General information for healthcare professionals. Training in residency (internship) at the expense of the federal budget Training of employees at the expense of OMS funds

23.12.2020

Tuition payment medical workers: There is no money, but you are studying!

By the will of fate, I often communicate with doctors who tell the same sad story: “The time has come to “renew the certificate”, and the management said that there was no money. Therefore, they came to study for their own money. Knowing average salary of our specialists, I have always been amazed why no one reads the law, and if they do, they are afraid to once again declare their rights. “Yeah, we will declare, and we will be fired…”. The argument, of course, is weighty, but at such a pace everyone will have to learn at their own expense. And in conditions of a shortage of personnel throughout the country, this is already a threatening trend ...

Well, after all, it is not from his own pocket that the chief physician pays for your education! Let's see what rights a doctor has and what opportunities a medical organization has to pay for your studies.

To begin with, we will draw a fundamental difference between the payment for training and advanced training.

If the employee decides to learn something new, for example, to master a related specialty, the employer is not against and is interested in obtaining such a highly qualified employee, then in this case the training may be at the expense of the employer, and the employer has the right to conclude an additional contract with the employee, obliging him to work for a certain the amount of time or return the money spent on training.

If we are talking about mandatory advanced training (i.e., the result of which will be obtaining a certificate (accreditation) for the next 5 years, then there can be no question of any additional conditions for working out.

It must be remembered that a medical organization has the right to provide medical care only if its staff has specialists in a particular type of activity. Those. a maternity hospital cannot attend births if there are no midwives and obstetrician-gynecologists in its staff, and dental clinic- an ordinary organization if there are no dentists in it. It is not for nothing that during the licensing procedure, the licensing authority requests diplomas and certificates of specialists. Thus, if medical specialists of a particular medical organization do not have valid certificates (accreditation), then the medical organization automatically loses the right to carry out this type of activity.

Article 196 Labor Code RF states that “the employer is obliged to carry out professional education or additional vocational education of employees, if this is a condition for employees to perform certain types of activities. Medical care is just such a case. Federal Law No. 323-FZ of November 21, 2011 “On the Basics of Protecting the Health of Citizens in the Russian Federation” (hereinafter referred to as 323-FZ) has several “cross-provisions”, on the basis of which the employer has no chance not to pay for your advanced training: in accordance with paragraph 2 tbsp. 72 the employee “has the right to vocational training, retraining and advanced training at the expense of the employer in accordance with labor legislation Russian Federation»; and in accordance with paragraph 8 of Art. 79 of the same law, the employer is obliged to "provide professional training, retraining and advanced training of medical workers in accordance with the labor legislation of the Russian Federation."

The law is, of course, good, but only the employer, even recognizing his obligation to pay for advanced training, guiltily reports that there is still no money.

Firstly, the personnel department is obliged to monitor the validity of certificates (accreditations) of its employees, and all the arguments of personnel officers: “Your certificate, follow its validity yourself” is only their excuse for their own incompetence.

Secondly, there is always an opportunity to send an employee for advanced training. Therefore, the employer will have to look for money. So, what are the options to send a health worker for advanced training?

The first way is to find places in educational organizations that are paid within the framework of the state assignment (in other words, “according to the budget”). Educational organizations annually receive a state order for advanced training of medical workers, but there are not always enough budget places for everyone.

The second way is to pay with funds from income-generating activities, if there is one in the organization.

The third way is to pay for advanced training at the expense of the compulsory health insurance fund. "Terms of use medical organizations funds of the normalized insurance reserve of the territorial CHI fund for financial support of measures to organize additional vocational education medical workers on advanced training programs, as well as on the acquisition and repair of medical equipment” were approved by the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 322 dated April 21, 2016. But at the same time, in the specified normative act there are a number of conditions, under which it is possible to pay for advanced training:

the medical organization must have signed an agreement for the provision and payment of medical care under compulsory medical insurance for the current financial year;
the medical organization must be in the action plan agreed with the parent organization (in order to get into the plan, you must submit an application in the prescribed form). The plan is approved quarterly, so there is always the opportunity to make changes, indicating who and where is going to improve their skills and how much is needed for this Money. And if the funds were not fully used in the current year, then you can use them in next year for the same purposes;
an employee who wants to go to study must write an application addressed to the head of his medical organization, and indicate where and how he would like to improve his qualifications;
a medical organization must have an agreement on education for training in an additional professional educational program;
if necessary, in the financial plan economic activity medical organization changes.

A medical worker has the right to choose a professional development program for himself; on this occasion, the Ministry of Health of Russia issued a whole order (dated August 4, 2016 No. 575n), explaining the procedure for such a choice. Actually, those who read my articles are already aware of the procedure for registering on the online portal of continuing medical education, and that, sooner or later, everyone will have to do this. So the order of the Ministry of Health of Russia tells exactly about this. Repetition is the mother of learning, so let me remind you:

a) register on the NMO Internet portal;

b) select the educational program of interest from the list;

c) create a preliminary application for training (available for printing on paper);

d) we coordinate with the employer the chosen organization, subject and terms of training (although it is not clear whether this must be done in writing or orally, therefore, in each individual case, this is decided in working order);

d) we write an application for referral for advanced training to the head of a medical organization and attach a printed preliminary application;

e) if you were included in the action plan, then your medical organization concludes an agreement for your training with an educational organization and pays for your training from the CHI funds.

If the tuition is paid in another way, this does not cancel the registration on the NMO Internet portal and the choice of additional programs from the list of accredited events located on the same portal.

TARGET INTERNSHIP / RESIDENCEOF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH OF THE CITY OF MOSCOW AT THE EXPENSE OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET

Training in the target internship / residency is carried out at the direction of the Moscow City Health Department for persons registered in Moscow, in the State Budgetary Educational Institutions of Higher Professional Education of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation in accordance with the approved quota, the need of medical organizations of the Moscow state health system for doctors of scarce specialties and subject to the conclusion of an agreement between the Department of Health of the city of Moscow and a graduate (Specialist) (Appendix 1.2)

Reception of documents for obtaining a target referral in 2015 is carried out at the Department of Health of the city of Moscow from April 20 to June 15.

The right to receive a targeted referral from the Moscow City Health Department is granted to citizens who have permanent registration in Moscow.

The issuance of target areas is carried out on the basis of a decision of the Commission for Targeted Training of Specialists with Higher Professional Education of the Moscow Health Department. The list of specialties and the number of target places in the clinical internship / residency of the Moscow Department of Health is updated annually.

The list of documents for admission to target places for internship / residency at the departments of the GBOU VPO of the First Moscow Medical University. THEM. Sechenov, Russian National Research Medical University named after N.I. Pirogov, Moscow State Medical and Dental University named after A.I. Evdokimova, Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education are published on the websites of the corresponding university.

In addition to the required documents published on the website of universities, for enrollment in internship / residency at target places, you must provide a letter of guarantee from a medical organization of the state healthcare system of the city of Moscow.

Rules for concluding an agreement on targeted training in residency (internship) at the expense of the federal budget between the Moscow Department of Health and a specialist

The Department of Health of the City of Moscow as part of the implementation of the personnel policy in the state healthcare system of the city of Moscow, aimed at preserving and strengthening the health of citizens of the Russian Federation, in order to staff medical organizations of the state healthcare system of Moscow with qualified medical personnel in accordance with the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 27.11.2013 of the year No. 1076 “On the procedure for concluding and terminating an agreement on targeted admission and targeted training” and by order of the Moscow City Health Department dated March 25, 2014 No. 266 “On targeted training of specialists in clinical residency (internship)” issues referrals to graduates of state educational institutions of higher professional education who have a state diploma of higher medical education in the specialties: "General Medicine", "Pediatrics", "Medical and Preventive Business", permanently registered in the city of Moscow or nearby Ayshem Podmoskovie, who expressed a desire to work in medical organizations of the state healthcare system of the city of Moscow.

Reception of documents for obtaining a target referral in 2016 is carried out at the Department of Health of the city of Moscow from May 15 to June 15, 2016.

The list of documents for obtaining a targeted referral for training in clinical residency (internship):

1. Application to the Commission for Targeted Training of Specialists with Higher Professional Education, Department of Health of the City of Moscow, indicating the specialty of study. (see sample)

2. Letter of guarantee - an application from the head of a medical organization of the state healthcare system of the city of Moscow for the training of a specialist and subsequent employment according to the received specialty. (see sample)

3. Additionally, submit documents in accordance with the list of documents for admission to clinical residency (internship) at the departments of the First Moscow Medical University. THEM. Sechenov of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, SBEE HPE "Russian National Research Medical University. N.I. Pirogov" of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry. A.I. Evdokimov" of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation and SBEE DPO "Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education", published on the websites of the corresponding university.

ATTENTION!

1. All documents must be in a paper folder.

2. For the formation of a personal file and its subsequent transfer to the admission committee of the university, it is necessary to submit copies of documents and confirm them with originals.

3. The original diploma of education is handed over to the selection committee of the university.

Contact phone number for receiving directions: 8-499-251-64-72

Rules for admission to the State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry named after A.I. A.I. Evdokimov" of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation under the programs of postgraduate professional education (internship) at the expense of the federal budget in the target area of the Department of Health of the City of Moscow for March 2016

Address GBOU VPO "MGMSU them. A.I. Evdokimov" of the Ministry of Health of Russia: 127473, Moscow, st. Delegatskaya, d.20, building 1

Contacts: For any questions related to the work of the institute, admission or offers, you can contact by phone:

Secretariat of MGMSU: 8-495-609-67-00

Selection committee: 8-499-973-37-44

Email: [email protected]

The list of documents required for admission to the internship at the Moscow State Medical University named after M.V. A.I. Evdokimov" of the Ministry of Health of Russia:

1. Application (the form is issued at the selection committee, can be printed from the site)

2. Personal card (at the admissions office or print from the site)

(For applicants on a contract basis, 2 copies are required)

5. Autobiography (print the form from the site and fill it out yourself)

6. Medical certificate form No. 086 / y (original) indicating fluorography

7. Military ID or registration certificate (copy of completed pages)

8. Certificate of completion of internship or residency (if available) - copy

9. Four photographs 3x4 (in an unstamped envelope)

10. Certificate from the place of residence (extract from the house book)

ATTENTION! Detailed information is available on the website: http://www.msmsu.ru

4. A personal card is signed before submitting documents at the military registration desk (20/1 Delegatskaya St., room 414).

