a veteran of world war II can be considered a person who is not a day fought in the period from 1941 to 1945, but defended the interests of the country in other military operations – this explanation was given by the Supreme court. However, these defenders of the Fatherland can not count on all veterans ‘ benefits and payments.
the intricacies of the law “On veterans” of the Supreme judges had to deal with the filing of the inhabitant of the Altai Republic Gennady Tretyakov. The plaintiff is considered a full participant of the great Patriotic war. He and the “crust” is appropriate there issued by the FSB in 2017. Only there is one “but”: Tretyakov, a single day was not at war with the Nazis. But given duty to the Motherland in the military operation in the region of damanskii island in March 1969. For military merit in the solution to the border Sino-Soviet conflict it equated to veterans. Moreover, the law allows such a maneuver. It said that the participants of the great Patriotic war are not only those who actually participated in it. It also took legislators and defenders of interests of the country in any military conflict. Moreover, both before and after the second world war. For example, in the list of the Soviet-Polish war of 1920, the operation to eliminate basmachestva 1922-31 years fighting in Spain in the years 1936-39, the war with Finland and Japan. The participants in these operations, as the law States and they believed the plaintiff also relies a whole package of benefits provided for those who drove the Nazis to Berlin: increased pension, discounts on housing and communal services and other social bonuses. However, when the decree of the President about lump sum payments to the anniversary of Victory in the great Patriotic war, officials of the Pension Fund of the Tretyakov transfer money refused and said that he can’t be a member of the second world war, because at that time did not fight. The plaintiff went for help to the Prosecutor. The Agency stood on his side: once the law is written “member” then and there, though not involved. With this position of the Prosecutor of the Biysk filed to protect the interests of the military action in court and won the first and second instance. But the clerks FIU stood his ground and demanded a clarification from the Supreme court. The high court concluded, disappointing for a “veteran on paper”. Despite the fact that the power law above the decrees and resolutions in money matters play a crucial role they. In particular, in the decree on payments for the anniversary of Victory clearly States that the funds do not rely all participants of the second world war, but only those who fought at the front in 1941-45.
