Vocabulary will replenish Pension Fund

1

Словарный запас пополнит Пенсионный фонд

The constitutional court confirmed that physicians do not qualify for early retirement, if in the names of their clinics did not use the word “institution”.

On Board of the Prosecutor General’s office on March 23, Vladimir Putin said that the Prosecutor’s office in 2015, 3.2 million revealed violations of the rights and freedoms of citizens. “A huge figure”, — said the President.
Show completely… unfortunately, to this figure have anything to add. Was, for example, that doctors and other medical professionals working in private clinics, do not qualify for early retirement, although all the other doctors in clinics, hospitals, dispensaries, is provided.

Health workers on early retirement. This is enshrined in the law “On labour pensions”: if a physician or other medical professional worked 25 years in medical institutions in rural areas or 30 years in the city, he may be issued a pension, even if he has not reached the General retirement age.

Yuri Kutyrkin worked at the most advanced edge of medicine — “first aid” for 35 years. After the First honey was distributed at the most romantic and idealistic reasons, the ambulance is on 3-th Moscow substation, and still drives to the challenges, only since 1993 have moved from urban substations in the Moscow private clinic “Medicine”.

Two years ago, a colleague reminded Yuri Semyonovich, that we can already draw an early retirement. Experience he has by that time passed over 32 years. But when he turned to the Pension Fund for early retirement, it was refused. Explained exactly what are not able to include him in medical experience years working in a private clinic.

It was at the end of 2013. Before colleagues and from private and public clinics regularly arrange early retirement. Work usually continued, but this small bonus for the hard work — 8-9 thousand rubles — extra nobody seemed, especially when salaries began to fall.

Failure Kutyrkin discussed at work with the lawyer of the organization and decided that we should submit to the court.

Yuri S. said: “it Was obviously some kind of mistake. What is the relationship between the ownership form of the organization in which I work, and my pension? I fly the same as my colleagues in public hospitals. We have graduated from one University, we have the same job descriptions, not to mention the fact that all the Hippocratic oath. We, along with urban doctors “fast” development of qualification. I sit next to them at the courses in Sklif, Monique, in MFBA. I intersect with them all the time in emergency rooms of hospitals, where, as they bring patients. And in the car when we’re going to call, we have the same styling. Works according to the same standards and orders. Yes, the clinic “Medicine” — OAO — open joint-stock company, but it’s not a bakery, not a restaurant, not a Barber, this is a health care institution license to the most complex types of medical care: cardiac surgery, Oncology, urology. I work for bet and Pension Fund accounting regularly donates. It is obvious that the Pension Fund infringes my rights”.

In February 2014, the Simonovsky district court of Moscow declared illegal the refusal of the Pension Fund and ordered the Respondent to appoint the applicant an early labour old-age pension.

Only it’s not the end of the story. The court in Russia is a long one. Pension Fund the decision of the court Simonovsky challenged. And in June 2014 the Moscow city court the decision of Simonovsky court reversed, in purpose of early retirement Kutyrkin refused because “of “Medicine” by its legal form is not a health facility”.

Not realizing where he was working, if not in a medical facility, where he goes to his “fast”, if not to the sick, Kutyrkin in November 2014 addressed to the Presidium of Moscow city court with cassation complaint against entered into legal force the decision of the judicial Board of Moscow city court.

There it was. The transfer of cassational complaint for consideration in judicial session Kutyrkin was denied. The judge of Moscow city court in its decision of December 26, 2014 endorsed the reasoning of the judicial Board that “JSC “Medicine” is an independent economic entity, operates on the basis of self-financing, the state is not liable for obligations of the company, and the company is not liable for the obligations of the state, its agencies and other organizations and businesses, thus, JSC “Medicine” in its organizational-legal form is not a health facility”, and therefore legitimate grounds for early retirement at Kutyrkin.

By the way, I must say that the clinic “Medicine” works and CHI — compulsory health insurance, i.e. for obligations of the state still is responsible too.

And then I am afraid to suggest this quirky state, where another pocket where lie our money, but the question arises: why is the government still pays pensions to employees of non-state actors after they reach retirement age? That is, grace doesn’t want to pay, and on the same basis is still not shutting down? Illogical as it turns out. Turns out that before the doctor, spent 30 years, the state is not responsible, and when he turns 60, it already carries? Quite to deny pensions — an explosive and partially cut pension rights.

Here and Kutyrkin did not understand and in February 2015 filed an appeal complaint in Judicial Collegium on civil cases of the Supreme court. But before consideration in court never came, denied. In September 2015, Kutyrkin filed a complaint to the constitutional court. At the end of October 2015, he received the definition of the constitutional court of the Russian Federation: to accept the complaint to deny the Kutyrkin worked in the organization, not an Agency! In defining the COP explained to us, the dull, must be met two conditions: “therapeutic and other activities for the protection of public health” and “health care institution”. And Kutyrkin and other health professionals working in private clinics, and respected only one thing: they treat people, but in the name of their organizations not the word “institution”. And the polls the last two years began to refuse to appoint an early retirement.

In the definition of the COP States that it is “in itself cannot be regarded as violating the constitutional principle of equality in the realization of pension rights guaranteed by article 39 (part 1) of the Constitution”

The definition of the constitutional court on the complaint is final and not subject to appeal, signed by Chairman V. D. Zorkin.

Do not work in the institution — and the Constitution is not for you. Deductions from your salary to the Pension Fund the state more than you.

Above nowhere to complain.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here