more than 15 days, the employee has the right, by notifying the employer in writing, to suspend work for the entire period of payment of the delayed amount. However, the Labor Code of the Russian Federation lists cases when suspension of work is not allowed:

During periods of martial law, a state of emergency or special measures in accordance with the legislation on a state of emergency;

In the bodies and organizations of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, other military, paramilitary and other formations and organizations in charge of ensuring the country's defense and state security, emergency rescue, search and rescue, fire-fighting work, work to prevent or eliminate natural disasters and emergency situations, in law enforcement agencies;

In organizations directly servicing particularly hazardous types of production and equipment;

Employees whose job responsibilities include performing work directly related to ensuring the livelihoods of the population (energy supply, heating and heat supply, water supply, gas supply, communications, ambulance and emergency medical care stations).

If the ban on suspension of work established by the Labor Code of the Russian Federation for certain categories of workers is violated, they may be brought to administrative responsibility (Article 20.26 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

Extraction
from the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses

Article 20.26. Unauthorized termination of work as a means of resolving a collective or individual labor dispute

1. Unauthorized termination of work or abandonment of a place of work as a means of resolving a collective or individual labor dispute by a person ensuring the safety of the relevant type of activity for the population, if such actions (inaction) are prohibited by federal law, -

shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of one thousand to one thousand five hundred rubles.

2. Organization of actions (inaction) provided for in Part 1 of this article -

shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of one thousand five hundred to two thousand five hundred rubles.

During the period of suspension of work, the employee has the right to be absent from his workplace during his working hours. However, he is obliged to return to work no later than the next working day after receiving written notification from the employer of his readiness to pay the delayed salary on the day the employee returns to work.

Please note that such employee behavior will be qualified by labor legislation not as absenteeism, but as “self-defense.” In this case, the employer does not have the right to hire another person to replace this employee. This is explained as follows.

The general rules that regulate the possibility of an employee using the right to self-defense are given in Art. 379 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation (“Forms of self-defense”) and 380 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation (“Obligation of the employer not to interfere with self-defense”). So, according to Art. 379 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, during the period of refusal to work, the employee retains all rights provided for by labor legislation and other acts containing labor law norms. That is why the employee retains his job. In addition, the period of self-defense is at the same time a period that is included in the length of service giving the right to annual paid leave. In accordance with Art. 380 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the employer or the employer’s representatives do not have the right to prevent employees from exercising their labor rights.

In practice, many controversial issues arise related to the use of an employee’s right to self-defense and, unfortunately, some of them have no answer. Thus, labor legislation does not directly answer the question: is the employer considered to have notified the employee of the suspension of work if the employer does not accept the notice. Unfortunately, judicial practice on this issue has also not developed.

Question on topic

Does an employee have the right to self-defense if there is a dispute about the existence of a debt, the amount of salary, etc.?

Let us turn to the situation that has already been described in example 1 (c.), in which the employer argued that the employee’s salary was not at all the amount that was specified in the employment contract. Naturally, the employee, to whom the employer refused to pay his salary, handed him a statement of suspension of work in accordance with Art. 142 Labor Code of the Russian Federation. To which the employer sent a notice of readiness to pay wages on the day the lawyer returned to work at the rate of 8,000 rubles. On reflection, the lawyer never showed up for work, and the amount of wages was proven in court, as we wrote above. However, the question arises: what would happen if the court came to the conclusion that the employee’s salary was still 8,000 rubles? In other words, the legality or illegality of using the employee’s right to self-defense was associated with this uncertain amount of wages. And if in the end the court found the employer to be right, the employee’s actions could not be qualified as self-defense in accordance with Art. 142 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, but as absenteeism.

In addition, the problems described may arise with controversial issues regarding the payment of bonuses, commissions, etc.

On the other hand, courts often consider it illegal to dismiss an employee for absenteeism who has exercised the right to self-defense in accordance with Art. 142 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, if the employer did not file a separate claim in court and did not prove in it that the employee’s actions were unlawful (example 3).

Example 3

In the expert opinion of the Independent Expert Legal Council on the case of dismissal for absenteeism in connection with the appointment of an examination by the Tuymazinsky District Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan and the request of the Tuymazinsky representative office of the Public Foundation "International Standard" in the Republic of Bashkortostan, the following conclusion was made.

