About some problems of law enforcement activities in the field of state social assistance and support to poor citizens in Russia

Gorokhova Svetlana Sergeevna PhD in Law Associate Professor, Department of International and Public Law, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation 109456, Russia, Moskovskaya oblast', g. Moscow, ul. 4-I veshnyakovskii proezd, 4, kab. 414 Swettalana@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

Social support of the population is the most important policy direction of any state, since the reduction of social need is one of the signs of the well-being of society, the high right development of the country and a stable economy.^[1] 10.5% (15.3 million) of Russian citizens at the end of 2022 had income below the subsistence minimum. Although, in general, the total number of citizens with incomes below the poverty line has decreased compared to 2021, as the number of social benefits has increased and the quality of implementation of targeted social programs aimed at the most vulnerable groups of the population, including the poor, has improved.^[2] In particular, according to Rosstat data: social payments in the IV quarter of 2022 amounted to 4.7 trillion rubles (the share in the income structure is 19.7%), having increased by 542.0 billion rubles compared to the IV quarter of 2021, the volume of social payments in the IV quarter of 2022 increased by 316.1 billion rubles (from 4.4 up to 4.7 trillion rubles), or by 7.2% (Rosstat provides information on the poverty line in the IV quarter of 2022 // Official website of the Ministry of Labor of the Russian Federation URL: https://rosstat.gov.ru/folder/313/document/200416 ).

However, even 10.5% of the Russian population represents a fairly large number of citizens who need social support. One of the forms of further development of social support for citizens is the improvement of law enforcement practice in this area.^[3]

In 2022-2023, the situation was further complicated by the fact that the number of people in difficult life situations is increasing every day: the unemployed, involuntary migrants, refugees and internally displaced persons. Under the influence of geopolitical and economic reasons, the growth in the number of such categories of persons has become explosive and has acquired a scale measured not even by tens, but by hundreds of thousands of people. The Russian Federation is placed in conditions where the need to provide social support to the population becomes vitally important, due also to the fact that many people are forced, in fact, to start arranging their lives "from scratch", for objective reasons, having neither work nor permanent housing, and often minimal means of subsistence. Therefore, in the conditions of an ever-increasing burden on the domestic sphere of social security, the process of improving the mechanism of social support for low-income (low-income) categories of citizens comes to the fore and becomes a task of paramount importance for our country.^[4]

In accordance with "GOST R 52492-2005. National Standard of the Russian Federation. Household services. Social norms and standards for services. General requirements" (approved and put into effect by the Order of Rostec Regulation dated 30.12.2005 N 529-st) // Moscow: Standartinform, 2006), eleven categories of citizens are classified as low-income (low-income) citizens. In turn, the criteria for attribution to these categories, according to the same Standard, are not universal for all regions, but are set by each subject independently in accordance with the regional legislative framework, that is, they may differ significantly in different regions of the country.^[5]

The basic federal laws in the field of social support and protection of the poor, in addition to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, are federal laws: "On State social assistance" (Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation, 19.07.1999, No. 29, Article 3699); "On the procedure for accounting for income and calculating the average per capita family and income of a single citizen for recognizing them as poor and providing them state social assistance" (Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation, 07.04.2003, No. 14, Article 1257); "On the subsistence minimum in the Russian Federation" (Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation, 27.10.1997, No. 43, Article 4904).

It is obvious that due to the rather long history of the existence of these acts, and taking into account the socially acute specifics of the subject of their regulation, an impressive amount of conflict-related law enforcement practice has accumulated on them, as evidenced by the many thousands of court cases from the category of social and pension relations.^[6] Thus, there are more than 1600 acts of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation concerning cases arising from legal relations regulated by these laws since 2005, and the number of cases considered by courts of general jurisdiction and justices of the peace is in the hundreds of thousands (Judicial and regulatory acts of the Russian Federation URL: https://sudact.ru/magistrate/doc/?magistrate-txt=О+государственной+социальной+помощи&magistrate-case_doc=&magistrate-lawchunkinfo=&magistrate-date_from=&magistrate-date_to=&magistrate-area=&magistrate-court=&magistrate-judge=#searchResult ).

Since law enforcement practice is quite extensive, for its analysis it would be advisable to consider the most common legal conflicts regarding specific provisions of legislation regulating the studied public relations.

In accordance with Article 4 of the Law on State Social Assistance, the jurisdiction of the Federation in the relevant field includes:

law-making aimed at regulating the legal framework in the area under consideration;

development and implementation of federal social assistance programs;

establishment of mandatory types of assistance.