Rules for admission to the State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Russian National Research Medical University named after N.I. Pirogov" of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation for programs of postgraduate professional education (internship) at the expense of the federal budget for the target area of the Department of Health of the City of Moscow for March 2016

Address GBOU VPO "RNIMU them. N.I. Pirogov" of the Ministry of Health of Russia: 117997, Moscow, st. Ostrovityanova, 1,

Rector's office: 8-495-434-14-22

Selection committee: 8-495-434-31-74

"Helpline": 8-495-434-05-43

Schedule: Monday-Thursday - 9.00 - 18.00, Friday - 9.00 - 16.45, break - 12.00 - 12.45

The list of documents required for admission to the internship at the Russian National Research Medical University named after N.N. N.I. Pirogov" of the Ministry of Health of Russia:

1. Application (the form is issued at the selection committee or printed from the site)

2. Personal sheet for personnel records (at the selection committee or print from the site)

3. Passport (copy - first page, registration)

4. Diploma of higher education and application (copy) + original

5. Autobiography (in handwritten form)

6. Characteristics from the last place of study and / or work

7. Medical certificate form No. 086 / y (original) indicating fluorography

8. Military ID (copy of completed pages)

9. Certificate from the second department of the Russian National Research Medical University

10. Work book (copy) - if available

11. Two photos 3x4

12. Certificate from the place of residence (extract from the house book)

13. Certificate of completion of internship or residency (copy) - if available

1. All documents must be in a paper binder.

2. The original diploma of education is handed over to the selection committee of the university.

3. Have original documents with you.

Rules for admission to the State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education First Moscow State Medical University. THEM. Sechenov of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation for programs of postgraduate professional education internship / residency at the expense of the federal budget in the target area of the Department of Health of the City of Moscow for March 2016

Address GBOU VPO First Moscow State Medical University. THEM. Sechenov of the Ministry of Health of Russia: 119991, Moscow, st. Trubetskaya, d. 8, building 2

Rector's office: 8-499-248-05-53

Reference: 8-495-609-14-00; Fax machine: 8-499-248-01-81

Phones of the internship and residency department: 8-499-242-00-73; 8-499-248-80-98; 8-499-248-72-44; 8-495-622-96-08; http://www.mma.ru - admission rules.

Target places for postgraduate professional education internship programs (reception of documents from May 15 to June 15)

Target places for programs of postgraduate professional education residency (reception of documents from May 15 to June 15)

Before submitting an application, we ask you to register electronically on the website, on the main page http://www.mma.ru/. This will significantly save your time.

7. Four photographs 4X6 (in an unstamped envelope)

ATTENTION!

1. All documents must be in a paper binder.

2. The original diploma of education is handed over to the selection committee of the university.

3. Have original documents with you.

Rules for admission to the State Budgetary Educational Institution of Additional Professional Education "Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education" of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation for programs of postgraduate professional education

Address of SBEI DPO "Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education" of the Ministry of Health of Russia: st. Barrikadnaya, 2/1, building 1, Moscow, 125993

Reference: 8-499-252-21-04; Fax machine: 8-499-254-98-05

Residency phone numbers: 8-499-254-42-18, 8-499-254-45-80

Target places for programs of postgraduate professional education residency (reception of documents from May 15 to June 15 at the Moscow Department of Health)

The list of documents required for admission to the internship / residency at the First Moscow State Medical University. THEM. Sechenov of the Ministry of Health of Russia:

1. Application (the form is issued at the selection committee)

2. Passport (copy - first page, registration) + original

3. Diploma of higher education and application (copy) + original

4. Medical certificate form No. 086 / y (original) indicating fluorography

5. Military ID or registration certificate (copy of completed pages)

6. Certificate of completion of internship or residency (if available) - copy

7. Two photographs 4x6 (in an unstamped envelope)

8. Persons with disabilities - documents confirming their disabilities;

9. Documents evidencing individual achievements (recommendations from educational, scientific, medical organizations, availability of published works, inventions);

10. Questionnaire (filled in by the Admissions Committee).

ATTENTION!

1. All documents must be in a paper binder.

2. The original diploma of education is handed over to the selection committee of the university.

3. Have original documents with you.

4. All entrance examinations are conducted in the form of oral exams in the scope of the requirements of federal state educational standards higher education under the programs of a specialist in the relevant specialty.

Detailed information and the Schedule of entrance examinations are available on the website of the Academy (http://www.rmapo.ru).

Continuing Medical Education (CME) is a sore point for medical professionals and pharmacists. On the one hand, it seems that obtaining points under the CME system is not particularly difficult. Lekoboz wrote about this in the material “4% of doctors do not know what NMO is”. On the other hand, the system itself seems incomprehensible to medical workers and pharmacists, absolutely ill-conceived and, most importantly, not adapted for specialists.

NMO is introduced in order to medical or pharmaceutical worker constantly improved his skills, was aware of modern approaches and methods of treating diseases. To do this, a specialist must regularly receive credit units by attending conferences, educational courses and seminars. Each specialist is required to score a certain number of points in order to confirm the validity of his certificate of a doctor or pharmacist, without which he cannot carry out his professional activities. Training in the CME system should be free for healthcare workers and paid for from the MHIF.

NMO at your own expense

However, in reality the situation differs significantly from what is declared. Pharmacists and doctors complain that most often the MHIF does not pay anything, and they are forced to undergo training at their own expense.

For example, a phthisiatrician from Orel writes that he has been studying for two years with his own money, simply because their medical organization does not work with the MHIF. “As a result, for me, “free” points cost more than paid ones,” the doctor comments.

His colleague from St. Petersburg says that the situation is no better in their city: “I tried to apply for training in six months. In September, when the schedule appeared, I was told that applications were submitted 21 days in advance. When I did it again, it turned out that there were no free places left, and at work they refused to approve the application. As a result, I completed a weekly course for my own money - 10 thousand rubles. I didn't learn anything new."

A separate caste - doctors of private clinics. “Our existence is generally forgotten when creating registers, organizing NMOs, and calculating salaries. Even if we assume that not all of us are equally good, this does not mean at all that there is no private medicine at all, and that we do not need jobs, ”adds a cardiologist from Moscow.

NMO does not provide knowledge

Medical workers are especially upset by the fact that, as a rule, educational courses in the CME system do not provide knowledge. A pediatrician from Orenburg adds that many teachers have never seen a patient themselves, “so what can they teach?”

Medical specialists are not at all opposed to the fact that the doctor must be constantly trained, but this should be organized in a different way.

“It is much more useful to teach how to summarize information from scientific journals, systematize or make your own small observations, even if it is a minimum sample of 10 or 20 patients,” says a cardiologist from Moscow. - It is necessary to organize everything in such a way that the doctor has time and energy for independent work. The doctor must read himself, collect minimal material, interact with professors. And we have professors - on their own, doctors - separately.

A nephrologist from Omsk confirms the idea: “At one time, they taught me everything and, most importantly, taught me to think independently, not be afraid to make decisions, constantly read, search for the necessary information in order to make the correct diagnosis for the patient and prescribe treatment. This is how learning should be! “And this is precisely what we do not have in the CME system,” agrees a cardiologist from Naberezhnye Chelny. - You can re-read at least all the sources you need, but you won’t get points for it. But you are obliged to listen to the same thing for the tenth time.”

The NMO system is not thought out

In addition to complaints about the quality of education, doctors consider the entire system cumbersome and inconvenient. But, as the therapist from Ufa put it, "everyone is full and loaded with work."

“I believe that it is enough to go through distance learning once every five years, also to pass an exam remotely, to receive e-mail certificate and all. And this NMO only prevents people from working,” writes a reflexologist from Chita.

The CME system does not provide for the training of women doctors who are on maternity leave. Judging by the comments of medical workers, score during maternity leave difficult, but it is impossible to get a "delay". “You can’t earn your points remotely via the Internet, and I don’t have such an opportunity, since I’m sitting at home with a schoolboy and a baby. And what, will I be fired upon exiting the decree? - the neurologist from Smolensk is interested.

“Indeed, a woman who has given birth to a child has legal right for 3 years completely move away from professional activity. It turns out that the NMO ignores this fact. Even at the university you can take academic leave, but here you can’t,” agrees the ophthalmologist from Yoshkar-Ola.

A doctor of functional diagnostics from Volgograd sees a way out of this situation in the passage of distance learning cycles that last 36 hours. “Only you will have to pay for such a cycle yourself on a contractual basis as an individual. Although even working doctors are not paid by employers for these CME cycles, referring to the absence of an order from the Ministry of Health obliging them to do so,” he adds.

It turns out that the NMO system only on paper looks harmonious and thoughtful. However, when it is actually applied to life, everything turns out to be much more complicated and confusing. “It seems to me that the Ministry of Health itself does not fully understand what CMO is, so there is such confusion in this matter,” an ophthalmologist from Yoshkar-Ola comments. And a psychiatrist from Moscow is sure that "all these projects with NMOs are a crime aimed at squeezing out the remnants of medical personnel."

Doctors, discussing the system of continuing medical education, try to reason logically: if a specialist has a medical diploma, a certificate of completion of an internship, an entry in the work book about the completion of clinical residency and postgraduate studies, a certificate of a specialist in another medical specialty, then it is clear that he attached maximum efforts to achieve such a result. This is a lot of read monographs, and textbooks, listened to lectures, and self-studied material. Such a "track record" is already the main confirmation of the validity of the certificate. And if a doctor removes an appendix every day for five years, then he knows how to do it. He won't be able to forget it. Why prove it every time?

Many experts think so. They don't see the point in NMO. Summing up, a pediatrician from St. Petersburg said that he himself was ignoring CME and was not going to score: “I don’t have time to do this. I think that a doctor should have a choice: either CME or training once every five years.”

In order to ensure the treatment process, the dental clinic sends an employee to the residency for training in the specialty of an orthodontist. At present, the employee has been hired as a dentist in the medical and preventive department financed by the compulsory medical insurance. Please clarify whether it is possible to pay for a two-year residency training at the expense of the compulsory medical insurance, whether in this situation the employee is reimbursed for travel expenses to the place of study, accommodation, daily allowance, whether the employee is paid a stipend and in what amount (or the average salary is maintained)

Answer

Answer to the question:

According to Art. 196 Labor Code of the Russian Federation the need for employee training (vocational education and vocational training) and additional professional education for their own needs is determined by the employer.

