Translated material
Mother denomination
Well-earning Russian women demanded high maternity payments from the state
The general favorable atmosphere accompanying the implementation of a new demographic policy in Russia, including maternity capital , can be spoiled by the Constitutional Court. Yesterday, the judges, clearly offended by the imminent prospect of moving from Moscow to St. Petersburg , began to consider the claim, the verdict on which may become an indirect assessment of the state program of material stimulation of the birth rate. In fact, the Constitutional Court is discussing the size of a slightly different “maternity capital” - not in the current understanding of this term (that is, not the virtual 250 thousand budget rubles at this stage for the second child), but maternity benefits, which are issued in cash to every pregnant Russian woman.Yesterday's meeting showed that the state does not yet intend to agree with the logic underlying the appeal to the Constitutional Court. Representatives of the legislative and executive authorities almost unanimously stated that social payments are intended specifically to help less wealthy families, and therefore wealthy Russian women should not count on full compensation for the earnings they sacrificed for the joy of motherhood.
A resident of the city of Sarov, Nizhny Novgorod region, Tatyana Banykina, filed a complaint with the court on behalf of her family and on behalf of all well-earning women, who believes that her constitutional rights to social guarantees from the state during the period of bearing a child were violated. Ms. Banykina expected that the maternity benefit, which is due to every Russian woman subject to compulsory health insurance after the 30th week of pregnancy and before the birth of the child, would be calculated based on her average earnings at her place of work, as required by Federal Law No. 81 of May 19, 1995 "On state benefits for citizens with children." However, as it turned out, the amount of payments was limited by another law - “On the budget of the social insurance fund for 2002.” Article 15 of this law, which established the upper limit of 11,700 rubles, is being challenged by Ms. Banykina in the Constitutional Court.
As the plaintiff told Vremya Novostey, she believes that in this way the state “deliberately infringes on the rights of women, deprives them of the income they have earned, thereby dooming the woman to live in conditions that are less secure compared to what they had before pregnancy.” Since 2002, the “maternal maximum” has been repeatedly increased, and, for example, in 2007, according to the Federal Law No. 255 of December 29, 2006, which came into force, “On the provision of benefits for temporary disability, pregnancy and childbirth to citizens subject to compulsory health insurance ", the limit on maternity payments will be 16,125 rubles. However, not for all Russian women this will be 100% compensation for their average annual earnings.
Tatyana Banykina, who earned more than the established level as head of the legal department of a large construction company, estimated the damage caused to her as a result of underpayments at more than 50 thousand rubles. “When deciding to have a second child, our family relied on our level of income, which my husband and I worked towards for years, getting a good education, earning experience,” Ms. Balykina, a 30-year-old mother of two children, told Vremya Novostei. - And as a result, four family members ended up on the shoulders of the husband. For a family with any income, this is a serious blow to the budget, especially during the birth of a baby, when expenses increase significantly.”
Having safely carried and given birth to a child in the summer of 2004, the legally savvy woman decided to sue. And the Sarov City Court in June 2005 supported her demand for payment of benefits in the full amount of average annual earnings without taking into account restrictions. However, three months later, this decision was overturned by the cassation instance of the Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court based on a complaint from the local branch of the Social Insurance Fund (FSS).
Having gone through all the authorities, Tatyana Banykina appealed to the Constitutional Court. As she herself claims, today, as a practicing lawyer, she is more concerned not with her own problem, but with a “legal conflict” that has deprived more than one well-earning Russian woman. In addition, apparently, she expects to use the relevance of demographic issues in her struggle. “For well-paid, independent women, the factor of loss of earnings will be the main factor when choosing between work and having a child,” Ms. Banykina said. “The woman will definitely give birth to her first child, but the dilemma concerns the decision to have the second and subsequent children.”
However, according to the plenipotentiary representative of the government in the Constitutional Court, Mikhail Barshchevsky, there are no grounds for satisfying Ms. Banykina’s complaint, since in relation to maternity benefits, despite the fact that they relate to insured events, we are talking about “social payments, and not about possible compensation for harm.” “Social benefits, which are provided not in a deserved amount, but in a necessary and sufficient amount, are always an equalization,” said Mr. Barshchevsky.
A government representative believes that the absence of restrictions on the amount of maternity payments for high-income women in labor will upset the balance in a society where women’s incomes vary tenfold. For those employed in the oil and gas industry, they reach an average of 30-40 thousand rubles. per month, and for teachers sometimes they do not exceed 3 thousand rubles. This opinion is shared by the permanent representative of the State Duma in the Constitutional Court, Elena Mizulina. In her arguments to the court, she appealed to the observance of “social solidarity” as a way of equalizing the opportunities of low-income segments of the population at the expense of citizens with higher incomes.
Ms. Mizulina recalled what caused the introduction of the maximum limit for the amount of maternity benefits. This happened after the establishment of the unified social tax (UST) as a source of replenishment of the FSS budget, and with it a regressive taxation scale (the higher the income of employees, the lower the deductions of this tax by enterprises). All this, she said, was the reason for a significant reduction in the fund’s budget. As FSS Deputy Chairman Lyudmila Rau clarified, in 2001 and 2002 the fund’s financial capabilities decreased by 54 billion rubles, while expenses specifically for maternity benefits are growing annually. Last year, 15.8 billion rubles were required for maternity payments, and this year we need 23.7 billion.
In addition, according to the State Duma representative in the Constitutional Court, deputies limited the amount of social benefits for pregnant women in order to eliminate the basis for abuse. “Before 2002, benefits were calculated based on average earnings for the last two months before going on maternity leave, which made it possible for employers to hire pregnant employees shortly before maternity leave and receive kickbacks from inflated social benefits,” said Ms. Mizulina. The FSS believes that in 2002 no one really felt this limitation. At that time, less than 1 million women received more than the established level of maternity benefits, and only 3% of them were of childbearing age.
In a polemical impulse, Elena Mizulina, insisting on the compliance of the contested norms with the main document of the country, referred to the “objective necessity” of the realities of almost five years ago and to the fact that the constitutional principle of proportionality “allows for the restriction of the rights and freedoms of citizens if they pursue legitimate goals, such as security, territorial integrity of the country, protection of the rights and freedoms of other people, or in the event of a threat of loss of the real rights of citizens.”
Judges of the Constitutional Court have several weeks to decide how high maternity benefits threaten the rights of Russians and the integrity of the country. However, regardless of what the court decides, which can take into account the peculiarities of both the demographic and its own geographical situation (moving to St. Petersburg), it is already obvious that Tatyana Banykina managed to achieve serious progress. After all, the same Elena Mizulina admitted after the meeting that in modern demographic conditions, previously introduced restrictions are becoming less relevant. A representative of the State Duma said that, according to her information, the lower house has not yet received legislative initiatives to abolish the upper barrier to the amount of maternity benefits, but expressed hope that “the president will give smart, strong women the opportunity to give birth to offspring.” “But this is not a constitutional issue, but a political one,” Ms. Mizulina clarified.