In turn, according to Article 5 of the same law, regions can adopt regulations related to the details of the size, conditions and algorithm of social assistance, including within the framework of a social contract. In addition, it is the regional state authorities that are responsible for the direct implementation of the provision of social assistance to citizens, as well as for the provision of social services to them.^[7]

It should be noted that, in those areas that relate to the subjects of joint jurisdiction of Russia and its subjects, and provide for the possibility of two-level lawmaking, the occurrence of legal conflicts between regional and federal regulatory legal acts, unfortunately, is to a certain extent a common phenomenon, and quite often becomes the subject of litigation.^[8] The sphere of providing social assistance to low-income families and citizens is no exception in this sense. Often, regional legislation either restricts the range of recipients of social assistance, or expands the list of documents required from the applicant in comparison with the requirements of federal legislation, that is, complicates the procedure for exercising the right. As an example, we can cite the situation considered by the Judicial Board for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the AD IC) N 84–APG16-2 (The Appellate ruling of the Judicial Board for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 20.07.2016 N 84-APG16-2 On leaving unchanged the decision of the Novgorod Regional Court of 15.03.2016, which an administrative claim for challenging Part 4 of Article 2 of the Law of the Novgorod Region of 10.05.2007 N 97-OZ "On measures of social support for certain categories of citizens and the endowment of local self-government bodies of the Novgorod Region with separate state powers in the field of healthcare" has been satisfied.// SPS "ConsultantPlus"https://online11.consultant.ru/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc&cacheid=6A976E01ABFD47594FF6396BD628DFAF&mode=backrefs&SORTTYPE=0&BASENODE=g1&ts=19671168026277724330&base=ARB&n=472374&rnd=Hto4Q#xOW55aToVfg7qF1z ).

According to the plot of the case, on April 25, 2007, by resolution of the Novgorod Regional Duma No. 222-OD, the Regional Law No. 97-OZ "On measures of social support for certain categories of citizens and the Endowment of local self-government bodies of the Novgorod Region with separate state powers in the field of healthcare" was adopted and signed by the Governor on May 10, 2007 (Novgorodskie Vedomosti, No. 63, 16 May 2007).

In accordance with paragraph 6 of part 1 of Article 2 of this Law, citizens in the field of healthcare are provided with a measure of social support in the form of free provision of medicines and medical products. Paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the Regional Law of the Novgorod Region of March 3, 2011 No. 932-OZ of Article 2 of the said Law was supplemented by Part 4, according to which the measure of social support specified in paragraph 6 of Part 1 of this article is not provided to those who refused services in the form of additional free medical care, in connection with the replacement with monetary payment.

The categories of citizens who are provided with the measures of social support specified in paragraph 6 of part 1 of Article 2 of the Law are established in Appendix 2 to the Law. According to this application, such support is provided, including children under 3 years old, and children from large families up to 6 years old. According to the prosecutor, who initiated the process of recognizing these norms as contrary to federal law, the contested norm of the Law established a restriction not provided for by federal law on the rights of children under 3 years of age and children from large families under 6 years of age who are simultaneously disabled, whose legal representatives refused social services in the form of additional free medical care for disabled people, in connection with replacement for a monthly cash payment.

The contested norms of the regional law were abolished, but this happened only after the case had passed through all judicial instances, including the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. In the same order, paragraph 6 of the Regulation on the Procedure for Providing social Benefits to Low-income Citizens in the Republic of Bashkortostan, approved by the Decree of the Government of the Republic on January 25, 2008 (Appeal ruling of the Judicial Board for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 25, 2017 N 49-APG17-35 On Changing the decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan dated July 25, 2017 and Invalidating the paragraph 2 Regulations on the procedure for providing social benefits to low-income citizens in the Republic of Bashkortostan, approved by the Decree of the Government of the Republic of Bashkortostan dated 25.01.2008 N 9, to the extent that it restricts the circle of persons entitled to receive state social assistance on the basis of Part 1 of Article 7 of the Federal Law of 17.07.1999 N 178-FZ "On State Social Assistance" in the form of social benefits.// https://online11.consultant.ru/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc&cacheid=6B17961EC76997F327FE2B68D52B524F&mode=backrefs&SORTTYPE=0&BASENODE=g3&ts=3222516802702407715&base=ARB&n=530630&rnd=Hto4Q#TNna5aT0jo0druUn). We can cite quite a large number of similar examples.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that no matter how systemic the problem of inconsistency of federal and regional legislation is, this problem is far from the only one. Often, insufficient perfection of legislation at all levels leads to conflicts in law enforcement practice and further litigation, in particular, the legal uncertainty of regulatory prescriptions established at the federal level, which, in the future, is not eliminated at the level of the legislation of the subjects.^[9]

As an example, we will cite the materials of the following court dispute. On May 29, 2019, B.D.I. filed a lawsuit with the State Institution of the Republic of Mari El "Center for Providing Social Support Measures to the Population" for recognition of the right to receive social assistance, indicating that he has diabetes mellitus, he receives a monthly payment for the care of two disabled people. the group and the elderly, who have reached the age of 80, in the total amount of 3,600 rubles., has no other income, lives together with his mother, who receives an old-age pension in the amount of 10,962.83 rubles. The average per capita income of his family is below the subsistence minimum established in the Republic of Mari El. On February 18, 2019, he applied to the Social Support Center with an application for social assistance. By the decision of this body, B.D.I. was refused. The reason for the refusal was his failure to provide information about his income for the last 3 months, while the payments for the care of disabled citizens that he receives were not taken into account when calculating the average per capita family income.