In this case, the employee is not entitled to a scholarship.

If the employer pays for the training of an employee in an educational organization, the employer has the right to conclude a written agreement on training with him.

Under this agreement, the employer assumes the obligation to pay for the training of an employee of an educational organization. In contrast to the apprenticeship contract, the employer is not required to pay a stipend under a training contract.

In accordance with Art. 249 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in case of dismissal without good reasons before expiration term stipulated by the employment contract or agreement about learning at the expense of the employer, the employee is obliged to reimburse the costs incurred by the employer for his training, calculated in proportion to the time actually not worked after the end of training, unless otherwise provided by the employment contract or training agreement.

The employer independently determines the procedure, forms and terms of training. By organizing training for employees (including potential ones) at their own expense, the employer has the right to insure himself against the risk of wasting money. For this purpose, a training agreement is concluded with the employee.

At the same time, according to the results of training, the employee (job seeker) assigned a specific profession, specialty or qualification. The availability of an appropriate license from an educational institution is essential in proving the fact of the conclusion and execution of a student agreement.

Under this agreement the employer has the right to demand compensation from the employee for the costs of his training if the following conditions are met:

The employee is sent for training by the employer;

The employee was trained at the expense of the employer, but in case of dismissal before a certain period after training, without good reason, he is obliged to reimburse him for expenses (the relevant wording of the agreement signed by the parties serves as confirmation);

The employer paid the cost of training the employee (an agreement on the provision of educational services, payment orders, orders for personnel on allowances for student mentors, etc.).

By working time:

Reimbursement of training costs is possible only if an employee is dismissed without good reason before the expiration of the established working period (Article 249 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). The term of working off must be indicated in an additional agreement to the employment contract or student agreement (Articles 72, 199 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). In the absence of a working period, the employer loses the right to demand reimbursement of training costs from the employee, regardless of the reason and term for dismissal. At the same time, per diems and expenses related to travel and accommodation at the place of study can also be included in the expenses for training, provided that such expenses were indicated in the student agreement and directly accompanied the training.

The legitimacy of this approach is confirmed by the explanations of Rostrud specialists in. A similar position is taken by the courts (see, for example, appeal rulings,).

If, at the end of the training, the employee leaves without good reason, without having worked in the organization for the established period, then he must reimburse the employer for the costs of his training in an amount proportional to the time not actually worked (Article 249, paragraph 5, part 4, article 57 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation ).

A specific procedure for reimbursement of training costs can be fixed in an employee's employment or apprenticeship contract (Article 249 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). In this case, issue the recovery of expenses for training in the manner prescribed by the specified agreements.

T mining legislation does not specify the composition of the employer's expenses, which can be reimbursed as costs associated with employee training.

Employee training costs usually consist of the following amounts:

Tuition fees;

Costs associated with training, for example, in the form of guarantees and compensations:

(or) provided for by labor legislation:

Travel expenses for advanced training in another area;

Payment once a year for travel to the place of study and back in the case of distance learning at a university or technical school;

Average earnings (scholarships) during study holidays or study away from work;

(or) established by the employer(for example, higher daily allowances, payment for travel and study holidays when an employee receives an education of the appropriate level not for the first time or in educational institutions that do not have state accreditation).

From the Appellate Ruling of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court dated December 18, 2013 in case N 33-12028 / 2013, it follows that the employer’s expenses for the employee’s food are related to expenses incurred in connection with the student’s education and are subject to reimbursement (See at the end of the answer).

Relatively payment for travel to the place of study, travel expenses It should be noted that these payments are guarantees established by the labor legislation of the Russian Federation. The payment of these amounts does not depend on the will of the employer, as well as on the circumstances following such payment.

Labor legislation does not provide for the return of these amounts under any circumstances ( 173-177, 198 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation,).

These payments are precisely guaranteed payments and do not relate to training costs, which are mentioned in articles 207 and 249 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. In these articles, we are talking about scholarships, payment of the cost of the education itself, teaching aids etc., that is, about payments that are established in an employment contract or training agreement individually with each employee. In relation to such payments, the employer has the right to provide for a condition on their further reimbursement (withholding) when, if the employee violates the terms of the contract or agreement. At the same time, the obligation to pay the cost of travel to the place of training and back arises regardless of the presence or absence of such a condition in the contract (agreement) with the employee. The same applies to travel expenses.

It should also be noted that the cost of training can be recovered from the employee only if he leaves before the end of the working period (does not take up a new position upon completion of training) for no good reason. And what reasons to consider valid or disrespectful, the labor legislation does not say. The court may recognize the dismissal of an employee as valid, for example, in connection with:

With a reduction in the number or staff of employees,

With the absence of work, when the employee needs to be transferred to another job in accordance with the medical report,

With a call for military service.

That is, when an employee quits inappropriately own will and he is fired not in connection with his guilty actions.

The issue of recovering amounts, except for the cost of education itself, is resolved ambiguously in the courts.

In accordance with Art. 249 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in the event of dismissal without good reason before the expiration of the period stipulated by the employment contract or agreement on training at the expense of the employer, the employee is obliged to reimburse the costs incurred by the employer for his training, calculated in proportion to the time actually not worked after the end of training, unless otherwise provided employment contract or training agreement.

Given the variability of this rule, many employers provide in the agreement that tuition costs are reimbursed not proportionally, but in full. Some courts consider the condition of full compensation lawful (). And others believe that such a condition worsens the position of the employee in comparison with the conditions guaranteed to him by labor legislation (Cassation ruling of the Supreme Court of the Udmurt Republic dated September 1, 2010 in case No. 33-2849, see additional materials), since the contractual liability of the employee to the employer cannot be higher than that provided for by the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. Therefore, according to these courts, the employee must compensate the employer for the amounts spent on studies in proportion to the time not worked (Determination of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court dated March 1, 2011 in case No. 33-2823 / 2011, see additional materials).

Thus, if the training agreement does not contain a condition for the employee to fully reimburse the costs of training, then the organization will not receive a refund of all training expenses. The court will recover them from the employee only in an amount proportional to the unworked time.

Some employers include in the training agreement the right to withhold training expenses from termination payments without the employee's application. They regard such a condition as the employee's consent to withholding, which makes it possible to deduct any amount from the payments due to him, that is, without taking into account the 20% limit, because. he signed the agreement.

In conclusion, we note in addition that the question of what training is meant is still not clear.

So, if this training is mandatory, then it is paid for by the employer. In this case, no costs can be recovered from the employee at all.

Details in the materials of the System Personnel:

1. Shapes:

Learning Agreement No. 2

to the employment contract dated February 14, 2007 N 19

Alpha LLC represented by CEO _____________________________, acting on the basis of the Charter, hereinafter referred to as the "Employer", and ____________________________________________________________________________, acting on its own behalf, hereinafter referred to as the "Employee", collectively referred to as the "Parties", have entered into this agreement as follows.

The employee is sent to ____________________________________________________________ ( for advanced training / training under the program of higher professional education, bachelor's / master's degree at Moscow State University, Moscow)

The term of study is from _______________ to _________________________________.

The employer undertakes;

Bear the costs of paying for the training of an employee in part (in the amount of 85% of the cost of training in accordance with the contract for the provision of educational services of October 25, 2010 N 273 in the amount of 10,000 (Ten thousand) rubles per month within 6 months from the start of training;

Keep it for the Employee workplace for the period of study and average earnings.

The employee undertakes:

Observe academic discipline, attend all classes provided for by the training program, in accordance with the annex to the contract for the provision of educational services dated October 25, 2010 N 273;

Pay monthly (in any other order) 15% of the cost of education (1765 rubles).

after graduation, work at the enterprise for at least one year;

In case of dismissal of one's own free will (clause 3, part 1, article 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation), before the expiration of one year, return to the Employer the funds spent on training (the cost of payment under the contract for the provision of educational services dated October 25, 2010 N 273) in an amount proportional to the unused time.

Employer Employee

Alpha LLC Full name

The address: _____________________ _______________________________

____________________________

Lvov / (A.I. Lvov) signature / (full name,)

2. Legal basis:

KRASNOYARSK REGIONAL COURT

APPEALS DETERMINATION

Referee: Solovyov E.V.

Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court consisting of:

presiding: Emelyanova VA

judges: Baimova I.A., Belyakova N.V.

under the secretary: Z.

examined in open court on the report of the judge Belyakova H.The.

civil case on the claim of the Limited Liability Company "Fortress-Sirius" against A. for the recovery of the amount and expenses for paying the state duty,

on appeal A.

against the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Krasnoyarsk dated October 14, 2013, which ruled:

"The claims of the Limited Liability Company" Fortress - Sirius "satisfy.

To collect from A. in favor of Fortress-Sirius Limited Liability Company the amount of expenses incurred for training in the amount of 68,113 rubles 29 kopecks, the amount of expenses incurred for food compensation in the amount of 16,468 rubles and the costs of paying the state fee in the amount of 3 044 rubles 97 kopecks, total 87,626 rubles 26 kopecks.

After hearing the speaker, the panel of judges

installed:

Fortress-Sirius LLC filed a lawsuit against A. for the recovery of the amount and expenses for paying the state duty.

He motivated his claims by the fact that on October 3, 2011, a student contract N 06/2011 was concluded between the company and the defendant A. for vocational training in order to improve his skills in the profession of a mechanic, as well as acquiring additional special knowledge in the field of maintenance and repair of cars Toyota and Lexus.

On March 30, 2012, an employment contract was signed with the defendant, in accordance with the terms of which, after completing vocational training, the latter undertook to work at Krepost-Sirius LLC for at least three years in the acquired profession. In case of termination of the employment contract at the initiative of the employee before the expiration of the specified period of work, the employer's expenses for training are withheld from the employee in the following order: upon dismissal in the first year of work - 100% of the employer's expenses, in the second year of work - 80% of the employer's expenses and in the third year work - 60%.

On September 20, 2012, an agreement was signed with A. to terminate the employment contract on the basis of Art. 78 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, in which he undertook to reimburse expenses in the amount of 94,832 rubles 29 kopecks.

