the Decision not only affects one specific family, which could reach the constitutional court. And to put the money issue in front of the judges, that is, the rib – you decide how unconstitutional termination of benefits when a disabled child has grown and no longer a child, and the disability it will not go away.
the fact that these children with disabilities and their parents have a lot. Figures for the current year, of course, not yet, but according to the Ministry of labour last year, these guys in Russia were 670 thousand. And each of them has a parent or guardian. And it’s at least two times more adults with serious problems and concerns that are associated with a disabled person in the family. So the citizen, appealed to the constitutional court of the country decided not only to your personal question.
She helped all who were in a similar situation. The constitutional court gave legislators six months to correct the article in the pension law which is unconstitutional.
Name of the woman, which I must say thank you, Inna Dashkova. She is from Chelyabinsk. Dashkova asked some of the most experienced judges in the country to check the provisions of the Federal law “About insurance pensions”. More precisely, article 17. Son Inna – Konstantin – from childhood were established disability of the first group permanently, he declared incapacitated and requires constant care. On this basis, Dashkova had the opportunity to retire early.
In 50 years, she was established the old-age pension with a small surcharge for the fact that her dependent is a minor child. Total amount – 9830 roubles.
But when Constantine turned 18, the surcharge was removed on the grounds that the pension of the son, therefore, the income of the mother cannot be considered as a main source of its existence.
Judicial practice in similar cases is different in different regions of the country. But Dashkova, the cornerstone was set a material component.
the Court found insignificant (insignificant) continuity of care of the plaintiff for a family member with a disability since childhood – the mother wrote in the complaint. – This statement in the least detract from the dignity of the claimant as a citizen of the Russian Federation.
the Decision in this case, the constitutional court decided, without a public hearing. The court relied on its own previously expressed legal positions.
the most important thing the court stated, – “the provisions of article 17 of the Federal law “About insurance pensions” is recognized as not corresponding to the Constitution, as because of the uncertainty they allow a different approach to the solution of the question of the right of parents with disabled children who have reached the age of majority, for the preservation of high fixed payments to old-age pension”.
first and foremost, the Constitutional court had to perform ��AMO the concept of “dependent”.
the Legislation links it primarily with situations where a family loses a breadwinner, it is deprived of its source of income.
Previously, the constitutional court has already emphasized: the concept does not exclude that the person, a dependent may be your source of income. Children under 18 years are recognised dependants a priori.
But after they grow up, the fact that the necessary assistance is necessary to prove in court. And such regulation applies, including for children with disabilities.
In the situation of old-age pension, the court stated, “the practice of implementation of the contested norms indicates the uncertainty of its normative content.”
in Addition to decisions, a similar situation Inna Dashkova, there are other interpretations. For example, Penza and Rostov regional courts considered that “it doesn’t matter the ratio of the income of the disabled since childhood and his parents, as was the assistance provided to the disabled since childhood, his parent, can be expressed not only directly in cash”.
as a result, the pension provision of the citizens belonging to one category – the parents of disabled children who need constant care and assistance (supervision), is carried out in different size, said the constitutional court.
thus, according to the Supreme court, violated the constitutional principle of equality, meaning among other things the prohibition of different treatment of persons in equal or similar situation that is contrary to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, its articles 19 and 39.
the main court emphasized that the termination of applications article 17 as not conforming to the Constitution may entail negative consequences, depriving allowances for dependents of those citizens who are most severely in need. Therefore, the Federal legislator is tasked to eliminate the uncertainty of the rate within six months, and before that the norm will continue the action. However, for Inna Dashkova made an exception in her case should be reviewed on the basis that the decision of the constitutional court of the Russian Federation.