Part 2 of Art. 45 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, everyone is guaranteed the opportunity to defend their rights and freedoms in ways not prohibited by law. One of the legal ways of self-defense of labor rights in case of their violation is suspension of work on the basis of Art. 142 Labor Code of the Russian Federation. An employee can use the right to self-defense of labor rights to restore both real and imaginary violations of his rights and legitimate interests. However, the parties to the labor relationship, that is, the employer and the employee, cannot assess the legality of the employee’s self-defense actions, and therefore the employer has the right to appeal such actions (inaction) of the employee in court, including challenging the existence or amount of wage arrears.

According to the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the obligation to execute court decisions arises after they enter into legal force, therefore, until the court recognizes the employee’s actions in self-defense of his labor rights as inconsistent with the law, the employer cannot legally hold the employee accountable. An employer may have such a right only if the employee refuses to comply with a court decision, which declared actions to self-defend labor rights illegal. Consequently, the presence of a court decision declaring an employee’s actions to self-defend labor rights illegal entails the employee’s obligation to terminate them and the employer’s corresponding right to demand such termination under the threat of applying sanctions provided for by law.

The employer’s lack of agreement with the employee’s arguments about the existence of arrears in payment of earnings and its amount does not deprive the employee of the right on the basis of Art. 45 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and Art. 142 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation to suspend work until the dispute is resolved by the court. The employer may initiate proceedings to resolve this dispute.

Yu. A. Khachaturyan,
lawyer

Moral and patriotic education can become an element of the educational process. Measures have been developed to ensure patriotic and moral education children and youth. The corresponding bill 1 was submitted to the State Duma by a member of the Federation Council Sergei […]
Basic laws to combat terrorism. Dossier In 1998, the Russian Federation adopted the Federal Law “On the Fight against Terrorism,” which for the first time in the history of Russia established the legal and organizational framework for the fight against terrorism, issues of coordination and […]
Registration of ownership of a land plot FREE OF CHARGE COST OF PROVIDING SEPARATE LEGAL SERVICES: (the standard package includes legal services with an emphasized cost) 2,500 rub. 5,000 rub. COSTS OF THE CASE (in addition to the fee for legal services): RUB 1,500. - […]
Guardianship in Ulyanovsk Zasviyazhsky district On May 16, 2018, events of the regional propaganda train “For healthy image life and a healthy, happy family." On May 8, the military patriotic game “Zarnichka” took place at the preschool educational institution. Congratulations to the winners of the city festival for children […]
Employment of teenagers: when, how, how much and with whom can a child work in the summer? Contents of the article: Working child. In the twenty-first century, this will surprise few people. TO child labor European and Western countries have long been accustomed to it. In Germany, thirteen-year-olds […]
Which one is it now? retirement age in Russia for men and women? Will it be increased from 2017-2019 to 63/65 years? The most last news from the State Duma is not planned. for civil servants - insurance period with it is necessary to regulate the possibility of retraining reduction […]
The state fee for registering a land plot with a blocked residential building located on it will be 350 rubles. The Russian Ministry of Finance clarified that in relation to a land plot with the type of permitted use “blocked residential development” the state duty for state registration […]
WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW ABOUT THE NEW PENSION LAW Subscription to news A letter to confirm your subscription has been sent to the e-mail you specified. March 06, 2017 From filing an application for disposal of maternity capital funds to payment – 1 month 10 days In accordance with […]

1. Non-payment of pension - definition.

So, let’s consider situations that often occur in legal practice, when a citizen who has the right to a pension, for some reason does not receive a pension guaranteed by law. In general, in our country, an official guilty of non-payment of a pension can be prosecuted, including to criminal liability under Article 145.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Most often, non-payment of a pension can occur in several cases: this is either when assigning a pension to a citizen, or when transferring from one pension to another, for example, when transferring from military pension for work. It is possible that a citizen receiving a disability pension does not provide documents for the annual re-examination of disabled people on time. But, of course, no one is immune from the negligence of pension fund employees.
If non-payment of a pension occurs after filing an application for a pension with the Pension Fund, you need to know: the Federal Law “On Labor Pensions” clearly defines all deadlines. Consideration of the application must take place within 10 days from the date of acceptance of the application for a pension, and if, for some reason, the Pension Fund refuses to assign a pension, then the applicant must be notified no later than 5 days from the date of the decision on refusal, with a mandatory indication of the reasons such a refusal.
Retirees receiving a pension, we believe, should not worry if the payment of the pension is delayed by 3-5 days, this happens, but if the pension is not paid for 2 weeks or more, this is a reason to contact the pension fund for clarification.