In this regard, taking into account the partial repayment of the debt by the defendant, Krepost-Sirius LLC asked to recover from A. the amount of costs incurred for training in the amount of 68,113 rubles 29 kopecks, food costs in the amount of 16,468 rubles and expenses for paying state duty in in the amount of 3,044 rubles 97 kopecks.

The Court of First Instance upheld the above decision.

In the appeal, A. asks to cancel the court decision as illegal and unfounded, referring to the incorrect determination by the court of the circumstances relevant to the case, the inconsistency of the court's conclusions with the actual circumstances of the case, and the incomplete assessment of the evidence presented.

After checking the case materials, after hearing the defendant A., his representative, at the oral request of V.V., who supported the arguments of the appeal, the representative of the plaintiff LLC "Fortress-Sirius" - V.A., who asked the court decision to be left unchanged, having discussed the arguments of the appeal, the panel of judges comes to the following.

In accordance with Art. 198 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the employer - entity(organization) has the right to conclude with an employee of this organization - a student contract for vocational training or retraining on the job or with a break from work.

By virtue of Art. 199 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the student agreement must contain: the name of the parties; an indication of the specific qualification acquired by the student; the obligation of the employer to provide the employee with the opportunity to study in accordance with the student agreement; the obligation of the employee to undergo training and, in accordance with the qualifications obtained, work under an employment contract with the employer for the period specified in the student agreement; period of apprenticeship; the amount of payment during the period of apprenticeship.

According to Art. 249 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in the event of dismissal without good reason before the expiration of the period stipulated by the employment contract or agreement on training at the expense of the employer, the employee is obliged to reimburse the costs incurred by the employer for his training, calculated in proportion to the time actually not worked after the end of training, unless otherwise provided employment contract or training agreement.

As follows from the case file and established by the court of first instance, on 03.10.2011, a student agreement N 06 \ 2011 was concluded between Krepost-Sirius LLC and A. for vocational training by a student enterprise in order to improve his skills in working as a mechanic, and as well as the acquisition of additional specialized knowledge in the field of maintenance and repair of Toyota and Lexus vehicles.

The student agreement is concluded in the written form established by law, and A. received a copy of it, which is confirmed by his signature in the agreement.

According to the concluded agreement, the duration of A.'s training was no more than six months and did not depend on the level of basic theoretical training of the student, skills in car maintenance (clause 1.2). Apprenticeship was carried out in two forms: theoretical group in the classroom at the location of the enterprise and individual practical training at work in service centers enterprises under the guidance of a qualified mentor (clauses 1.3, 1.4).

For the period of theoretical training, the student was to be paid a scholarship in the amount of 13,500 rubles per month, minus income tax individuals; work performed by a student in practical classes was subject to payment in the amount of 30 rubles per hour, less personal income tax; compensation was made for the cost of food in a cafe located on the territory of the enterprise in the amount of 150 rubles per day, minus personal income tax (clauses 5.1 - 5.3,8.1 of the agreement). The expenses incurred by the enterprise in connection with the training of a student are: a scholarship paid for theoretical training, payment for practical classes and compensation for food expenses (clause 1.5 of the student agreement).

In accordance with paragraph 2.9 of the student agreement, upon completion of vocational training and successful completion of the final knowledge test, the student is obliged to conclude an employment contract with the enterprise within two working days and work for at least three years in the acquired profession. According to clause 3.7 of the contract, the enterprise is obliged, after the student successfully passes the final certification of knowledge, to conclude an employment contract with the student within two working days.

In accordance with paragraphs 6.3, 6.4 of the student agreement, in the event of dismissal of the student on his initiative, without good reason, before the expiration of this agreement, the student is obliged to reimburse the enterprise for the scholarship received during the apprenticeship, as well as reimburse other expenses incurred by the enterprise in connections with apprenticeship, in proportion to hours worked; if the student refuses to voluntarily reimburse the scholarship to the enterprise, as well as other expenses incurred by the enterprise in connection with his education, the debt is collected in court.

The passage of A. training is confirmed by the student agreement dated 03.10.2011, as well as an extract from A.'s progress log.

On March 30, 2012, upon completion of training, an employment contract No. 13/12 - TD was concluded between Krepost-Sirius LLC and A. for an indefinite period, according to which the defendant was hired by the plaintiff as a mechanic of the first category of the Service Department from 01.04 .2012.

According to paragraph 5.1.10 of the employment contract, A. undertook, after completing vocational training under an apprenticeship contract, to work for the employer for at least three years in the profession he received. In case of termination of the employment contract at the initiative of the employee before the expiration of the specified period of work, the employer's expenses for his training are deducted from the employee in the following order: upon dismissal in the first year of work - in the amount of 100% of the employer's costs, in the second year of work - 80%, in the third year - 60%.

On September 11, 2012, A. filed a voluntary resignation letter addressed to the General Director of Fortress-Sirius LLC from September 11, 2012, due to a variable place of residence.

On September 20, 2012, the parties to the employment contract signed an agreement to terminate the employment contract, according to which the employment relationship between the employer and the employee is terminated on September 20, 2012. Termination of the employment contract is drawn up according to paragraph 1 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation - agreement of the parties. In addition, on the day of his dismissal, A. undertook to reimburse the employer for the expenses spent on his training, under student agreement No. account in accordance with clause 5.1.10 of the employment contract dated 30.03.2012 N 13/12 TD.

In addition, on the same day, A. personally wrote a statement addressed to the director of Krepost-Sirius LLC stating that on the day of dismissal he was unable to pay the amount of tuition costs in the amount of 94,832 rubles 29 kopecks and retained the right to collect the amount of the debt through courts.

By order of the general director of LLC "Fortress-Sirius" N 29u dated 20.09.2012, A. was dismissed and on the same day he was acquainted with this order.

Satisfying the plaintiff's claims for reimbursement of training costs, the court of first instance rightfully proceeded from the fact that a student agreement was concluded between the parties, one of the conditions of which was the obligation of the employee to work at the enterprise for three years after graduation. Upon dismissal at the initiative of the employee before the expiration of the specified period, the latter undertook to reimburse the plaintiff for the costs spent on his training. The Judicial Board considers the said conclusion of the court to be justified, since it is confirmed by the written evidence examined in the case.

The arguments of the defendant's appeal that the court had no grounds to satisfy the plaintiff's claims, since the termination of the employment contract occurred by agreement of the parties, and not at the initiative of the employee, the judicial board considers untenable, based on a misinterpretation of substantive law.

As follows from the case file, the reason for concluding an agreement on termination of the employment contract was the defendant's application for dismissal at his own request, in which he asked to dismiss him at his own request on the day of filing the application - 09/11/2012, in connection with a change of residence. The employer indicated the need to work for two weeks - until 09/25/2012, but on 09/20/2012, the termination of the employment contract took place by agreement of the parties.

There were no good reasons for terminating labor relations with the employer before the expiration of the three-year period, the termination of the employment contract was due to the defendant's statement about his dismissal of his own free will, therefore, by virtue of law, he is obliged to reimburse the expenses spent by the employer on his training.

The arguments of A.'s appeal about the lack of proof of his professional training, the judicial board considers untenable, since they are refuted by the written evidence submitted by the plaintiff, testifying to the defendant's training and final certification.

The arguments of the defendant's appeal about the groundlessness of recovering from him the expenses incurred by the employer for food, since they are not related to training, the judicial board considers untenable on the following grounds. In accordance with paragraph 1.5 of the student agreement, the expenses incurred by the enterprise in connection with the training of the student include, among other things, the cost of food. In accordance with clause 6.3 of the apprenticeship agreement, in the event of dismissal of the student on his initiative, without good reason, before the expiration of this agreement, the student is obliged to reimburse the enterprise for the scholarship received during the apprenticeship, as well as reimburse other expenses incurred by the enterprise in connection with the apprenticeship, in proportion to hours worked. The acts available in the case file for the period from October 2011 to March 2012 inclusive confirmed the expenses incurred by the employer for food A. Under such circumstances, the employer's expenses for the defendant's food are related to expenses incurred in connection with the education of the student and are subject to reimbursement.

The arguments of the defendant's appeal about the lack of investigation by the court of his arguments about a significant violation by the employer of his labor rights, the judicial board cannot take into account to cancel the court decision, since they were the subject of a thorough study in the court of first instance, they were found to be reasonably untenable, with convincing conclusions in the decision, with which the Tribunal deems it necessary to agree.

At the same time, the panel of judges considers justified the argument of the defendant's appeal that the court did not take into account the provisions of Art. 249 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

In accordance with clause 6.3. of the apprenticeship contract in case of dismissal of the student, on his initiative, without good reason before the expiration of this contract, the student is obliged to reimburse the enterprise for the scholarship received during the apprenticeship, as well as reimburse other expenses incurred by the enterprise in connection with his apprenticeship, in proportion to the hours worked. The provisions of the student agreement do not provide for conditions on the amount of expenses subject to reimbursement, depending on the time not worked.

When concluding an employment contract, the parties determined in clause 5.1.10 that the expenses incurred by the employer are subject to reimbursement in the amount of 100% if the dismissal followed in the first year of work, 80% if the dismissal followed in the second year of work and 60% if the employee quit in the third year of work. Between these contracts there are contradictions regarding the order and amount of expenses to be reimbursed, which indicates that the parties have not reached an agreement on the procedure, timing and amount of expenses to be reimbursed. In addition, the panel of judges believes that the amount of compensation determined in paragraph 5.1.10 of the employment contract does not comply with the provisions of Art. 249 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation and significantly worsens the position of the employee, which is contrary to the requirements of Art. 232 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. Under such circumstances, the court should be guided by the provisions of Art. 249 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation and determine the amount of compensation for the expenses incurred by the plaintiff, in proportion to the time not worked by the defendant.

As follows from the case file, after graduation, A. worked at Krepost-Sirius LLC from 04/01/2012 to 09/20/2012, that is, in fact, 6 months. Under the terms of the employment contract, the defendant was required to work for 36 months (12 x 3 = 36). Thus, the defendant may be liable to reimburse the employer's expenses for his training and food only for 30 unworked months.