B.D.I. asked the court to recognize his right to receive social assistance, but the decision of the district court denied him. In the appellate and cassation courts, B.D.I. was also refused. Having checked the case materials, the IC on the State Duma of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation found the complaint to be satisfied, noting that, when deciding to refuse to satisfy the claims of B.D.I., the court of first instance proceeded from the fact that a citizen has the right to receive assistance only if there are several conditions in aggregate: a citizen should not only receive an average per capita income below the regional subsistence minimum (hereinafter referred to as the PM), but also; to confirm the impossibility, for objective reasons, to receive income in a larger amount. The circumstances of the plaintiff, the court did not consider an objective obstacle to obtaining more income.

However, the IC on the State Duma of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation considered that the conclusions of the courts are based on a misunderstanding of material norms, and are also made with a significant violation of the norms of procedural law, indicating that the provision of social assistance to the poor is one of the directions of state policy, which is implemented through the implementation of measures aimed at maintaining the standard of living of these citizens. Such measures include State social assistance, which is provided to the poor if, for reasons beyond their control, they have an average per capita income below the PM. At the same time, the norms of federal legislation and the norms of the legislation of the Republic of Mari El have not established a list of such reasons why poor families and low-income citizens living alone cannot receive income above the PM.

It is noteworthy that further, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, looking for a way out of the current situation, explains that at the same time, taking into account the goals and objectives of providing social assistance to the poor, the current legal regulation does not imply the possibility of arbitrary application of its norms by the authorized body, which is obliged, in particular, to check the submitted by the person applying for this measure of social support, information and documents on the existence of objective and independent reasons preventing him or his family from receiving income above the PM, and to find out the reasons why the income is below the PM (Definition of the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 26.10.2020 N 12-KG20-4-K6 // https://online11.consultant.ru/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc&cacheid=11D91E778BFD853A040B8718ABB61990&mode=backrefs&SORTTYPE=0&BASENODE=g3&ts=3082716805242452030&base=ARB&n=646971&rnd=5JK0ig#qLrmMaTc7wbJaIot ).

It seems that this is a fairly streamlined reasoning, especially considering that the norms of federal and regional legislation do not contain criteria for the impossibility, for objective reasons, to receive income in a larger amount. That is, the judgment of the court should be evaluative, which means that the opinions of different judges on this issue may not coincide.

Therefore, further, already in the Review of Judicial Practice, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, regarding the definition of unified approaches to assessing the objectivity of the reasons preventing citizens from receiving income in a larger volume, establishes that, among them, a serious illness of a citizen or his family members for whom he takes care, the presence of dependents, unemployment, etc. If there are such reasons, the authorized body has no right to refuse to provide assistance to a citizen (Review of judicial practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 1 (2021)" (approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 07.04.2021) // Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, No. 7, July, 2021).

The explanation given by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to lower courts and authorized state bodies on this issue is only welcome, however, it should still be remembered that the acts of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation are not a source of law in Russia, and therefore do not contain legal norms. And it would be much more useful to clarify the relevant norms, if not in the federal law, then at least at the level of the legislation of the constituent entities of the federation.

Turning to another category of disputable situations, we note that legal disputes related to the improper application of the norms of substantive and procedural law, this is probably the most common category of cases that initially arises from wrongfully made decisions by social security authorities, and then, quite often, does not receive proper legal assessment in the courts of first instance. To a certain extent, such cases include the litigation discussed above.

As an illustration, the following case can be cited (Definition of the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 10.10.2022 N 25-KG22-4-K4 // https://online11.consultant.ru/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc&cacheid=E4996B7A4B84EA91C06E7B0FB3243A14&mode=backrefs&SORTTYPE=0&BASENODE=g4&ts=27037168026509522803&base=ARB&n=735017&rnd=Hto4Q#X4VG5aTmOg5rLSHF5). S.A.V. On June 3, 2021 filed a lawsuit with the "Center for Social Support of the Population of the Kharabalinsky district" and the Ministry of Social Labor of the Astrakhan region, in which he asked to recover from the defendants one–time financial assistance (hereinafter - EMP) in the amount of 50 000 rubles. to pay the debt for electricity and the cost of purchasing coal. In substantiation of their claims, attaching to the statement of claim a notice of refusal to appoint state social services, information about its classification as citizens of pre-retirement age, notification of the Employment Center of the Kharabalinsky district of the Astrakhan region on termination of payment of unemployment benefits from October 2, 2020, an extract from the personal account of the debt for electricity, the bill of lading for coal, the sick leave, indicated that on May 13, 2021, he applied to the Center for Social Support of the population with an application for granting him EMP.