2. How to collect unpaid pension.

If a situation arises where the pension is not paid, the first thing you need to do is submit a statement with which you present your arguments and demand explanations about the current situation. Perhaps the pension fund has some errors in documents or technical problems, etc. You also need to contact the Pension Fund to receive a written response outlining the situation from the pension fund.
If you are not satisfied with the answer, or the answer is simply a reply, then the next authority will be the prosecutor's office. The prosecutor's office has the authority to go to court in the interests of protecting the violated rights of pensioners, especially if it is difficult for them to do this themselves, due to any reasons, for example, limited mobility or other serious problems with health. Of course, you can skip this stage and immediately file a claim in court.
If the prosecutor’s office determines that failure to pay a citizen’s pension has led to serious consequences, for example, the inability to pay for treatment, which causes harm to health, the culprit may be held criminally liable.

3. Collection of unpaid pensions - judicial practice.

Judicial practice in cases of recovery of unpaid pensions is clear and not contradictory. A statement of claim for recovery of an unpaid pension should be filed, depending on the amount that needs to be recovered, either to the magistrate’s court, if the amount is less than 50 thousand rubles, or to the district (city) court, for a larger amount, at the location of the territorial body of the pension fund.
If the plaintiff's claim is satisfied, the court will oblige the defendant to pay the plaintiff all unpaid pension amounts, taking into account all indexations. Let us note that, together with demands to recover the unpaid pension, the plaintiff may also demand to recover a penalty.
Go to court to protect your violated pension rights, and our company’s lawyers are guaranteed to help you with this!

On the collection of unpaid pensions, taking into account indexation

Case no.

Accepted Oktyabrsky District Court of Krasnoyarsk ( Krasnoyarsk region)