In view of the foregoing, the defendant is liable to recover the expenses incurred by the employer for his training, in an amount proportional to the time not worked, which will amount to 68,775 rubles 90 kopecks, based on the following calculation: 94,832 rubles 29 kopecks (total amount of training costs): 36 months = 2,634 rubles 23 kopecks X 30 months = 79,026 rubles 91 kopecks - 10,251 rubles (the amount contributed by A. to the plaintiff's cashier as reimbursement of expenses in accordance with the Agreement of 09/20/2012) = 68,775 rubles 90 kopecks.

In such circumstances, the decision of the court is subject to change.

The remaining arguments of the defendant's appeal are essentially aimed at reassessing the conclusions of the court, the grounds for which the judicial board does not see, in this connection they cannot be grounds for canceling the court decision.

In accordance with Art. 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the defendant in favor of the plaintiff is subject to recovery of the costs of paying the state fee in connection with applying to the court in an amount proportional to the satisfied part of the claims, which, due to a change in the amount to be recovered from the defendant, will amount to 2,263 rubles 27 kopecks.

Based on the aforesaid and guided by Article. Art. 328 - 330 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, judicial board

determined:

Change the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Krasnoyarsk dated October 14, 2013, state the operative part of the decision in the following wording:

"The claims of the Limited Liability Company" Fortress - Sirius "satisfy in part.

To collect from A. in favor of Fortress-Sirius Limited Liability Company the amount of expenses incurred for training in the amount of 68,775 rubles 90 kopecks, the costs of paying the state fee in connection with going to court in the amount of 2,263 rubles 27 kopecks, and only 71,039 rubles 17 kopecks".

Appeal A. dismissed.

presiding

V.A.EMELYANOV

N.V. BELYAKOVA

I.A. BAIMOVA

3. Legal basis:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UDMURT REPUBLIC

CASSATION DEFINITION

Referee: Sozonov A.A.

Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Udmurt Republic consisting of:

presiding judge Bulatova O.B.,

judges Krichker E.V., Matushkina N.V.,

at the court clerk U.A.S.

examined in open court in g. Izhevsk September 1, 2010 year civil case on cassation A.D.Oh. against the decision of the Pervomaisky District Court of Izhevsk dated May 04, 2010, by which

claims ZAO "B" to A.D.Oh. on the recovery of tuition costs satisfied;

collected from A.D.O.,<...>year of birth, native<...>, in favor of CJSC "V", TIN<...>, OGRN<...>located at:<...>expenses for training in the amount of 38,700 (thirty eight thousand seven hundred) rubles 00 kopecks;

collected from A.D.O.,<...>year of birth, native<...>, in favor of the local budget, the state fee in the amount of 1,361 (one thousand three hundred and sixty one) rubles.

After hearing the report of the Judge of the Supreme Court of the Udmurt Republic Matushkina N.V., explanations A.D.Oh. and his representative K.M.G., acting on the basis of an oral petition, who supported the arguments of the complaint, asking the court decision to cancel, the representative of CJSC "V" M.V.S., acting on the basis of a power of attorney dated 12.07.2010, who objected to the arguments complaint that asked the court decision to be left unchanged, the Judicial Collegium

installed:

CJSC "V" filed a lawsuit against A.D.Oh. for the recovery of tuition costs in the amount of 40,000 RUB.

The claims are motivated by the fact that on August 03, 2009, between the plaintiff and LLC "Ts", contracts N<...>, N<...>for the provision of a range of services for the organization of pre-certification training and certification of a candidate for expert, carrying out an examination of the industrial safety of an object in the amount of 52,300 rubles and in the amount of 7,700 rubles, respectively. Prior to formalizing the employment relationship, CJSC "V" concluded an agreement, under the terms of which the plaintiff undertook to pay the defendant's education under the first agreement in part - in the amount of 32,300 rubles, under the second agreement in full - in the amount of 7,700 rubles. According to the receipt cash order N 148 dated 06.08.09, the amount of 20,000 rubles was received by the enterprise from the defendant. In total, the plaintiff spent an amount of 40,000 rubles on employee training. After training, the respondent was hired as an expert in boiler supervision, but was dismissed on his own initiative, without having worked at the enterprise as provided for in the contract on industrial training five year term. In this regard, the plaintiff asks to recover from the defendant the amount spent on training in the amount of 40,000 rubles, and court costs.

Subsequently, the plaintiff clarified the claims, asked to recover from the defendant the amount spent on training in the amount of 38,700 rubles.

At the court session, the plaintiff insisted on the claims, explained that according to clause 3.4 of the industrial training agreement, subject to dismissal, the employee is obliged to reimburse the cost of training to the enterprise. Plaintiff did not provide a valid reason for dismissal.

defendant A.D.Oh. did not recognize the claims of the plaintiff, explained that the employer systematically delayed payment wages, and federal laws were also violated, in connection with which the defendant wrote a statement on the suspension of labor activity, and after that a letter of resignation. A.D.O. does not dispute that he signed two agreements on industrial training in the amount of 32,300 rubles and 7,700 rubles, and also does not dispute that the plaintiff paid for his education in the amount of 40,000 rubles.

Representatives of the defendant B.A.E. and V.O.A. the claims were not recognized, they explained that in view of the fact that the plaintiff violated the terms of payment of wages, as well as federal laws, the reasons for the dismissal of the defendant were valid.

The court upheld the above decision.

In the appeal A.D.Oh. asks the court to cancel the decision. The complaint states that the court did not take into account the family and financial situation of the defendant, confirming the validity of the reasons for his dismissal. The conclusion of the court that the employment contract and the contract on industrial training do not contradict the law is untenable. The court did not take into account that the employment contract does not contain an essential condition on remuneration, and the contract on industrial training of the employee does not contain the essential conditions provided for by Art. 199 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. In determining the amount to be recovered, the court did not take into account the time worked by the defendant and the income brought to the enterprise.

In accordance with Art. 347 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court of cassation checks the decision of the court within the arguments of the cassation appeal.

The Court of First Instance established and corroborates the following circumstances.

<...>dated August 03, 2009, according to which (clause 1.1) the Contractor undertakes to provide, and the Customer undertakes to pay for the provision of a set of services for organizing pre-certification training and certification of the Customer's personnel on the topic (course): equipment operating under excess pressure of more than 0.07 MPa or with a water heating temperature of more than 115 degrees C "in the amount of 1 person is used. Terms of rendering services (clause 1.3): from 08/10/2009 to 08/13/2009. The cost of the services specified in clause 1.1 of this agreement (clause 3.1) is 52,300 rubles (including VAT 7,977.97 rubles).

In August 2009, LLC "Ts" (Contractor) and CJSC "V" (Customer) concluded an agreement for the provision of consulting services N<...>, according to which (clause 1.1) the Contractor undertakes to provide, and the Customer to pay for the provision of a range of services for the organization of pre-certification training and certification of the Customer's personnel on the topic (course): overpressure of more than 0.07 MPa or with a water heating temperature of more than 115 C, paragraph 5.7 "in the amount of 1 person. Terms of rendering services (clause 1.3): from 08/10/2009 to 08/13/2009. The cost of the services specified in clause 1.1 of this agreement (clause 3.1) is 7,700 rubles (including VAT 1,174.57 rubles).

In August 2009, an agreement was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant on the industrial training of an employee, under the terms of which the plaintiff (enterprise) sends an employee (defendant) holding the position of a boiler supervision expert to train and certify an expert who performs industrial safety expertise at boiler supervision facilities, lifting structures, in the oil and gas industry (clause 1.1). Training is carried out partially at the expense of the enterprise (clause 1.3). According to section 2 (Obligations of the enterprise) of the student agreement, the enterprise (defendant) undertook to make partially timely payment for tuition in accordance with the terms of the agreement concluded with the educational institution in the amount of 32,300 rubles (clause 2.3). 20,000 rubles for training is paid by the Employee (plaintiff). According to paragraph 3.3 of the said agreement (section 3 Duties of the Employee), the plaintiff undertook to work at the enterprise for at least five years after graduation (paragraph 3.3). Under the condition of dismissal (regardless of the reason), the employee is obliged to reimburse the enterprise for the cost of training in the amount of 32,300 rubles (clause 3.4).

In August 2009, an agreement was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant on the industrial training of an employee, under the terms of which the plaintiff (enterprise) sends an employee (defendant), holding the position of an expert in boiler supervision, to train and certify an expert who performs industrial safety expertise at boiler supervision facilities, lifting structures , in the oil and gas industry (clause 1.1). According to section 2 (Obligations of the enterprise) of the student agreement, the enterprise (defendant) undertook to make timely payment for tuition in accordance with the terms of the agreement concluded with the educational institution in the amount of 7,700 rubles. According to section 3 (Obligations of the Employee) of the said agreement, the plaintiff undertook to work at the enterprise for at least three years after graduation. On condition of dismissal (regardless of the reason), the employee is obliged to reimburse the enterprise for the cost of training in the amount of 7,700 rubles.

According to payment order N 495 dated 12.08.2009, the plaintiff transferred funds to LLC "Ts" in the amount of 20,000 rubles for services in organizing pre-certification training and certification of personnel (examination of industrial safety of objects).

According to payment order N 505 dated 20.08.2009, the plaintiff transferred funds to LLC "Ts" in the amount of 32,300 rubles for services in organizing pre-certification training and certification of personnel (examination of industrial safety of objects).

According to payment order No. 131 dated 07.09.2009, the plaintiff transferred funds in the amount of 7,700 rubles to OOO C for services in organizing pre-certification training and certification of personnel (examination of industrial safety of facilities).

In August 2009, the plaintiff underwent pre-certification training and certification (certified in accordance with the "Rules for Certification of Experts" (SDA-12) in industrial safety at boiler supervision facilities with the right to perform residual resource calculation) at the N.E. Bauman, having received certificate N<...>, with the qualification of an expert at boiler supervision facilities.

It was established at the court session that the plaintiff from August 20, 2009 (employment order No. 31 dated August 19, 2009) to January 25, 2009 (order to terminate the employment contract with an employee No. 2 dated January 25, 2010) worked in the position Boiler Supervision Expert at CJSC "V".

