KS has protected the wounded police and ruined agricultural manufacturers
Yesterday the Constitutional court has published two decisions, taken out by it in the closed mode: on business of the wounded militiaman in resignation and on terms of limitation of actions for budgetary credits to landowners.
Though judges KS also have left on the summer vacations prepared by them still before holidays of the decision under complaints, accepted to consideration, regularly appear for promulgation on a court site. Yesterday on site KS two decisions which have been taken out in session without carrying out of hearing (this innovation has appeared to accelerate legal proceedings) have been laid out. Unites these two decisions, however, even not so much term of their occurrence, how many the original approach to an estimation of challenged norms and purely material underlying reason.
Konstantin Ohotnikova`s dismissed from service in April, 2009 Business, logically lays down in a chain socially - focused decisions KS. If not one “ But “: the decision directly co-ordinates with the Law “ About police “ (“ challenged Ohotnikovym regulation as a matter of fact is kept regarding 5 articles 43 of the Law “ About police “) And, thus, is beyond one good deed. Serving to the senior operupolnomochennym in the Smolensk region Konstantin Ohotnikov has been wounded in the Chechen Republic during business trip, and after examination it recognised “ suitable for military service with insignificant restrictions (category) “. It means that Ohotnikovu could offer, by rules of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, work in passport - visa service, in private security, economic or financial work, service in editions or motor transport services. In general, the list big, but to it pick up nothing Ohotnikova could also have dismissed “ in connection with impossibility of transfer into a post approaching it on a state of health “ on point “ z “. If it have wounded so that would recognise ogranichenno as suitable (“ a category In “) That Hunters would receive at dismissal a lump sum at a rate of the five years` monetary maintenance. To the applicant has carried with health, but did not carry in courts where he tried to defend the rights, has not addressed yet in KS. There a situation have solved simply: “ to all police officers received physical injuries in connection with realisation of office activity and dismissed from service in militia on point “ z “ parts of 7 articles 19 of the Law “ About militia “ the right to a lump sum " should be with equal reason provided;.
Therefore KS recognised that a part of 3 articles 29 of the Law “ About militia “ does not correspond to the Constitution in that part in what interfered with the applicant to receive this payment. However, in decision KS to the federal legislator it is prompted that they “ Have the right to carry out taking into account various weight of physical injuries differentiation of the sizes of a lump sum which is subject to payment to the persons dismissed from service in view of impossibility of its further passage “.
Also KS has published the position in reply to inquiry of the Supreme Arbitration Court, recognising as not contradicting the Constitution point 4 of article 93 (4) of the Budgetary code, a part of 6 articles 5 FZ “ About modification of the Budgetary code of the Russian Federation regarding regulation of budgetary process and reduction in conformity with the budgetary legislation of the Russian Federation of separate acts of the Russian Federation “ and also article 116 FZ “ About the federal budget for 2007 “.
However in decision KS the new understanding of claim limitation periods is given when the debtor managed to obtain the credit from the budget of the Russian Federation. All has begun with Open Society dispute “ Rosagrosnab “ and the Voronezh regional association of country (farmer) economy “ the Field “ Concluded in 2000 the leasing contract on machine-building production and breeding cattle. Delays on payments, and Open Society " have then begun; Rosagrosnab “ has tried to receive money, referring to argument that on it, as on “ the agent of the government of the Russian Federation “ terms of limitation of actions do not extend.
KS with this idea has agreed not quite. On the one hand, introduction of special regulation in similar cases, is considered by judges, it is necessary, as the state in this situation acts as “ a regulator of economic relations “ operating in public interests for the sake of “ disbalance elimination in development of this or that branch of economy “ instead of for the sake of profit. With another - the term of limitation of actions not limited on time under state requirements would lead to infringement of equality of the parties in court, therefore KS demands from the legislator “ to establish a concrete time limit for the increased term of limitation of actions “. If for January, 1st, 2007 the three-year limitation period has expired, it cannot be prolonged, consider in KS and if has not expired - that challenged norm it is possible to apply and achieve from the debtor of return of budgetary funds.