Oktyabrsky District Court of Krasnoyarsk, consisting of:
presiding judge: Kharitonov A.S.
with the participation of plaintiff Lebedev E.F.,
representative of the defendant – O.S. Ivanova,
under the secretary: Sokolova E.V.,
Having considered in open court a civil case based on the claim of Lebedev E.F. to the Administration of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation (GU) for the Oktyabrsky district of Krasnoyarsk about the collection of unpaid pensions, taking into account indexation,
Installed:
Lebedev E.F. filed a lawsuit against the Administration of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation (GU) in the Oktyabrsky district of Krasnoyarsk for the recovery of unpaid pension from the defendant for the period from August 1999 to January 2003 inclusive, taking into account its indexation for August 2009, as well as the recovery of legal costs in the amount of 6,000 rubles related to the execution of a notarized power of attorney and payment for the services of a representative. He motivated his demands by the fact that by the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Krasnoyarsk dated 04/07/2009, which entered into legal force on 07/15/2009, he (the plaintiff) was recognized as having the right to early appointment old-age pension from the date of application - 08/11/1999, taking into account the inclusion in the length of service for the early assignment of an old-age labor pension of periods of work as a driver of a timber truck, after which the defendant paid him (the plaintiff) a pension for the period from August 1999 to January 2003 year (the date from which the plaintiff was assigned a pension upon reaching the age of 60) in the amount of 38,702 rubles 90 kopecks. At the same time, taking into account indexation, the pension not received by the plaintiff as of August 2009 amounted to 102,822 rubles, in connection with which he asks to recover the difference between this amount and that paid to him by the defendant.
At the court hearing, plaintiff Lebedev E.F. supported the requirements set out in the statement of claim in full on the grounds stated above.
The representative of the defendant of the Main Directorate of the UPF of the Russian Federation in the Oktyabrsky district of Krasnoyarsk is O.S. Ivanova. (acting on the basis of power of attorney No. 136 dated June 20, 2011) objected to the satisfaction of the claim, pointing out that in accordance with paragraph “c” of Art. 7 Federal Law of the Russian Federation dated DD.MM.YYYY No. “O” state pensions in the Russian Federation" the increase in assigned pensions in connection with the increase in wages in the country is carried out four times a year - from February 1, May 1, August 1 and November 01, and the increase in pensions calculated according to the norms of the Law without applying an individual coefficient is carried out within the time frame provided for in paragraph “c”, by indexation in accordance with the increase in the average monthly payment in the country, thus, the calculation for the period from August 1999 to January 2003 to Lebedev E.F. produced taking into account indexation. In addition, the pension authority is not to blame for the delay in payment made on the basis of a court decision. As for the collection of legal costs, the plaintiff did not provide evidence of incurring these costs in the framework of this case.
The court, having heard the persons participating in the case, having examined the evidence presented by the parties, considers the claims of Lebedev E.F. subject to partial satisfaction, on the following grounds:
In accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, at the request of the claimant or debtor, the court that considered the case may index the amounts of money collected by the court on the day of execution of the court decision.
Considering that the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Krasnoyarsk from DD.MM.YYYY in the case of the claim of Lebedev E.F. to the Office of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation (State Institution) in the Oktyabrsky district of Krasnoyarsk on recognition of the right to early assignment of a labor pension; the debt of the pension to the plaintiff for the period from 1999 to 2003 was not recovered, Lebedev E.F. claims have been justifiably filed in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.
In accordance with paragraph. 2 tbsp. 58 of the Law of the Russian Federation N 4468-1 of February 12, 1993, the amount of the pension not received by the pensioner on time due to the fault of the body assigning or paying the pension is paid for the past without any limitation.
According to the requirements established by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the amount paid under a monetary obligation directly for the maintenance of a citizen... is indexed taking into account the level of inflation in the manner and cases provided for by law.
Indexation of the awarded sums of money does not depend on the debtor’s guilt in the long-term non-recalculation of the pension, since indexation is not a measure of the debtor’s civil liability for improper performance of his duties, but a mechanism that makes it possible to fully compensate for the plaintiff’s losses from the long-term non-payment of the pension in full. Considering that the non-payment of the pension caused property damage to the plaintiff, the court has the right to satisfy his request to index the amount of the underpaid pension taking into account the consumer price growth index calculated by state statistical bodies.
As can be seen from the case materials, by the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court<адрес>from DD.MM.YYYY in the case according to the claim of Lebedev E.F. to the Office of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation (State Institution) in the Oktyabrsky district of Krasnoyarsk on the recognition of the right to early assignment of a labor pension, left unchanged by the cassation ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court from DD.MM.YYYY, for Lebedev E.F. the right to early assignment of an old-age pension was recognized from the date of application - DD.MM.YYYY of the year, with the obligation being imposed on the Administration of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation in the Oktyabrsky district of Krasnoyarsk to include in the length of service for the early assignment of an old-age labor pension the period of work: from DD. MM.YYYY to DD.MM.YYYY in position<данные изъяты>; from DD.MM.YYYY to DD.MM.YYYY as a driver<данные изъяты>
As established at the court hearing, Lebedev E.F. in connection with reaching the age of 60 years with DD.MM.YYYY, an old-age pension was assigned (on general terms).
In connection with the recognition by the court decision of Lebedev E.F. the right to early assignment of an old-age pension from the date of application - DD.MM.YYYY, with the assignment of responsibility to the Administration of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation in<адрес>include in the length of service for early assignment of an old-age labor pension the period of work: from DD.MM.YYYY to DD.MM.YYYY as a driver of a timber truck<данные изъяты>; from DD.MM.YYYY to DD.MM.YYYY as a driver of a timber truck<данные изъяты>", the defendant's party DD.MM.YYYY was accrued and paid to Lebedev E.F. pension for the period from August 1999 to January 2003 (inclusive) in the amount of 38,702 rubles 90 kopecks (case sheet 47-49). What was stated by the parties was not disputed at the court hearing.
In this regard, Lebedev E.F. requests to recover from the Administration of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation (GU) in the Oktyabrsky district of Krasnoyarsk the unpaid pension for the period from August 1999 to January 2003 inclusive, taking into account indexation for August 2009, taking into account the fact that the total amount of debt, taking into account indexation since August 1999 to January 2003 inclusive, taking into account indexation for August 2009, amounted to 102,822 rubles, minus the paid pension in the amount of 38,702 rubles 90 kopecks, according to the calculation presented by the plaintiff (case file 17-18).
Having assessed the evidence presented by the parties, regarding the requirements of Lebedev E.F. on the recovery from the Administration of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation (GU) in the Oktyabrsky district of Krasnoyarsk of an unpaid pension for the period from August 1999 to January 2003 inclusive, taking into account indexation for August 2009 in the amount of 64,119 rubles 10 kopecks, the court takes into account the fact that over the past period of time, due to inflation and rising prices, the amount of debt has depreciated, and therefore, the court considers it necessary to recover from the Office of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation (GU) in the Oktyabrsky district of Krasnoyarsk the debt for pension provision Lebedeva E.F. taking into account the indexation of the amount to consumer price growth indices determined by the Territorial body of the Federal State Statistics Service for the Krasnoyarsk Territory, taking into account that consumer price growth indices, being an economic indicator of price growth, objectively reflect the level of inflation at the plaintiff’s place of residence and characterize inflation processes in country, based on the following calculation:
The calculation of the unpaid pension, taking into account indexation for the period from August 1999 to January 2003 (inclusive), as well as the unpaid pension, taking into account indexation from 2003 to August 2009, is subject to recovery based on the following calculation:

Result (gr.4 gr.5) 4 6 335.84 340.21 500.126 503.63 503,627 515.21 574,270 582.88 582.884 595,12 2 537,05 595.125 618,93 709,480 716,57 716.575 723.02 723.024 728.81 784.878 791,94 791,942 805,40 805.405 808,63 808.627 819,14 819,139 829,79 829,787 850,53 908.642 928.63 928.632 949.99 9 571,39 949,991 986,09 1050.060 1 064.76 1064.761 1 079.67 1079.668 1 104.50 1104,500 1 121,07 1121,068 1 161.43 1161.426 1 169.56 1239.916 1 252.32 1252,315 1 258,58 1258,577 1 268,65 1268.646 1 304.17 1304.168 1 332.86 14 103,64 1782,459 1 839,50 1926,828 1 953,80 1953.804 2 014.37 1430.81 1430,81 1430,81 1430.81 1559,58 1559,58 1559,58 1559,58 1559,58 17 726,24 150,92 38 702,90 2003 2004 2005 year 2006 2007 2008 year 2009 January February March April May June July August TOTAL:

Period	Original amount		Amount increased pensions	Amount to be calculated gr.3+gr.6 previous month)		Coeff. Inflation %
1	2		3		5
August	335,84		0		101,30%
September	495.76		159.92		100.70%
October	495,76		0		102.30%
november	554,82		59.06		101,50%
December	554,82		0		102.10%
TOTAL 1999:	2 437,00
January	554,82		0		104,00%
February	645,37		90,55		101.00%
March	645.37		0		100,90%
April	645,37		0		100.80%
May	701,44		56.07		100.90%
June	701,44		0		101,70%
July	701,44		0		100.40%
August	701.44		0		101,30%
September	701,44		0		101,30%
October	701,44		0		102,50%
november	759,55		58,11		102.20%
December	759.55		0		102.30%
TOTAL 2000:	8 218,67
January	759,55		0		103.80%
February	823,52		63,97		101.40%
March	823.52		0		101,40%
April	823,52		0		102,30%
May	823,52		0		101,50%
June	823,52		0		103.60%
July	823.52		0		100.70%
August	893.88		70.36		101.00%
September	893,88		0		100,50%
October	893,88		0		100,80%
november	893.88		0		102,80%
December	893.88		0		102,20%
TOTAL 2001:	10 170,07
January	1343,48		449.6		103,20%
February	1430.81		87.33		101,40%
March	1430.81		0		103.10%
April		0	2014.372		100.90%		2 032.50
May		0	2032,501		101,40%		2 060,96
June		0	2060.956		100.50%		2 071,26
July		0	2071.261		100.70%		2 085.76
August		128,77	2214.530		99,80%		2210.10
September		0	2210,101		101,30%		2 238,83
October		0	2238.832		101,10%		2 263.46
november		0	2263.459		101.20%		2 290.62
December		0	2290.620		101.20%		2318.11
TOTAL 2002:							25 379,27
January 2003		-1408,66	909,448		103,20%		938,55
TOTAL:							52 529,90
TOTAL from 1999 to 2002								51 591,35
38 702,90			51 591,35		118,40%		61 084,16
			61084.158		110,30%		67 375,83
			67375.826		109.30%		73 641.78
			73641.778		109.60%		80 711,39
			80711,388		109,20%		88 136,84
			88136,836		111,80%		98 536,98
							0.00
			98536.983		102,20%		100 704.80
			100704.797		101.40%		102 114.66
			102114,664		101,50%		103 646,38
			103646,384		100,50%		104 164.62
			104164.616		100,30%		104 477.11
			104477.109		100,70%		105 208.45
			105208,449		100,50%		105 734,49
			105734.491		100,10%		105 840.23
							105 840,23