According to the order on the dismissal of the defendant N 2 dated January 25, 2010, the defendant was dismissed under paragraph 3 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation (termination of the employment contract at the initiative of the employee (Article 80 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

In resolving the dispute, the trial court was guided by Art. 249, 80, 78, 198, 199, 207 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

The Court of First Instance came to the following conclusions. The defendant resigned from the plaintiff of his own free will on January 25, 2010, thereby violating two student agreements dated August 2009. Consequently, the claims for the recovery from the defendant of the amount of expenses incurred under the contract on industrial training of the employee are justified and subject to satisfaction. The defendant's arguments that the dismissal was due to valid reasons, in particular, a violation by the employer labor law and other federal laws are not supported by the evidence presented. The defendant did not provide the court with sufficient and reliable evidence of the validity of the reasons for dismissal from CJSC "V" before the expiration of the period stipulated by the contracts on industrial training of the employee dated August 2009. The defendant's reference to the fact that the defendant's apprenticeship contracts are invalid due to the fact that they were concluded before the defendant was hired by the plaintiff, the court considers unfounded, since, in accordance with Art. 198 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the employer has the right to conclude with a person, job seekers, apprenticeship contract for vocational training. In addition, the concluded agreements on industrial training of an employee do not contradict Art. 199 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. Since upon dismissal of the defendant, an amount of 1300 rubles was withheld from him. for training, then the remaining amount of 38,700 rubles. The trial court ordered from the defendant.

These conclusions of the trial court as a whole are correct, based on the available evidence and the correct application of the law. However, when determining the amount to be recovered, the court of first instance made a mistake.

So, according to Art. 249 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in the event of dismissal without good reason before the expiration of the period stipulated by the employment contract or agreement on training at the expense of the employer, the employee is obliged to reimburse the costs incurred by the employer for his training, calculated in proportion to the time actually not worked after the end of training, unless otherwise provided employment contract or training agreement.

In both contracts on industrial training of an employee dated August 2009, it is indicated that, subject to dismissal (regardless of the reason), the employee is obliged to reimburse the enterprise for the cost of training in the amount of 32,300 rubles. (clause 3.4 of the agreement) and 7700 rubles. for each of the contracts, respectively.

However, according to part 2 of Art. 232 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, an employment contract or agreements concluded in writing attached to it can be specified material liability parties to this agreement. At the same time, the contractual liability of the employer to the employee cannot be lower, and the employee to the employer - higher than it is provided for by this Code or other federal laws.

The condition of contracts for industrial training, which indicates the full reimbursement of the cost of training, and not in proportion to the time actually not worked after the end of training, worsens the position of the employee in comparison with the provisions of Art. 249 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

Since the contractual liability of the employee to the employer cannot be higher than provided for by the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the specified terms of the contracts are invalid and the provisions of Art. 249 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, and not clause 3.4 of agreements on industrial training of an employee.

Thus, from the employee A.D.O. the cost of training must be charged in proportion to the time actually not worked after the end of training.

Under the terms of the first industrial training contract (for the amount of 32,300 rubles), the employee had to work for at least five years; under the terms of the second contract (for the amount of 7700 rubles) - at least three years.

Actually defendant A.D.Oh. worked from August 20, 2009 to January 25, 2010, that is, 5 months and 6 days or 159 days.

The calculation of the amount to be returned under the first contract (in the amount of 32,300 rubles) will be as follows:

5 years is 365 x 5 = 1825 days.

32300 rubles: 1825 x 159 = 2814.08 rubles. - tuition fee in proportion to hours worked;

32300 - 2814.08 = 29485.92 rubles - tuition fee in proportion to the time not worked.

The calculation of the amount to be returned under the second contract (in the amount of 7,700 rubles) will be as follows:

3 years is 365 x 3 = 1095 days.

7700 rubles: 1095 x 159 = 1118.08 rubles. - tuition fee in proportion to hours worked;

7700 rub. - 1118.08 = 6581.92 rubles. - tuition fee in proportion to unworked time.

Total: 29485.92 + 6581.92 = 36067.84 rubles.

Of this amount, 1300 rubles. retained by the employer.

Therefore, A.D.O. should return:

36067.84 - 1300 = 34767.84 rubles

In this part, the decision of the court is subject to change, the amount recovered by the court is 38,700 RUB. should be reduced to 34767.84 rubles.

The arguments of the appeal are partly substantiated.

The argument of the complaint that the court did not take into account the family and financial situation of the defendant, confirming the validity of the reasons for his dismissal, is untenable.

The labor legislation does not contain an exhaustive list of valid reasons for early termination of an employment contract at the initiative of an employee. These primarily include cases related to the impossibility for the employee to continue working (retirement, disability, etc.), as well as cases of established violation by the employer of the law and other legal acts on labor, the terms of the collective agreement, agreement or employment contract, when the employer is obliged to terminate the employment contract within the period specified in the employee's application (part 3 of article 80 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

The low income of the defendant and the presence of children is not a valid reason for his dismissal.

The circumstances testifying to the impossibility for the employee to continue working (retirement, disability, etc.) were not established at the court session. Sufficient and reliable evidence of violation by the employer of the law and other legal acts on labor, the terms of the collective agreement, agreement or employment contract was not presented by the defendant.

January 11, 2010 A.D.O. filed a letter of resignation to the employer by agreement of the parties in accordance with Art. 78 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

In said statement A.D.Oh. there was no reference to such grounds for dismissal as violations by the employer of the law and other legal acts on labor, the terms of a collective agreement, agreement or employment contract.

The agreement of the parties on the dismissal of the employee was not reached.

On January 25, 2010, the employer issued an order to terminate the employment contract with the employee under Art. 77 p. 3 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation (termination of an employment contract at the initiative of the employee (art. 80).

January 26, 2010 A.D.O. filed an application with the employer, in which he indicated that, in connection with the expiration of the term for the notice of dismissal, he asked to issue him a work book, certificates of average wages, an expert certificate and make a final settlement with him with payment of compensation for unused vacation.

There were also no references to violations by the employer of the law and other legal acts on labor, the terms of the collective agreement, agreement or labor contract in the said statement.

There were no disputes between the employer and the employee about the reasons and grounds for dismissal, the amount of wages.

Evidence of illegal activities of the employer, to which the plaintiff refers in additions to the objection to the claim dated April 23, 2010, the plaintiff did not provide.

The complaint's argument that the employment contract and the industrial training contract are contrary to the law is also untenable.

Clause 5.1 of the employment contract states that the employee is set official salary according to staffing, that is, an agreement on wages has been reached.

The contract on industrial training of an employee specifies the essential conditions provided for in Art. 199 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, including the obligation of the employer to provide the employee with the opportunity to study in accordance with the student agreement (clause 2.1 of the agreement); the obligation of the employee to undergo training and, in accordance with the acquired profession, specialty, qualification, work under an employment contract with the employer for 5 and 3 years, respectively (1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 3.1, 3.3 of the contract). The amount of remuneration is determined in the employment contract - according to the staffing table.

The complaint's argument that the court did not take into account the time worked by the defendant when determining the amount to be recovered is substantiated. As stated above, the decision of the court in this part is subject to change.

Other arguments of the cassation appeal repeat the arguments of the statement of claim, they are given a proper assessment in the court decision, with which the Collegium agrees.

New arguments and circumstances that could affect the essence of the decision taken in the case, the cassation appeal does not contain.

The decision of the court is legal and justified.

There are no grounds for its cancellation, provided for by Article 362 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. The decision is subject to change in terms of the amount of the recovered training costs.

Guided by Article 361 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the Judicial Board

determined:

The decision of the Pervomaisky District Court of the city of Izhevsk dated May 4, 2010 is to be amended by reducing the amounts recovered from A.D.Oh. in favor of CJSC "B" training costs from 38,700 rubles. up to 34767.84 rubles.

Leave the rest of the court's decision unchanged.

Cassation A.D.Oh. partially satisfy.

presiding

O. B. BULATOV

E.V. KRICHKER

N.V. MATUSHKINA

4. Legal basis:

SVERDLOVSK REGIONAL COURT

DEFINITION

judge Solovyov A.A.

Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court consisting of:

presiding Prokofiev V.V.,

judges Shalamova AND.Yew., Pankratova H.A.

considered at the court session on March 01, 2011 the case on the claim of K. to the Municipal Medical Institution "Demidov Central City Hospital" for the recovery of expenses deducted from wages in connection with apprenticeship and compensation for moral damage

on the cassation appeal of the defendant MMU "Demidov Central City Hospital" against the decision of the Leninsky District Court of Nizhny Tagil Sverdlovsk region dated December 24, 2010, by which the claim was partially satisfied.

After hearing the report of Judge Pankratova N.A., the Judicial Board

installed:

K. filed a lawsuit against MMU "DTsGB" for the recovery of travel expenses in the amount of<...>compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount<...>as well as reimbursement of legal costs<...>.

In support of the claim, K. indicated that she had worked at the MMU "DTsGB" from February 26, 2007 to April 16, 2010 in the position<...>. On June 05, 2007, she was sent on a business trip to improve her qualifications, and on June 01, 2007, an agreement was concluded with her, under the terms of which the employer undertook to pay her travel expenses. Total travel expenses<...>were paid to her in July 2007. On the eve of her dismissal (April 15, 2010), she was acquainted with the order to deduct from her salary upon dismissal of the debt under the training contract;<...>. The plaintiff did not agree with such an order, believing that it contradicts the requirements of labor legislation. In addition, she indicated that illegal actions employer she suffered moral damage.

At the hearing, the representative of the plaintiff Ch. supported the claims. She pointed out that the defendant, believing that the plaintiff's debt was greater, filed a lawsuit to recover additional amounts from K., by a court decision dated August 11, 2010, the MMU "DTsGB" dismissed the claim. K. learned about the illegal deductions from her wages on 11 August 2010. It would be wrong to apply the statute of limitations in this case. The moral damage to the plaintiff was caused by illegal deductions from wages, the plaintiff's participation in the proceedings on the claim of MMU "DTsGB", the plaintiff was forced to postpone her vacation trip.

The representative of the defendant D. did not agree with the claim, filed a motion to apply a three-month statute of limitations for applying to the court to resolve an individual labor dispute, which, according to the representative of the defendant, K. was omitted. She pointed out that the contract concluded with the plaintiff was signed by her, the plaintiff agreed with him, the terms of the contract do not contradict the requirements of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. She believed that there were no grounds for compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

The plaintiff K. did not appear at the hearing, the court found it possible to consider the case in her absence.

