On November 14, 2024 the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has published Resolution No. 52-P on the case of verifying the constitutionality of paragraph 1 of Article 308.3 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, part 3 of Article 206 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation and Article 419 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the complaint of Mr. S.S. Shapka.
Background
The decision of the court of general jurisdiction satisfied the employee’s claim for recognition of the relationship as labor relations, and therefore the employer was obliged to draw up an employment contract, issue a hiring order and make an entry in the work record book on hiring and dismissal. For several months the employer did nothing to execute actions provided in the court decision, so the employee applied to the court with a claim for the award of a judicial penalty in his favor.
The courts of three levels refused since a judicial penalty may be awarded in the event of failure to fulfill civil obligations only and cannot be applied in labor disputes, according to the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation1.
The cassation courts in particular districts tended not to imply a judicial penalty for non-fulfillment of claims arising from labor relations2. At the same time there was no unified opinion across all the cassation districts, since in other districts the courts have granted judicial penalty in labor disputes3.
The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation opinion
The Constitutional Court concluded that it is necessary to distinguish the judicial penalty (astreinte) provided by the Article 308.3 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation from the penalty provided by procedural legislation. In the second case the penalty can be implied to fulfill non-material claims arising from labor relations.
The institution of judicial penalties was firstly introduced in legislation in the Article 308.3 of the Civil Code, which stipulates the court’s right, based on the request of the claimant, to grant the claimant with a sum if the debtor failures to comply with the judgment. Previously the Constitutional Court along with the Supreme Court adhered to opinion that such a judicial penalty is awarded if civil obligations are violated only and cannot be established in administrative disputes or when resolving labor, pension and family disputes4. Since this rule is not applicable to labor relations, it cannot violate the constitutional rights of the employee.
At the same time the right to award a judicial penalty is not stipulated in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. A claimant’s right to seek for judicial penalty is based on provisions of substantive or procedural legislation. With respect to special legal character of civil obligations based on equality, autonomy of will and property independence of the participants, the legislative authority limited the scope of application of a judicial penalty originally to civil relations.
The right to imply a judicial penalty was introduced into the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in 20185. The content of the relevant articles of the procedural codes does not restrict awarding a judicial penalty to cases where substantive law allows this.
On the contrary, procedural rules do not provide for any other conditions for establishing a judicial penalty except for a judgment obliging the defendant to do certain actions not related to the transfer of property or money. Consequently, the scope of application of the judicial penalty provided in procedural codes is broader than the judicial penalty provided in the Article 308.3 of the Civil Code.
Thus, there are no reasons to exclude the application of Part 3 of the Article 206 of the Civil Procedure Code to failures to comply with a judgment obliging the employer to perform certain actions not related to the transfer of property or money in favor of the employee.
Lidings’ commentaries
It stands to mention that the opinion of the Constitutional Court may serve as a basis to review already adopted judgments in cases where provisions of the law considering judicial penalty were interpreted in a manner that diverges from the interpretation of the Constitutional Court. If in the case you were a party to the court denied the employee’s claim for of astreinte, then the employee has a right to apply with a statement on review of the judgment in the relevant part.
1Paragraph 2 of clause 30 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 24, 2016 No. 7 “On the application by courts of certain provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on liability for breach of obligations”.
2See, for example, the ruling of the Eighth Cassation Court of general jurisdiction dated September 26, 2024 No. 88-19457/2024, the ruling of the Third Cassation Court of general jurisdiction dated April 26, 2023 in case No. 88-8291/2023, the ruling of the Seventh Cassation Court of general jurisdiction dated May 28, 2024 No. 88-8535/2024, the Appellate Ruling of the Rostov Regional Court dated March 18, 2024 No. 33-3573/2024 (fourth cassation district).
3See, for example, the Appellate Ruling of the Vladimir Regional Court dated August 21, 2024 in case No. 33-3218/2024 (second cassation district).
4Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated November 24, 2016 No. 2579-O “On refusal to accept for consideration the complaint of Ms. Elmira Midhatovna Sannikova on violation of her constitutional rights by paragraph 1 of Article 308.3 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation”.
5See Part 3 of the Article 206 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, Part 4 of the Article 174 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, introduced by Federal Law No. 340-FZ of August 3, 2018.