The plaintiff referred to the fact that when contacting the Social Support Center, they were provided with all the necessary documents confirming his difficult life situation: he is unemployed of pre-retirement age, is registered at the Employment Center, does not receive minimum unemployment benefits, does not have any income and means of livelihood, and there are age restrictions, chronic diseases, potential employers refuse him employment or offer him a job that does not suit him for health reasons. The Center for Social Support of the population refused S.A.V. in the EMP, as it did not see the presence of circumstances beyond the plaintiff's control that worsen his living conditions. The Ministry of Social Development and Labor of the Astrakhan region agreed with this decision. By the decision of the Kharabalinsky District Court of the Astrakhan region, S.A.V.'s claim was denied. The same result was obtained in the appellate and cassation courts. However, unlike them, the IC for the State Duma of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation found the complaint to be satisfied, justifying its decision as follows.

In the Astrakhan region, the provision of social assistance and support is regulated by the Law of the Astrakhan Region of December 22, 2016 N 85/2016-03 "On measures of social support and social assistance to certain categories of citizens in the Astrakhan region". Article 6 of the said Law provides for the types of social support measures. The right to such a measure of social support as EMP is also granted to citizens in need of material support (paragraphs 5, part 1, part 2 of Article 31 of the Law of the Astrakhan Region). The applicant is recognized as needing financial support if there are: circumstances beyond his control that worsen his living conditions, including health, social environment, including marital status, housing and economic problems, employment; the right to receive other social support measures in accordance with the All-Russian legislation or the norms of the Astrakhan region; the need for outside help (paragraphs 4-7, paragraph 8 of the Order).

The grounds for refusal, in accordance with regional legislation, in the EMP are: the submission of an incomplete package of documents and (or) false information in them; the applicant's inconsistency with the category of EMP recipients; non-compliance with the frequency of providing EMP to citizens in need of financial support.

At the same time, the authorized body is obliged to check all the conditions necessary for making a decision on the provision of assistance. In particular, to carry out a comprehensive assessment of the applicant's need for financial support.^[10] However, when considering the case of S.A.V., the norms of federal and regional legislation were not taken into account, in their systemic relationship, which do not allow refusal to provide social support in the event of circumstances beyond the applicant's control that worsen his living conditions.

According to Part 2 of Article 56 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation of 14.11.2002 N 138-FZ (ed. of 18.03.2023) // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation, 18.11.2002, N 46, art. 4532) the court determines which circumstances are essential to the case, even if the parties did not refer to them. The court is obliged to evaluate the evidence objectively and in full. The results of this assessment should be reflected in the decision, citing the reasons for which some evidence was accepted and others were not, as well as the grounds that guided the court (Parts 1 and 4 of Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).

In the case under consideration, the following circumstances were legally significant: were the documents provided by the Procedure and conditions for the provision of EMP submitted to S.A.V.; what actions were taken to verify the circumstances indicated by the plaintiff; was the applicant asked to submit any additional documents confirming the existence of health problems, housing and economic problems, employment, etc. However, the court of first instance did not determine and did not establish these circumstances, arbitrarily applied Article 56 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, violated the requirements of the procedural law concerning evidence, did not evaluate the evidence (Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).

The course of this case demonstrates, firstly, an unfair approach to the case of the social security authorities, and secondly, the formal approach of the courts to resolving the conflict that has arisen. As a result of the arbitrary deprivation of a citizen's right to social support, not only his property rights were violated, but also intangible benefits and personal non-property rights.

Indeed, the considered example looks egregious, since, in the XXI century, it is quite difficult to imagine that the issue of providing a really needy elderly person in a difficult life situation with EMP in the amount of 50 thousand rubles can be positively resolved only by the intervention of the highest judicial authority of the country. We believe that the passage of all possible administrative and judicial instances with such cases from the category of "about a bundle of firewood" can speak either about the most serious problems of law enforcement officers' qualifications, or about the purposeful desire of regional authorities to minimize the costs of providing material assistance to those in need.

It seems that such a situation can be resolved, first of all, by clarifying the norms of federal and regional legislation, in order to minimize the number of norms subject to interpretation on the ground, as well as norms of an evaluative nature, which assume the possibility of direct law enforcers to interpret their meaning based on their own considerations.^[11]

In confirmation of the above, we consider it necessary to consider another example related to the incorrect application of the norms of substantive and procedural law in relation to persons in need of social assistance from the state (Cassation ruling of the Judicial Board for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 03.08.2022 N 44-KAD22-7-K7 // SPS Consultant+). The essence of the case here was that the plaintiff (Ch.Ya.V.) was denied the appointment of a social payment, since the size of her family's SD exceeded the 2-fold VPM of the able-bodied population established in the relevant subject of the Russian Federation. But, at the same time, when calculating the SD, the alimony deducted from her husband's salary for a child from her first marriage was not deducted.

