Legislation – laws and codes of the Russian Federation. Full texts of documents in the latest edition. Analytical professional materials. News of the legislation of the Russian Federation

Without a keyword

You will learn about the current changes in the Constitutional Court by becoming a member of the program developed jointly with Sberbank-AST JSC. Students who successfully master the program are issued certificates of the established form.

The program was developed jointly with Sberbank-AST JSC. Students who successfully master the program are issued certificates of the established form.

Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of February 7, 2008 No. 226-O-O On the refusal to accept for consideration the complaints of citizen Lavrov Alexander Sergeevich and citizens Klebanov Igor Semenovich, Lyubimov Pavel Grigorievich, Fokin Vladimir Petrovich and Yuzovsky Mikhail Iosifovich on violation of their constitutional rights the provisions of Article 19 of the Federal Law On Amendments to Parts One and Two of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation and Certain Other Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation, and on Recognizing Certain Legislative Acts (Provisions of Legislative Acts) of the Russian Federation as Invalid

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation composed of Chairman V.D. Zorkin, judges N.S. Bondar, G.A. Gadzhieva, Yu.M. Danilova, L.M.Zhakarova, G.A. Zhilina, S.M. Kazantseva, M.I. Kleandrova, A.L. Kononova, L.O. Krasavchikova, S.P. Mavrina, N.V. Melnikova, Yu.D. RUKINA, N.V. Selezneva, A.Ya. Pli, V.G. Dragorozova, O.S. Khokhryakova, B.S. Ebzeeva, V.G. Yaroslavtseva,

Having heard in the plenary meeting the conclusion of judge Yu.D. Rudkina, who carried out on the basis of Article 41 of the Federal Constitutional Law On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation preliminary study of complaints of a citizen A.S. Lavrova and citizens I.S. Klebanova, P.G. Lyubimova, V.P. Fokina and M.I. Yuzovsky, installed:

1. Citizens A.S. Lavrov, I.S. Klebanov, P.G. Lyubimov, V.P. Fokin, M.I. Yuzovsky-scenarii authors engaged in the field of cinematography, dispute the constitutionality of Article 19 of the Federal Law of November 2, 2004 N 127-ФЗ On Amendments in Part of the First and Second Tax Code of the Russian Federation and some other legislative acts of the Russian Federation, as well as about Recognition of certain legislative acts (provisions of legislative acts) of the Russian Federation in the part, presenting in connection with the introduction to the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, chapter 25.3 State duty – Article 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation in the new version.

As follows from the materials presented, the ruling of the judge of the Savelovsky District Court of Moscow dated February 26, 2007 by A.S. Lavrova and V.V. Brovka on the protection of copyright and recovery of compensation was left without movement in connection with the non -payment of the state fee. The judge, indicating that the petition of the plaintiffs is not the basis for the exemption of them from paying the state fee in accordance with Article 333.36 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, established the amount of the state fee payable to the plaintiffs when filing a statement of claim in the amount of 2000 rubles, and in The rest of it provided a delay in paying it. By the ruling of the judge of the Ostankinsky District Court of Moscow dated October 10, 2007, a cassation appeal of citizens I.S.Klebanova, P.G. Lyubimova, V.P. Fokin and M.I. Yuzovsky against the decision of the same court on the claim of the applicants against OAO TPO Film Studio im. M. Gorky on the payment of royalties was left without movement, since it was not paid with the state duty in accordance with Article 333.19 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

According to the Applicants, the disputed regulation, as a result of which the exemption of authors from payment of state fees on claims arising from copyright was canceled, is contrary to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, its Articles 17 (Part 2), 18, 19 (Part 2), 21, 44 (part 1), 45 (part 2), 46 (parts 1 and 2) and 55 (parts 2 and 3) and paragraph 1 of article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, puts them in an unequal position compared to the plaintiffs on claims for the recovery of wages (monetary allowance) and other claims arising from labor relations, which, by virtue of subparagraph 1 of paragraph 1 of Article 333.36 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, are exempt from payment of the state fee in cases considered in courts of general jurisdiction, as well as justices of the peace .

2. The Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees everyone the right to freely use their abilities and property for entrepreneurial and other economic activities not prohibited by law (Article 34, Part 1). Realizing the constitutional right to choose the type of activity and profession (Article 37, Part 1, of the Constitution of the Russian Federation), each citizen has the right to choose the form of legal mediation of his labor activity, including entering into an employment contract, acquiring the status of an individual entrepreneur or carrying out his activities on the basis of self-organization .

Thus, citizens who wished to carry out their activities on the basis of self-organization, without registration of labor relations, i.e. self-employed citizens, in this case, the authors, at the same time agree with the fact that – in contrast to persons performing work as part of an official assignment, i.e.In the framework of labor relations, and, therefore, carrying out their activities on the basis of an employment contract, are not among the participants in legal relations regulated by the labor legislation of the Russian Federation.

