Defend not the budget, but children

The Supreme Court sided with those who need expensive treatment

I have long wanted to say about the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and something good, and now the reason appeared. As already reported in the News of the New, the RF Armed Forces supported the requirements of parents (legal representatives) of children suffering from serious illnesses to receive medicines at the expense of the budget, at least not included in the corresponding lists in Russia, but prescribed by these children, consultations of doctors as vital.

We are talking about the claims of Mikhail Karlash from Penza, Olga Nizhelskaya from Voronezh and Ildus Musin from Naberezhnye Chelny (Data Parents).

Three decisions were made by judges L.M. Pchelintseva, M.A. Zhurbin, G.A. Gulyaeva and S.V. Frololkina. In one case, a collegium of three judges canceled the decision of the appeal and upheld the decision of the first, and in two cases canceled all the previous refusal decisions and issued its own first instance. All decisions were adopted back in August-December last year, but now they have fallen into a review of the judicial practice of the RF Armed Forces, which gives them additional weight.

The decision of the College of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in a specific case is formally lower in status than the clarification of its plenum, but more effective: in fact, this is precedents. The Armed Forces cancels erroneous decisions of lower courts, makes the case to its production in cassation and makes an argumented decision, thereby determining the practice for other similar cases.

It is important that in all decisions the Supreme Court referred to Art. 390.14 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, in terms of their right to cancel the old ones and endure new ones in order to “protect public interests protected by law”.

The diagnoses of children from published decisions were taken (as in most cases and the name of drugs), but from the content it can be understood that we are talking about rare (orphan) diseases, which there are no drugs against which in domestic production, as they are not recommended in Russia.

In all cases, the court indicated that this is not a reason not to provide the medicine at the expense of the budget if it is prescribed by doctors in the prescribed manner.

Where and in which budgets to take money for this is not a case of courts, and here this position is correct, although it will not solve the issue of money in itself.

Another decision (the same collegium, but now with the participation of Judge T.Yu. Vavilycheva) was made in the Altai Territory, where the district court supported the requirement of a representative of a disabled child Andrei J. to pay not only the medicine, but also the examination, also not included in the appropriate list, and the cassation instance canceled the decision. The Supreme Court with the same argument upheld the decision of the district court.

Earlier, in February 2018, the same college of judges supported the requirements of a resident of the Krasnoyarsk Territory, disabled person Irina M. about compensation for the value of her medicine, which contrary to the law was not provided with a pharmacy, and she had to purchase it for 95,550 rubles - the amount is significant for the disabled person, albeit insignificant even for the local budget.

The Lesosibirsk City Court collected this amount in favor of M. and 1 193 rubles. 80 kopecks, spent on traveling, but only an additional decision, retreating before the insistence of the plaintiff, compensated for 4,500 rubles. Payments of lawyers and recovered from the pharmacy 5,000 rubles. Moral harm.

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court canceled these decisions. The Supreme Court in a detailed decision returned by virtue of the decision in favor of M., although compensation for non -pecuniary damage of 5,000 rubles. He did not increase - but M. deserved it.

The same college of judges in 2018 supported the demand of Inessa K. from the Tauride region of the Omsk region on compensation for the costs of absentee for her disabled daughter. She canceled the decision of the Tagansky District Court of Moscow in the lawsuit of Elena L., which was filed in the interests of two minor children taken under the guardianship (their mother is deprived of parental rights).

Tagansky, and behind him, the Moscow City Courts refused a complaint about the refusal of the MFC of the capital to give children social cards, giving the right to free travel around the city, justifying this by L. did not register wards in the capital.

The Supreme Court indicated that this is not necessary, and the fact of living here children is quite proven.

A trifle compared to the amounts that appear in the first examples from the review of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, but still pleasant, especially since indirectly Moscow judges are indicated here and their arrogance.