On behalf of the Russian Federation

RESOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

of November 19, 2015 No. 29-P

On the case of check of constitutionality of Item 1 of article 10 of the Federal law "About Work Pensions in the Russian Federation" in connection with the claim of the citizen N. K. Shmatkov

Constitutional court of the Russian Federation as a part of the Chairman V. D. Zorkin, K. V. Aranovsky's judges, A. I. Boytsova, N. S. Bondar, G. A. Gadzhiyev, Yu. M. Danilov, L. M. Zharkova, G. A. Zhilin, S. M. Kazantsev, M. I. Kleandrov, S. D. Knyazev, A. N. Kokotov, L. O. Krasavchikova, S. P. Mavrin, N. V. Melnikov, Yu. D. Rudkin, O. S. Hokhryakova, V. G. Yaroslavtsev,

being guided by Article 125 (part 4) Constitutions of the Russian Federation, Item 3 parts one, parts three and the fourth Article 3, Article part one 21, Articles 36, 47.1, 74, 86, 96, 97 and 99 Federal constitutional Laws "About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation",

considered in meeting without carrying out hearing case on check of constitutionality of Item 1 of article 10 of the Federal law "About Work Pensions in the Russian Federation".

Reason for consideration of the case was the claim of the citizen N. K. Shmatkov. The basis to consideration of the case was the found uncertainty in question of whether there corresponds to the Constitution of the Russian Federation the legislative provision disputed by the applicant.

Having heard the message of the judge-speaker Yu. D. Rudkin, having studied the submitted documents and other materials, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation

established:

1. According to Item 1 of article 10 of the Federal Law of December 17, 2001 No. 173-FZ "About work pensions in the Russian Federation" the insurance years of service join the periods of work and (or) other activities which were carried out in the territory of the Russian Federation by the citizens of the Russian Federation insured according to the Federal Law "About Mandatory Pension Insurance in the Russian Federation" provided that for these periods insurance premiums were paid to the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation.

Cassation determination of judicial board on civil cases of the Novosibirsk regional court of May 24, 2007 to N. K. Shmatkov recovered working life from January 26, 1995 till May 24, 2007, and the decision of October district court of the city of Novosibirsk of October 19, 2009 - from May 25, 2007 till October 19, 2009.

Management of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation in Sovetsky district of the city of Novosibirsk according to the offer of Jobcenter of the city of Novosibirsk since November 3, 2010 to N. K. Shmatkov ahead of schedule appointed work old-age pension. As insurance part of pension was calculated only for the period till December 31, 2001, N. K. Shmatkov appealed to October district court of the city of Novosibirsk with the claim for recovery of the pension rights, in particular about inclusion in insurance years of service of the period from January 1, 2002 to November 2, 2010, transfer to its individual personal account in the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation of money according to the procedure of execution for the insurer of obligation on payment of insurance premiums for the specified period and performing recalculation of pension.

By the decision of October district court of the city of Novosibirsk of October 30, 2012 left without change appeal determination of judicial board on civil cases of the Novosibirsk regional court of February 19, 2013 satisfaction of claims to N. K. Shmatkov it was refused with reference to lack of the bases for inclusion in insurance years of service of the claimant of the periods which are not relating to the periods of work and (or) other activities specified in article 10 of the Federal law "About Work Pensions in the Russian Federation" for which insurance premiums were paid to the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation, and also by other periods which are set off in insurance years of service according to article 11 of the same Federal Law. At the same time the court noted that actions and decisions of state bodies did not interfere with it to perform labor activity, the evidence of impossibility to go to work as a result of criminal prosecution is not produced by it. Transfer of the writ of appeal of N. K. Shmatkov on the specified court decrees for consideration in judicial session of Judicial board on civil cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation it is refused (determination of the judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of July 2, 2013, the letter of the Vice-chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of November 7, 2013).

1.2. As appears from Articles 74, 96 and 97 Federal constitutional Laws "About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation", the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, checking according to the claim of the citizen constitutionality of the law or its separate provisions affecting constitutional rights and freedoms to which violation the applicant refers, and applied in specific case which consideration is complete in court accepts the resolution only in the subject specified in the claim and only concerning that part of the act which constitutionality is called in question, estimating both literal sense of the checked legislative provisions, and the sense given them by official and other interpretation or the developed law-enforcement practice and also proceeding from their place in system of precepts of law, without being connected in case of decision making by the bases and arguments stated in the claim.

Disclaimer! This text was translated by AI translator and is not a valid juridical document. No warranty. No claim. More info