The court made a decision: to recover from the MMU "DTsGB" in favor of K. the expenses withheld from wages in connection with apprenticeship in the amount of<...>and reimbursement of court costs for the services of a representative in the amount of<...>; in the claim of K. to MMU "DTsGB" for compensation for non-pecuniary damage to refuse completely; to collect from MMU "DTsGB" a state fee in the amount of<...>.

Challenging the legality and validity of the court decision, the defendant in the cassation appeal asks for its cancellation in terms of satisfying the claims, referring to the incorrect application by the court of the norms of substantive and procedural law.

The persons participating in the case did not appear at the meeting of the judicial board. There is a notice in the case file, according to which notices of the time and place of the consideration of the cassation appeal were sent to them on February 10, 2011 (case sheets 129 - 130). In accordance with Part 2 of Art. 354 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the failure to appear of the persons participating in the case and notified of the time and place of the consideration of the case is not an obstacle to the trial of the case. In view of the foregoing, the panel of judges decided to consider the case in the absence of these persons.

After checking the case materials, discussing the arguments set forth in the cassation appeal, the Judicial Board finds the decision to be upheld on the following grounds.

Court reasonably and in accordance with the rules of Art. Art. 12, 56 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation satisfied the requirements of K. in part, since her arguments about the unlawful deduction of sums of money from her salary were indeed confirmed during the trial and were not refuted by the defendant. At the same time, all the conclusions set out in the decision are motivated in detail, correspond to the law and the actual circumstances of the case, are based on the totality of the evidence examined at the hearing, to which the court gave due, in accordance with the rules of Art. 67 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, a legal assessment of their relevance, admissibility, reliability, sufficiency and interconnection.

In resolving the dispute, the court was correctly guided by the provisions of Art. Art. 232, 233, 248, 249 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, and also lawfully took into account the decision of the Leninsky District Court of Nizhny Tagil dated August 11, 2010, which entered into force, in the case of the claim of the MMU "DTsGB" against K. on reimbursement of expenses to the employer associated with apprenticeship, which by virtue of Part 2 of Art. 61 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation is of prejudicial significance for the present case, since the same persons are involved in it.

As follows from the content of this decision, a copy of which is available in the case file, the court established the fact that the plaintiff was in labor relations with the MMU "DCGB"; the conclusion between them on June 01, 2007 of an agreement providing for the employer's expenses in connection with the apprenticeship and the counter obligations of the employee to work under an employment contract with the employer for 5 years; reimbursement of MMU "DTsGB" K. expenses associated with training, in the amount<...>; deduction from K.'s salary by the employer<...>. In addition, this decision established that by order of the chief physician of the MMU "DCCH" dated April 08, 2010<...>it was ordered to withhold upon dismissal from the calculation of wages with K. to pay off the debt under the training agreement dated June 01, 2007, on the basis of clause 3.1 of the agreement, an amount in the amount of<...>, with which K. disagreed. In this regard, the court, referring to Art. 248 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, indicated that since at the time of dismissal, K.'s salary, based on the last 12 months, was less than the amount of deduction<...>the possibility of out-of-court reimbursement of disputed costs associated with training was excluded.

In addition, the court correctly proceeded from the fact that the agreement concluded between the parties of June 01, 2007 determined that if K. is dismissed before the end of the five-year period after completing the training cycle, material damage is compensated by her from the calculation of wages without an additional application, and at the same time, the contract does not provide for a condition on the procedure for calculating reimbursement of costs, therefore such reimbursement should be calculated according to the rules of Art. 249 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, namely, in proportion to the time actually not worked after graduation. Based on this rule, the court correctly determined that the amount of compensation in this case should be<...>.

Taking into account the above circumstances, the court correctly concluded that the defendant had unduly deducted from the plaintiff's salary an amount in the amount of<...>which is recoverable by the plaintiff.

The court correctly allowed the petition of the defendant's representative to apply the statute of limitations for applying to the court for resolution of an individual labor dispute.

Based on the provisions of Art. Art. 392, 395 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the court came to the correct conclusion that the three-month period for applying to the court by the plaintiff was missed, the petition for the restoration of this period was not filed by the plaintiff, however, the claim for the recovery of amounts excessively deducted from wages is subject to satisfaction regardless of the expiration the statute of limitations for applying to the court for resolution of an individual labor dispute. However, the claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage on this basis should be denied.

There were no violations of the norms in the distribution of court costs by the court.

Arguments testifying to the incorrectness of the stated conclusions of the court, the cassation appeal does not contain.

The Judicial Board sees no grounds for annulment of this decision.

Guided by par. 2 tbsp. 361 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, Judicial Board

determined:

the decision of the Leninsky District Court of the city of Nizhny Tagil, Sverdlovsk Region, dated December 24, 2010, is left unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the respondent MMU "Demidovskaya Central City Hospital" is not satisfied.

presiding

Prokofiev V.V.

SHALAMOV I.Yu.

5. Legal basis:

MOSCOW REGIONAL COURT

DEFINITION

Judge Sudakova N.AND.

The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Moscow Regional Court, consisting of the presiding officer Rakunova L.I.,

judges Krasnova N.V., Kolesnik N.A.,

with secretary G.,

considered in open court on March 10, 2011 S.'s cassation appeal against the decision of the Orekhovo-Zuevsky City Court of the Moscow Region dated January 14, 2011 in a civil case on the claim of Karbolit JSC against S. for the recovery of funds spent on training.

Having heard the report of Judge N.V. Krasnova,

explanations of the representative of JSC "Karbolit" by proxy Z., judicial board

installed:

JSC "Karbolit" filed a lawsuit and asks to recover from former employee C. expenses spent on her education, in the amount of 19,000 rubles. In support of the claim, he refers to the fact that during the period of the defendant’s work, the plaintiff concluded with her an additional agreement to the employment contract, according to which the plaintiff undertook and actually paid for S.’s education in the Non-State educational institution higher professional education "Moscow Socio-Economic Institute" in the period from September 29, 2009 to February 11, 2010 in the amount of 19,000 rubles. Under the terms of the Agreement, the defendant undertook to work for three years at OAO Karbolit in a position corresponding to the level and profile of vocational education, but on 05.03.2010 she resigned from the enterprise of her own free will.

The plaintiff also asks to recover interest for the use of other people's funds due to their unlawful withholding from the moment the plaintiff received a notice of reimbursement of expenses until the day the court makes a decision, as well as to recover the state duty paid when filing a statement of claim.

The representative of the defendant did not recognize the claim, explaining that S. did not resign of her own free will and did not write such a statement, but asked to be dismissed by agreement of the parties. Currently, she continues to study at the institute at her own expense and does not mind after completing her studies to work for the plaintiff for three years.

The claim was satisfied in full by the decision of the court.

Disagreeing with the decision, the defendant appeals against it in cassation, in her complaint asks the court's decision to cancel and decide a new decision to dismiss the claim.

Having checked the case materials, having discussed the arguments of the complaint, the panel of judges comes to the following conclusions. The grounds for canceling or changing a court decision in the cassation instance are provided for in Art. 362 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.

According to Art. 196 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the need for professional training and retraining of personnel for their own needs is determined by the employer. The employer conducts vocational training, retraining, advanced training of employees, training them in second professions in the organization, and, if necessary, in educational institutions of primary, secondary, higher professional and additional education on the terms and in the manner determined collective agreement agreements, employment contracts.

It appears from the case file that the defendant has been working for the plaintiff since 2005, and on December 1, 2008 she was transferred to the position of senior accountant.

On January 28, 2009, Agreement No. 3 was signed between the plaintiff and S., under the terms of which the plaintiff undertook to finance her education at the Non-State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Moscow Socio-Economic Institute" in the specialty "Economics and Management at the Enterprise", and the defendant in turn, work for OAO "Karbolit" after completing the training in the position proposed by the enterprise and corresponding to the knowledge gained during the training period for at least 3 years (clause 2 of the Agreement). In the event of dismissal of her own free will without good reason before the expiration of the period of compulsory work established by the agreement, S. undertook to fully reimburse the plaintiff for the money spent on training.

During the period from 29.09.2009 to 11.02.2010, the plaintiff paid 19,000 rubles for the defendant's education.

By order N 154-ls from 03/05/2010, S. was dismissed from Karbolit OJSC at her own request. The specified order was challenged by her in court, however, at present there is a ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Moscow Regional Court dated 06/15/2010, which has entered into force, which canceled the decision of the court of first instance dated 05/05/2010 and it was decided a new decision by which S. to satisfy the claim against OAO "Karbolit" to cancel the order and change the wording of the reason for dismissal was denied.

On March 31, 2010, the plaintiff sent a written claim to the defendant with a request to reimburse the cost of education.

In accordance with Art. 249 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, in the event of dismissal without good reason before the expiration of the period stipulated by the employment contract or agreement on training at the expense of the employer, the employee is obliged to reimburse the costs incurred by the employer for his training, calculated in proportion to the time actually not worked after the end of the training, unless otherwise stipulated by an employment contract or a training agreement.

Satisfying the claim regarding the recovery of expenses for training, the court of first instance reasonably and proceeded from the fact that the defendant did not fulfill her obligations and resigned of her own free will. At the same time, the court rightfully did not take into account the argument of the representative of S. in the part that no later than three months after graduation, S. has the right to work for the plaintiff, since such a right under the terms of the Agreement belongs only to his employee, and S. is an employee of OAO Karbolit " is currently no longer available.

The court of first instance also did not find grounds to satisfy the petition of the defendant's representative to reduce the amount of damages, since the defendant's side did not provide sufficient evidence indicating her difficult financial situation.

At the same time, one cannot agree with the conclusions of the court of first instance regarding the collection of interest for the use of other people's funds.

Collecting the amount of 486 rubles. 74 kopecks, the court of first instance referred to the substantive law governing the recovery of unjust enrichment. However, the plaintiff did not file such claims, and the payment by the plaintiff of expenses for the training of an employee, even if the employee is subsequently obliged to return these expenses, cannot be referred to as unjust enrichment.

In addition, the employee in any case in accordance with the requirements of Art. 238 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation is obliged to compensate the employer for the direct actual damage caused to him. Unreceived income (lost profit) is not subject to recovery from the employee.