As in the previous case, the case was considered by all possible instances not in favor of the applicant, until it reached the IC on AD of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which issued a different decision, stating that, in Article 5 of the Federal Law "On the Procedure for Accounting for Income and calculating the average per capita income of a family and income of a single citizen to recognize them the poor and the provision of state social assistance to them" it is determined that the amount of income of each family member is taken into account when calculating the family income. The list of types of income taken into account in the calculation is established by the Government of the Russian Federation (Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 20.08.2003 N 512 (ed. of 29.12.2022) "On the list of types of income taken into account in the calculation of the average per capita income of a family and the income of a single citizen to provide them with state social assistance" (with amendments and additions, intro. effective from 01.01.2023) // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation, 25.08.2003, N 34, Article 3374). According to paragraph 3 of this List, the amount of alimony paid is excluded from the family income.

Within the meaning of the above norms, which were not applied by the courts when resolving the claims stated by Ch.Ya.V., the federal legislator, determining the procedure for accounting for income and calculating family income and the types of income taken into account in the calculation, established that when calculating family income, alimony is taken into account if they are received by family members, and not paid by them. Consequently, the amount of alimony withheld from the salary of the spouse of the administrative plaintiff for the maintenance of a child from the first marriage was taken into account when calculating the family SD of Ch.Ya.V. incorrectly.^[12]

It should be noted that a significant part of the disputes in this category concerns challenging the right to free provision of medicines. This is a rather alarming signal to the social security system, since the full and timely provision of medicines to those in need affects not only the quality of life of poor needy citizens, but also endangers this very life, which may depend on receiving (or not receiving) the necessary medicines.^[13]

As an example, the following precedent can be cited, which became the subject of consideration in the Cassation Ruling of the IC on AD of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (Cassation ruling of the Judicial Board for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 14.04.2021 N 56-KAD21-2-K9 // https://online11.consultant.ru/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc&cacheid=9DBCDD510D5C0CD94937ADDC3BAB87BA&mode=backrefs&SORTTYPE=0&BASENODE=g5&ts=24979168052046612205&base=ARB&n=667608&rnd=5JK0ig#kttWMaTk95aIH5c41).

The plaintiff's claim was to recognize the response of the Department of Health as illegal, as well as the obligation to make a decision on issuing prescriptions for free receipt of the drug. The plaintiff believed that he was entitled to preferential provision of vital medicine, which he was denied. The requirement was satisfied by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, since the refusal of a person recognized as a disabled person to receive state social assistance in the form of a set of social services does not affect the realization of their right to receive a free drug related to vital medicines.

Challenging the right to free travel for treatment is another common category of litigation. As a demonstration, we will cite the following judicial precedent.

As established by the court and follows from the case materials, L.S.A., who is a disabled child and in need of restorative treatment, the Republican Hospital No. 1 of the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) was issued a referral for restorative treatment to the Federal State Budgetary Institution "Russian Scientific and Clinical Center for Audiology and Hearing Prosthetics" of the FMBA of Russia, on the basis of which L.S.A. and her accompanying mother, L.E.S., had to be provided with free travel to and from the place of treatment. Since L.E.S., in compliance with the procedure established by law, applied to the Regional Branch of the FSS of the Russian Federation for the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), the defendant was obliged to provide them with special coupons and (or) personalized directions for travel to and from the place of treatment no later than 5 working days from the date of receipt of the documents. Instead of taking these measures, the Regional Branch of the Federal Migration Service of the Russian Federation in the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) refused to provide them with free travel on the grounds of the absence of named destinations secured by state contracts between the territorial branch of the Fund and carrier airlines. In view of these circumstances, the mother of a disabled child, Levina E.S., was forced to purchase travel documents at her own expense, which are subject to compensation in accordance with Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation as losses.

It should be noted that the right to health protection is one of the basic, inalienable human rights subject to state protection.^[14] At the same time, the priority is to protect the rights of the child, and especially the disabled child, to access the most advanced health services, and to ensure the implementation of this right by state guarantees. ^[15] These include the provision of free travel. At the same time, the list of grounds for refusal is exhaustive and is not subject to extensive interpretation. Among these reasons, the lack of funding, the non-conclusion of a state contract with an air carrier are not named. That is, the absence of concluded state contracts with carrier airlines cannot affect the implementation of the legally guaranteed right of a disabled child.

In this case, the history of the trial in the case is somewhat different than in the previously considered cases: the court of first instance sided with the plaintiff, recognizing the defendant's actions as illegal, however, then, according to the appeal of the losing party, another decision was already made, as the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation correctly noted, unjustified by anything. There are also a sufficient number of such cases in judicial practice – the defendants who initially lost in court are state bodies and institutions that continue to defend their case by initiating appeal and cassation court hearings. In our opinion, this is an extremely alarming symptom, once again confirming that the legislation in the field of social assistance to the poor and needy is so confusing and variable in terms of interpretation, which gives grounds to all law enforcement officers, both administrative and judicial, one after another to make diametrically opposite decisions on the same fact. And not only accept, but also insist on them.