Thus, taking into account the above calculation, the unpaid pension for the period from August 1999 to January 2003 inclusive, taking into account indexation for August 2009 in the amount of 67,137 rubles 33 kopecks ( 105840.23 (total amount taking into account indexation) – 38702.90 (amount of pension paid for the period from 1999 to January 2003).
However, since the plaintiff claimed to recover the indexation amount for the specified period in the amount of 64,120 rubles, the court has no reason to go beyond the price of the claim.
In this case, the court takes into account the fact that evidence of a different calculation (the total amount taking into account indexation) by the defendant, by virtue of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, was not presented and was not disputed.
The defendant's arguments that there are no legal grounds for indexation of the pension amount for the payment period: from August 1999 to January 2003, in connection with the indexation of its size in accordance with the coefficients established by the Government of the Russian Federation and individual laws based on paragraphs. 6.7 tbsp. 17 Federal Law No. 173, as well as for the subsequent indexation of the amount of the pension for the disputed period, paid to the plaintiff in 2009 on the basis of a court decision in the absence of fault of the pension authority for the delay, are not accepted by the court, since they are based on an incorrect interpretation of the current legislation. As established at the court hearing, by the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court<адрес>from DD.MM.YYYY the right of Lebedev E.F. was established. for the early assignment of a pension from DD.MM.YYYY, in connection with which the defendant’s side accrued to the plaintiff a pension for the period from the specified date to DD.MM.YYYY in the amount of 38,702 rubles 90 kopecks, which was paid to Lebedev E.F.DD. MM.YYYY. Thus, since during the period of non-receipt of the pension, its amount depreciated as a result of inflation, Lebedev E.F. has the right to indexation of the untimely paid amount, regardless of the absence of fault of the pension authority in the delay in payment.
According to the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the party in whose favor the court decision was made, the court awards the other party to reimburse all legal costs incurred in the case.
The Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation provides that the party in whose favor the court decision was made, upon its written request, the court awards the other party the costs of paying for the services of a representative within reasonable limits.
Considering the stated claims of Lebedev E.F. on the collection of legal expenses in the amount of 6,000 rubles incurred by the plaintiff, of which 1,000 rubles for the execution of a notarized power of attorney and 5,000 rubles for the services of a representative, then the court considers it necessary to satisfy the stated requirements only in terms of recovery from the defendant of legal expenses incurred in connection with the execution the plaintiff's side issued a notarized power of attorney for the representative - Lebedeva Z.N. participating in court hearings in the amount of 1000 rubles, which is confirmed by the submitted notarized power of attorney.
At the same time, the requirements of Lebedev E.F. In terms of recovery from the defendant of legal expenses incurred by him in connection with payment for the services of a representative in the amount of 5,000 rubles, the court considers that it is not subject to satisfaction.
As can be seen from the case materials, Lebedev E.F. asks the court to recover from the defendant the legal costs of paying for the services of a representative in the amount of 5,000 rubles, the plaintiff confirms the fact of payment of the said amount in the present case by the submitted agreement dated DD.MM.YYYY (case file 13), from which it follows that Sidorova L.A. . accepted from Lebedev E.F. 5,000 rubles for the provision of legal services (consultation, drawing up a statement of claim, representation in court with all the rights of the plaintiff, appealing court decisions in the regional court, approval of real estate in various instances), representing interests in private prosecution cases, administrative cases , at the same time, evidence that legal services were paid for by Lebedev E.F. It is in this case that the court has not been presented and this does not follow from the presented agreement. The said agreement is dated DD.MM.YYYY, whereas in the present case statement of claim was submitted by Lebedev E.F. DD.MM.YYYY, while Sidorova L.A. which the funds were accepted under the said agreement did not participate in the court hearing. Thus, there is no evidence that legal services were provided to E.F. Lebedev. and paid by the plaintiff in this case, the latter was not presented by virtue of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.
The list of expenses that relate to the costs associated with the consideration of the case is indicated in the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.
At the same time, based on the interpretation of this article, only those expenses that are directly related to the consideration of the case in court are taken into account as part of legal costs.
There was no evidence presented to the court that Lebedev E.F. actually incurred legal costs in the amount of 5,000 rubles in the present case in connection with filing a claim for indexation of amounts, and therefore in satisfying the demands for the recovery of legal costs in the amount of 5,000 rubles to Lebedev E.F. must be refused.
The rest of the claims will be rejected.
The decision can be appealed in cassation to the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court through the Oktyabrsky District Court of Krasnoyarsk within 10 days from the date the decision was made in final form.
Copy is right.
Chairman: A.S. Kharitonov

Litigation regarding non-payment of a lump sum pension. Ulyanovsk Regional Court - judicial act