The establishment of various legislative regulation in relation to employees and self -employed citizens in relation to the payment of state fees does not indicate a violation of the principle of equality (Article 19, Part 1 and 2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation), which guarantees equal rights and obligations for subjects belonging to the conditions And the family of activity to one category of payers, and does not exclude the possibility of establishing various norms in relation to different categories of payers.

3. Considering the issue of the possibility of the exemption of citizens from paying the state duty on cases considered in the courts of general jurisdiction, in connection with the adoption of the Federal Law of November 2, 2004 N 127-ФЗ On Amendments in Part of the first and second Tax Code of the Russian Federation and Some other legislative acts of the Russian Federation, as well as on the recognition of certain legislative acts (provisions of legislative acts) of the Russian Federation, “The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in the definition of June 13, 2006 N 272-O, outlined the following legal position.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation, guaranteeing each judicial protection of rights and freedoms (Article 46, part 1), at the same time provides that the procedure for proceedings is determined by federal legislation (Article 71, paragraph O; Article 76, part 1). Thus, it is assumed that interested parties have the right to apply to the court for the protection of a violated or disputed law or interest protected by law only in the prescribed manner, which cannot be considered as a violation of the right to judicial protection; The requirements assigned to the legislator – when everyone provides an opportunity to apply to the court – is required for the applicant.This also applies to the rules governing the procedure for paying the state fee, since the state fee is a federal fee (paragraph 10 of Article 13, paragraph 1 of Article 333.16 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation), and by virtue of Article 57 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, everyone is obliged to pay legally established taxes and fees .

Based on the fact that the legal regulation introduced by the Federal Law of November 2, 2004 N 127-FZ retained the power of courts of general jurisdiction and justices of the peace to reduce the amount of the state fee payable in cases considered by them, and to provide a deferral (installment plan) of its payment for a period of up to six months (Article 64, paragraph 2 of Article 333.20, Article 333.41 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, Article 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation), but at the same time narrowed the circle of persons exempted from paying the state duty, and eliminated the possibility of exempting a citizen from paying it, taking into account his property provisions, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation came to the conclusion that the regulatory provisions contained in Article 333.36 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation in conjunction with paragraph 2 of Article 333.20 of this Code and in Article 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, which do not allow courts of general jurisdiction to take decisions at the request of individuals on exemption from paying the state patrimonial duty, if another reduction in the amount of the state duty, the provision of a deferment (installment plan) for its payment does not provide unimpeded access to justice, becomes invalid and cannot be applied by courts, other bodies and officials.

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation also pointed out that a reduction by a court (judge) of the amount of the state fee at the request of individuals cannot be considered an individual benefit, the establishment of which is prohibited by the legislation on taxes and fees (paragraph two of paragraph 1 of Article 56 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation) and under which implies the provision of certain advantages (in the grounds, procedure and conditions for paying taxes and fees) for some taxpayers (payers of fees) compared to others.

4.As follows from the complaints, the applicants believe that all authors – plaintiffs should be exempted from paying the state fee, regardless of their property status and belonging to the category of self-employed citizens, i.e. in fact, they propose to restore the exemption for the payment of the state fee, previously provided for by paragraph 2 of the first part of Article 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.

Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in its decisions has repeatedly pointed out that exemption from taxes and fees by its nature is a benefit, which is an exception to the principles of universality and equality of taxation arising from the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Articles 19 and 57), by virtue of which everyone is obliged to pay legally established taxes and fees; benefits are always targeted, and their establishment belongs to the exclusive prerogative of the legislator; it is the legislator who has the right to determine (narrow or expand) the circle of persons who are subject to tax benefits (decrees of March 21, 1997 N 5-P and March 28, 2000 N 5-P).

Based on the foregoing and guided by paragraph 2 of part one of Article 43 and part one of Article 79 of the Federal Constitutional Law On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation determined:

1. Refuse to accept for consideration the complaint of citizen Lavrov Alexander Sergeyevich and the complaint of citizens Klebanov Igor Semenovich, Lyubimov Pavel Grigoryevich, Fokin Vladimir Petrovich and Yuzovsky Mikhail Iosifovich, since they do not meet the requirements of the Federal Constitutional Law On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, in accordance with by which the complaint is admissible.

2. The ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on these complaints is final and not subject to appeal.

Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of February 7, 2008 N 226-О-О On the refusal to accept for consideration the complaints of citizen Lavrov Alexander Sergeevich and citizens Klebanov Igor Semenovich, Lyubimov Pavel Grigorievich, Fokin Vladimir Petrovich and Yuzovsky Mikhail Iosifovich on violation of their constitutional rights the provisions of Article 19 of the Federal Law On Amendments to Parts One and Two of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation and Certain Other Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation, and on Recognizing Certain Legislative Acts (Provisions of Legislative Acts) of the Russian Federation as Invalid