The institution of a social contract is another way of state social assistance to the poor, aimed not only and not so much at providing material assistance to those in need, but, first of all, designed to systematically help a citizen with the beginning of his social adaptation (readaptation). Probably the largest number of studies have been devoted to the social contract in Russian science recently.^{[16][17][18][19]} This is also a fairly common category of controversial cases, where decisions are made both in favor of the citizen and in favor of the social protection authorities.

A social contract (hereinafter referred to as the SC) is an agreement between a citizen and a social protection body, according to which the social protection body undertakes to provide a citizen with state social assistance, and a citizen undertakes to implement measures provided for by the social adaptation program.^[20]

As an example of a controversial situation in this category of cases, consider the following case. The Department of Social Protection of the population of the administration of the Valuysky city district appealed to the court (The decision of the Valuysky District Court of the Belgorod region of 31.01.2023 N 2-113/2023(2-1448/2022)// https://online11.consultant.ru/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc&cacheid=132FA2FFD0283373209B3D6AA09B2C65&mode=backrefs&SORTTYPE=0&BASENODE=32935-11&ts=10399168052650510887&base=AOKI&n=11071652&rnd=5JK0ig#wBQxMaT0OrRCrvNt) with a statement of claim, in support of which it indicated that on 03/02/2022, the IC was concluded between him and Z. for a period up to 09/02/2022 on the provision of funds in the amount of 250,000 rubles for individual entrepreneurial activity. Z. received funds, but did not submit reports on their intended use for the entire period of validity of the IC. Referring to these circumstances and believing that in this case there was unjustified enrichment of the defendant, the plaintiff asked to recover from Z. in his favor funds in the amount of 250,000 rubles.

Having examined the circumstances of the case at the hearing, the court came to the following. According to Article 39 of the Belgorod Region Law No. 165 of 12/28/2004 "Social Code of the Belgorod Region", poor families and citizens, as well as citizens who find themselves in a difficult life situation, have the right to provide social protection measures (Part 1). Decree of the Government of the Belgorod Region No. 273-pp of 22.06.2020 "On the provision of social protection measures protection of citizens who find themselves in a difficult life situation" approved the procedure for providing social assistance on the basis of the UK, as well as the appointment and payment of benefits to the poor and citizens who find themselves in a difficult life situation. According to clause 3.2.19. of the specified Procedure, the social assistance received on the basis of the IC must be used by the applicant for the implementation of the social adaptation program within the stipulated time.

In accordance with the business plan of 02/25/2022, Z. intended to carry out entrepreneurial activities for the organization of services to the population in the production of wooden products at his own expense in the amount of 122790 rubles. and funds provided under the UK in the amount of 250,000 rubles.

The minutes of the meeting of the interdepartmental commission on the provision of social protection measures to poor citizens and citizens who find themselves in a difficult life situation, dated 01.03.2022, it was decided to provide Z. assistance in the amount of 250,000 rubles. The act of checking the use of funds received on the basis of the IC, dated 05.08.2022, established that Z. a board, shelevka, wave slate was purchased, but there are no documents on the purchase of the specified product. Also, the presence of carpentry and woodworking tools and joinery products purchased before the conclusion of the UK in the defendant's workshop was established; the manufactured goods were not sold. During the validity period of the IC and until the 15th day of the month following the month of its expiration, Z., in violation of the terms of the contract, did not provide reports on the expenditure of funds to the social protection authority, which was not disputed by the defendant during the consideration of the case.

In this regard, on 12.10.2022 and 07.11.2022, the plaintiff appealed to the defendant with demands for a report on the execution of the IC or the return of funds in the amount of 250,000 rubles. After receiving pre-trial claims from the plaintiff, the defendant came to the social protection authority with the receipts he had for spending money, but the plaintiff refused to accept them, citing the lack of cash receipts. Despite this, the court found that, before the conclusion of the IC, during its validity and after Z. carried out business activities for the manufacture of wooden products.

The court considered that the fact of the defendant's failure to provide reports to the plaintiff on the execution of the IC in itself cannot serve as a basis for concluding that there is a Z in the actions. unjustified enrichment. The funds under the UK dated 02.03.2022 were received by Z. legally, on the basis of a targeted and specific decision of the social protection authority. At the same time , there is evidence of Z. 's dishonesty . at the conclusion of the IC, the plaintiff is not represented. On the basis of the above , the court concludes that there is no Z in the actions . unjustified enrichment.

Z. registered as an individual entrepreneur on 25.04.2022 and carried out entrepreneurial activity in the main direction 16.23. "Production of other wooden building structures and joinery", which follows from an extract from the USRIP and complies with the conditions of the UK. Moreover , the entrepreneurial activity of Z. it has a real character. The defendant confirmed at the hearing that the state social assistance provided to him under the UK, of course, contributed to the increase in the monetary income of his family. With this in mind, the court concluded that the results of the implementation of the event "Implementation of individual entrepreneurial activity" provided for by the social contract were achieved by Z. in full, as a result of which the plaintiff's arguments are untenable, and the stated claims are not subject to satisfaction.

