Judicial protection of pension rights: problems of theory and practice
https://doi.org/10.24147/2542-1514.2018.2(1).164-179
Abstract
The subject. The article is devoted to analysis of pension disputes resolution in courts.
The purpose of the article is to reveal trends of pension disputes resolution and identify the ways of increasing the efficiency of judicial protection of citizens’ pension rights.
The methodology. Both general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, description) and special scientific methods (formal-legal methods method of legal interpretation) were used.
Results, scope of application. Pension legislation still does not contain a legal definition of the term “pension dispute” despite currently the prevalence of this category of cases; the legal science still has not developed a uniform approach to definition of the essence of the pension dispute.
Special attention is paid to the issues of definition of the facts in proof, that is complicated because of instability of the pension legislation and a large amount of normative array. Special rules relating to the admissibility of evidence are divided from legally significant circumstances. The attention is focused on the most problematic points that arise in the process of proving: the procedure for confirmation of experience, employment in certain types of work quotas.
Recommendations aimed at improving the effectiveness of judicial protection of the pension rights of citizens are formulated on the basis on the analysis of the identified problems that arise during consideration of pension disputes by law enforcement authorities. Recommendations include the need to improve the quality of normative legal acts, systematization of the pension legislation, increasing demands for training of judges, the creation of conditions conducive to the judges’ specialization. The necessity of increase activities of the Supreme Court in the process of issuing clarifications on issues arising in the application of the pension legislation is also considered.
Conclusions. The existence of a number of features of the substantive and procedural legal order in pension legislation is proved. Such features include the retrospective of the pension legislation, the resolution of pension disputes in both administrative and judicial procedures, the inability to use the mediation procedures and settlement agreement, the specifics of the subject of the relevant dispute, a large number of exemptions from payment of state fees, and special requirements for the content of the operative part of the judgment.
About the Authors
M. G. Sedelnikova
Dostoevsky Omsk State University, Omsk, Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
PhD in Law, Associate Professor, Head, Chair of Social Law.
SPIN-code: 4777-0133; AuthorID: 431741
A. A. Puzyreva
Dostoevsky Omsk State University, Omsk, Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
lecturer, Chair of Social Law
References
1. Kazanbekova D.R. Consideration by courts of disputes related to pensions. Moscow, Norma Publ., Infra-M Publ., 2014. 128 p. (In Russ.).
2. Erofeeva O.V. Protection of the rights of citizens to pension benefits. Moscow, Prospekt Publ., 2013. 171 р. (In Russ.).
3. Grigor'ev I.V., Shaikhatdinov V.Sh. Social security law, textbook and workshop. Moscow, Yurait Publ., 2017. 402 р. (In Russ.).
4. Machul'skaya E.E. Social security law, textbook. Moscow, Yurait Publ., 2017. 441 р. (In Russ.).
5. Filippova M.V. (ed.). Social security law, textbook and workshop. Moscow, Yurait Publ., 2017. 382 р. (In Russ.).
6. Chirkov S.A. About the retrospective nature of today's pension rights. Pensiya, 2016, no. 6, pp. 39–42. (In Russ.).
7. Lagford M. (ed.). Social Rights Jurisprudence: Emerging Trends in International and Comparative Law. Cambridge University Press, 2009. 704 p.
8. Martin C., Rodriguez-Pinzon D., Brown B. Human Rights of Older People: Universal and Regional Legal Perspectives. Springer, 2015. 353 p.
9. Sychenko E.V. Practice of the European court of human rights in the protection of labor rights and the right to social security. Moscow, Yustitsinform Publ., 2014. 139 р. (In Russ.).
10. Sergeev A.P., Tolstoi Yu.K. (eds.). Civil law, textbook. Moscow, Prospekt Publ., 2005. 848 p. (In Russ.).
11. Betnev V.V. The concept of the mechanism of protection of subjective civil rights, in: Subyektivnoe pravo: Problemy osushchestvleniya i zashchity. Vladivostok, 1989, pp. 9–11. (In Russ.).
12. Mrachkov V. Social Security Law in Bulgaria. Kluwer law international, 2011. 264 p.
13. Osipov Yu.K. (ed.). Civil process, textbook. Moscow, BEK Publ., 1995. 462 р. (In Russ.).
14. Treushnikov M.K. (ed.) Civil process, textbook. Moscow, Status Publ., 2014. 504 p. (In Russ.).
15. Korostyleva Yu.A. Peculiarities of consideration of certain categories of cases protection of the rights of citizens to social security, Cand. Diss. Yekaterinburg, 2004. 213 p. (In Russ.).
16. Azarova E.G. Judicial protection of pension rights, scientific-practical guide. Moscow, Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation Publ., 2009. 408 p. (In Russ.).
17. Terekhova L.A. The Prosecutor in the civil process. Vestnik Omskogo universiteta. Seriya “Pravo” = Herald of Omsk University. Series “Law”, 2011, no. 2 (27), рр. 124–129. (In Russ.).
18. Fokina M.A. (ed.). The course law of evidence: Civil process. The arbitration process. Moscow, Statut Publ., 2014. 496 р. (In Russ.).
19. Sedel'nikova M.G. To the question about the projected effectiveness of the norms of social security law, in: Parkhomenko N.M., Shumilo M.M., Іzarova І.O. (eds.). Efektivnіst' norm prava, collection of scientific works, Ma-terials of a VIІ International scientific and practical conference (Kyiv, November 17, 2016). Kyiv, Nika-Tsentr Publ., 2016, pp. 387–390. (In Russ.).
20. Chirkov S.A. Enforcement activities in the sphere of pension provision. 2015. Available at “ConsultantPlus” System. (In Russ.).
21. Kobylinskaya S.V. Judicial protection of pension rights. Pravo i praktika = Law and Practice, 2015, no. 3, рр. 29–34. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Sedelnikova M.G., Puzyreva A.A. Judicial protection of pension rights: problems of theory and practice. Law Enforcement Review. 2018;2(1):164-179. https://doi.org/10.24147/2542-1514.2018.2(1).164-179
Views:
3560
Email this article 