In this case, the following point draws attention to itself, the social protection authorities, when initiating a claim against the recipient of the payment within the framework of the IC, were guided by a violation of the formal procedure – the absence of reports and cash receipts, ignoring the fact that the recipient's business activity has been started and is being conducted, and his and his family's real incomes have increased. This case determines the question of the priority of the parameters of the fulfillment of the conditions of the UK, with an obvious conclusion, confirmed by a court decision, about the paramount importance of achieving the goal of providing social assistance in relation to the formal details of the fulfillment of the terms of the contract. This is especially important in light of the fact that social protection agencies spend considerable efforts, spend financial and labor resources to participate in court proceedings in cases that, with a certain adjustment of legislation, could well be resolved in a pre-trial manner.

Let's consider another example of a dispute related to the implementation of the IC. OBU "Center for Social Protection of the Population of the Lipetsk Region" filed a lawsuit against T. for the recovery of funds, indicating that on 04/26/2022, the parties concluded an IC under which the defendant was paid a one-time social benefit in the amount of 250,000 rubles. In violation of the terms of the contract, the defendant did not provide information on registration for individual entrepreneurial activity (self-employment). In accordance with the measures of the social adaptation program and the business plan, the defendant had to purchase the necessary equipment for growing vegetables and consumables (seeds, fertilizers, etc.). The defendant submitted a receipt for the purchase of consumables in the amount of 12,000 rubles, which did not correspond to those specified in the business plan and the action plan for the social adaptation program for May 2022. In addition, T. did not submit reports on the social adaptation program for May — October 2022. The defendant did not actually conduct business activities, and, repeated notifications sent to the defendant were ignored by him. By order of the OBU "CSZN of the Lipetsk region", the IC concluded with the defendant was terminated unilaterally, about which a corresponding notification was sent to him. Since the money was not returned, the plaintiff asked the court to recover from the defendant a one-time social benefit in the amount of 250,000 rubles. and the costs of paying the state fee.

Having examined the case materials, the court granted the said claim, since, according to the business plan, T. had to purchase equipment in the amount of 238,000 rubles and consumables (tomato and cucumber seeds, mineral fertilizers) in the amount of 12,000 rubles. According to the social adaptation program, T. in April 2022 had to register on the website "My Business" and as a self-employed citizen, undergo a preventive medical examination, in May 2022 - purchase consumables, in June - September 2022 - carry out measures for growing cucumbers and tomatoes, provide reports on the activities performed. However, these measures were not carried out by the defendant, the funds were not voluntarily returned by the defendant.

As already noted, the norms governing obligations due to unjustified enrichment are established by Chapter 60 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

Considering that the IC was terminated unilaterally with the defendant, the measures of social adaptation listed above were not carried out by the defendant, the evidence confirming the non-fulfillment of the measures of the social adaptation program for valid reasons was not provided by the defendant, the return of social benefits was not made, the court considered it necessary to recover 250,000 rubles from T. in favor of the plaintiff as unjustified enrichment (The absentee decision of the Usmansky district Court of the Lipetsk region of 01.03.2023 in case No. 2-194/2023 .// https://online11.consultant.ru/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc&cacheid=132FA2FFD0283373209B3D6AA09B2C65&mode=backrefs&SORTTYPE=0&BASENODE=32935-11&ts=10399168052650510887&base=AOKI&n=11124858&rnd=5JK0ig#O36wMaTDdG9LAYPF).

In this case, the circumstances of the case are different, and the decision was made in favor of the plaintiff – the social protection authority, and there are a lot of such decisions in judicial practice. A citizen who has received social assistance does not fulfill the conditions of the IC, and does not return the funds received voluntarily, therefore, the social protection authorities have to go to court. Moreover, the prospects for the return of the money paid are rather conditional, since we are talking about low-income citizens, the money received is usually spent, and the presence of such citizens of property that can be foreclosed on is a big question. In this regard, it is probably necessary to provide a more secure mechanism for providing social assistance to the poor within the framework of the UK, on the one hand, providing the necessary assistance to those in need, and, on the other, securing the state budget from unscrupulous recipients of assistance.

Summarizing the above, we can conclude that the provision of assistance within the framework of the IC often leads to controversial, conflict situations, moreover, the initiators of court proceedings are actually always the social protection authorities, but the decision is not always taken in their favor. The reason for this, in our opinion, is that, on the one hand, social protection agencies are sometimes guided by the presence of formal violations on the part of recipients of social assistance (absence of a report, cash receipts, purchase of materials not provided for in the business plan), but, on the other hand, a number of recipients of assistance themselves act in bad faith-receiving money means, and without bothering to fulfill the conditions of the UK.

A separate category of cases in the area under consideration are precedents for the recovery of unreasonably paid amounts within the framework of social assistance, including regional social supplements to pensions (see, for example, the Absentee decision of the Valuysky District Court of the Belgorod region of 10.02.2023 N 2-98/2023(2-1433/2022)// https://online11.consultant.ru/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc&cacheid=132FA2FFD0283373209B3D6AA09B2C65&mode=backrefs&SORTTYPE=0&BASENODE=32935-11&ts=10399168052650510887&base=AOKI&n=11092291&rnd=5JK0ig#oo0xMaT6h6QHZuPi1 ;The ruling of the Ninth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction of 25.08.2022 N 88-7931/20 // https://online11.consultant.ru/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc&ts=M6YODbTMlX9KdszS2&cacheid=69014EF646F3423757060E2281125CDB&mode=splus&rnd=ZGuAEQ&base=KSOJ009&n=41365#XLZODbTBSmrhws4A).

As, for example, in the case reflected in the Appeal Ruling of the St. Petersburg City Court of 01.06.2021 (Appeal Ruling of the St. Petersburg City Court of 01.06.2021 N 33-10906/2021 // https://online11.consultant.ru/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc&ts=Yvz6gbTsYhyHuDV&cacheid=7966492B8B8CEF03156209ECA7DAAC7E&mode=splus&rnd=vSsEYg&base=AOSZ&n=4600551#JtUSgbTsTQwaeGTq1) , in which, the plaintiff was the recipient of an old-age pension in an increased amount, taking into account the dependent disabled son, after whose death the defendant continued to pay the pension in an increased amount, despite receiving information about the death from the registry Office, and then, in court, he wanted to recover the overpaid amounts from the pensioner. In this case, the court, having considered all the case materials, supported the plaintiff's claims, but the case itself is very indicative in terms of the organization of monitoring and accounting for the legality of the amounts paid to recipients of social assistance. Based on this precedent, and similar ones, it should be concluded that the system of monitoring and control of social assistance paid to citizens requires improvement, including in terms of interaction between individual government departments regarding the provision and accounting of information relevant to the implementation of social payments.

However, the most common basis for a claim in this category of cases is a situation when a citizen who has received a social supplement to a pension in the future is employed (and thereby loses the right to an additional payment), but does not report additional income to the social protection authorities. It would seem that the circumstances are quite simple, and such cases should definitely be resolved in favor of social protection agencies, and not in favor of unscrupulous citizens, however, there are ambiguous cases in this category of cases. For example, in the "Review of the practice of court consideration of cases on disputes related to the implementation of social support measures for certain categories of citizens" (Review of the practice of court consideration of cases on disputes related to the implementation of social support measures for certain categories of citizens (approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 17.06.2020) // Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, N 11, November, 2020) The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation pointed out that when deciding whether to recover from a citizen an excessively received regional supplement to a pension, it is necessary to take into account the material and marital status of a citizen.

Another formal basis determining the decision in favor of one or the other party is the statute of limitations. With regard to the subject of our study, the statute of limitations on the claim for the recovery of an overpaid social supplement to a pension should be calculated from the moment when the social protection authority learned or should have learned about the possible loss of a citizen's right to an additional payment.

Special attention should be paid to the category of cases related to the misuse of budgetary funds by representatives of social protection of the population, who are also present in judicial practice (Decision of the Kaluga District Court of the Kaluga region of 26.10.2022 N 12-2238/2022// https://online11.consultant.ru/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc&cacheid=663296BF7FFADA297D53B682350C0FB7&mode=backrefs&SORTTYPE=0&BASENODE=32935-10&ts=13619168052602124089&base=AOKI&n=10807139&rnd=5JK0ig#PyYuMaTyf78diDSu2). This category of cases, although not the most common, is nevertheless important enough for a general analysis of law enforcement practice, as it indicates that, in addition to, in fact, a systematic formal approach to the provision of social assistance to low-income citizens and families, there is often misuse of budgetary funds.

Concluding the analysis of law enforcement practice in the field of social security and support for the poor, citizens in need of state assistance, I would like to draw attention to another category of cases, which is extremely numerous, but, unlike previously considered conflict situations, the analysis of court decisions on it shows that, in most cases, the courts do not they satisfy the claims of citizens, and nevertheless, the latter continue to apply en masse for protection of their rights to social assistance in the form of providing vouchers for sanatorium treatment. There are 329 decisions of the higher courts on this issue alone.

In this regard, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has repeatedly noted that the practice of functioning of the mechanism of social assistance in the form of a set of social services established since January 1, 2005 shows that not all citizens who have applied for a permit can be provided with it during a calendar year. Accordingly, it is not excluded to establish the priority of providing citizens with vouchers, including outside the calendar year during which he expected to receive it (The Appellate ruling of the Appellate Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 16.03.2021 N APL21-46 // https://online11.consultant.ru/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc&cacheid=08B81B08A69CAB145DCE808238CAC92B&SORTTYPE=0&BASENODE=g1&ts=fRve3cTE1wnORxH9&base=ARB&n=660288&dst=100040&rnd=Xt861w#JLKm3cTWthNYV8BH). This, however, does not exclude the need to improve the mechanism for providing vouchers for sanatorium treatment. Since it is quite obvious that waiting for a service for more than a calendar year is unreasonably long.