It is also not based on the law and the conclusion of the court on the need to recover from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff the costs of the state duty in the amount of 779 rubles. 47 kopecks, since, by virtue of the special norm of Art. 393 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, employees are exempted from paying duties and court costs.

Under such circumstances, the decision of the court of part of the recovery from the defendant of interest for the use of other people's money and state duty is subject to cancellation. The Judicial Board considers it possible in this part to resolve the dispute on the merits and decide on the grounds set forth above a new decision to dismiss the claim.

The cassation complaint in terms of arguments about disagreement with the conclusions of the court on the claim for the recovery of training costs does not contain legal arguments that could lead to the cancellation of the lawful decision in this part.

Guided by Art. Art. 199, 361 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, judicial board

determined:

The decision of the Orekhovo-Zuevsky Court of the Moscow Region dated January 14, 2011 regarding the recovery from S. in favor of Karbolit OJSC of interest for the use of other people's funds in the amount of 486 rubles. 74 kop. and court costs in the form of state duty in the amount of 779 RUB. 47 kop. cancel, decide in the specified part of the new decision, which JSC "Karbolit" in satisfaction of the claim to S. regarding the collection of interest for the use of other people's money in the amount of 486 RUB. 74 kop., as well as for the recovery of legal costs in the amount of 779 RUB. 47 kop. refuse.

The rest of the court's decision is left unchanged, the cassation complaint is not satisfied.

6. Legal basis:

MOSCOW CITY COURT

DEFINITION

Referee: Utkina O.V.

Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Moscow City Court

presiding Strogonov M.V.,

Judges Sumina L.N., Snegirevoy E.N., under Secretary D., having heard in open court on the report of Judge Sumina L.N. the case on the cassation appeal of the representative of the defendant S. by proxy K. against the decision of the Tushinsky District Court of Moscow dated July 21, 2010, which ruled:

claims of VIM-AVIA Airlines LLC against S. for reimbursement of training costs and collection of penalties, satisfy.

To collect from S. in favor of VIM-AVIA Airlines LLC the costs of training in the amount of 474,725 rubles 00 kopecks, penalties in the amount of 50,000 rubles, as well as the costs of paying state duty in the amount of 6,348 rubles 25 kopecks.

In satisfaction of the petition of S. for the recovery of court costs for the services of a representative, payment for money transfer services and postage, refuse,

installed:

VIM-AVIA Airlines LLC filed a lawsuit against S. for reimbursement of training costs and collection of penalties, indicating that from April 11, 2008 to December 24, 2008 the defendant worked at VIM-AVIA Airlines LLC " in the position<...>. On April 14, 2008, within the framework of an employment contract, the parties concluded an agreement for employee training at the expense of the employer, in pursuance of which, the plaintiff paid tuition in the amount of 474,725 rubles. However, after completing the training, the defendant was fired of his own free will. At the same time, in violation of the student agreement, the latter did not reimburse the money spent on his education, in connection with which he asks the court to recover from the defendant, along with the specified amount, 205,555 rubles. 93 kopecks, penalties for late return of tuition fees, as well as the cost of paying the state fee.

At the hearing, the representative of the plaintiff SD, acting on the basis of a power of attorney, supported the claims in full.

The representative of the defendant in the person of the lawyer Korshunov AF, also acting on the basis of a power of attorney, did not recognize the claims on the grounds set forth in the written objections.

The court decided the above decision, the cancellation of which is requested by the representative of the defendant S. by proxy Korshunov A.F. on the grounds of his appeal.

After checking the case file, discussing the possibility of considering the case in the absence of non-appearing participants in the process, notified of the date and place of the trial, in the order of Part. 2 Article. 354 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, having heard the explanations of the defendant's representative by proxy, the plaintiff's representative by proxy S.D., having discussed the arguments of the cassation appeal, the panel of judges finds no reason to cancel the court decision on the following grounds.

When resolving the dispute, the court of first instance correctly applied the substantive law governing compensation for damage caused to a citizen's property.

By virtue of Art. 198 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, an employer - a legal entity (organization) has the right to conclude with a job seeker a student agreement for vocational training at the expense of the employer, and with an employee of this organization - a student agreement for vocational training or retraining without interruption or with interruption from work. A student agreement with an employee of this organization is additional to the employment contract.

By virtue of the provisions of Art. 199 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the student agreement must contain the obligation of the employee to undergo training and, in accordance with the profession, specialty, qualification received, work under an employment contract with the employer within the period established in the student agreement.

In accordance with Art. 249 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, in the event of dismissal without good reason before the expiration of the period stipulated by the employment contract or agreement on training at the expense of the employer, the employee is obliged to reimburse the costs incurred by the employer for his training, calculated in proportion to the time actually not worked after the end of training, unless otherwise provided employment contract or agreement.

The Court of First Instance properly established that on April 11, 2008, an employment contract was concluded between S. and VIM-AVIA Airlines LLC, according to which the defendant was hired<...>. April 14, 2008 between the parties signed a student agreement N<...>in training (retraining) S., specializing as a second pilot, retraining courses for flight personnel for a Boeing 757-200 aircraft, the cost of which amounted to 474,725 rubles.

In accordance with clause 1.1 of the student agreement, in order to improve production and economic activities, the employer undertakes at his own expense to train (retrain) an employee in the specialty of a second pilot, retrain courses for flight personnel on a Boeing-757-200 aircraft.

According to clause 5.3 of the specified agreement, the employee is obliged to pay the employer in full the cost of training in the event of termination of the contract at the request of the employee within 10 days from the date of termination of the contract.

Subparagraph "e" of clause 5.3.8 of the same agreement provides that in the event of termination of the employment contract before the expiration of the five-year period, the employee must pay the employer the cost of training before the date of dismissal in full, if the employee quits after working less than one full year.

As follows from the written materials of the case and established by the court, by order of the employer dated December 24, 2008, on the basis of the defendant's personal statement, employment relations with him were terminated due to voluntary dismissal in connection with retirement, under paragraph 3 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation (case sheets 19, 20), for which reason, on December 7, 2009, the plaintiff sent a claim to the latter for reimbursement of the cost of training, which was not voluntarily executed (case sheets 21 - 24).

Based on the evidence presented by the parties, including the pension certificate issued to the defendant on July 15, 2003, the court rightfully rejected the defendant's arguments that S.'s dismissal of his own free will in connection with retirement is a good reason for terminating the employment contract, since the latter, being a pensioner, concluding and signing the terms of labor and student contracts, was aware of the consequences of its termination, assumed the obligation to reimburse the costs of education.

These circumstances are also confirmed by the fact that after the dismissal on December 24, 2008 from VIM-AVIA Airlines LLC, already on December 29, 2008, the defendant got a job at the North Wind airline, where he works in the position<...>.

In addition, the court correctly considered the defendant's allegations that he had taken advanced training and retraining courses, and not training, untenable due to the fact that from his work book it is seen that he was employed by the plaintiff as<...>, however, admission to the performance of duties<...>he did not have, whereas previously he worked in the position<...>and had permission to fly on the Yak-42, which was not denied in court by the defendant himself.

Other evidence that the defendant has the right to be<...>they were not presented to the court, whereas after undergoing training at the aviation training center of VIM-AVIA Airlines LLC, the defendant received permission to perform the duty<...>, which he did not previously have, which is confirmed by a certificate dated June 12, 2008, copies of the work book and flight book (case file 56 - 57).

Having established that the defendant has completed a course in the specialty<...>and retraining courses for flight personnel on the said vessel, paid by the plaintiff, having worked less than a full year after training, resigned of his own free will, guided by the requirements of Art. 249 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation and the terms of the student agreement dated April 14, 2008, the court came to the correct conclusion that the defendant was required to reimburse the costs of education, the cost of which amounted to 474,725 rubles. 00 kopecks, which is confirmed by the relevant documents attached to the case file, listed in detail in the decision of the court of first instance, which the court had no reason not to trust.

The defendant's arguments about the unreasonableness of including the cost of training by instructor K. in these expenses were recognized by the court as unfounded due to the fact that these expenses are associated with educational process.

The court also rightfully noted that the fact that the plaintiff delayed payment of wages to the defendant is not a basis for refusing to satisfy the claim.

In addition, the panel of judges draws attention to the fact that reimbursement of expenses incurred by the employer for the training of an employee is also provided for in Art. 207 of the Labor Code, according to which the student is obliged to return to the employer the scholarship received during the apprenticeship, as well as reimburse other expenses incurred by the employer in connection with the apprenticeship. The condition for reimbursement of tuition costs is the student’s failure to fulfill his obligations under the contract at the end of the apprenticeship without good reason, in connection with which all expenses, including travel expenses related to the educational process, were rightfully recovered from the defendant by the court.

On the basis of clause 6.2 of the student agreement, the court imposed a penalty in the amount of 0.1% of the amount owed for each day of delay for the period from January 12, 2009 to March 21, 2010, and, taking into account the disproportionate consequences of the violation of obligations, reduced to 50,000 rubles .

Simultaneously, with the defendant, according to Article. 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, a state fee was collected in the amount of 6,348 rubles. 25 kop.

Under such circumstances, the court reasonably dismissed the defendant's claims, by virtue of the provisions of Art. Art. 98, 100, 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, on the recovery of court costs incurred by him to pay for the services of a representative, transfer of funds and postage.

The Judicial Board cannot agree with the arguments of the cassation complaint about the unlawfulness of collecting fines from the defendant due to the fact that Art. 199 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation provides that the student agreement may contain other conditions, in addition to those provided for by the Labor Code, if they are determined by agreement of the parties. At the same time, the student agreement, like any other agreement, is considered concluded only to the extent that the parties have reached an agreement on the mandatory terms of this agreement. In this case, the parties reached an agreement on all the terms of the student agreement dated April 14, 2008.

The defendant's allegations that the five-year period of working out established by the contract is unjustified and is forced labor are untenable, since the inclusion in the employment contract of a condition on the obligation of the employee to work after training for at least the period established by the contract, if this training was carried out at the expense of the employer, is also provided for by Art. . 57 of the Labor Code, which determines the content of the employment contract. The initiative to include this condition in the contract, as a rule, comes from the employer, but the initiative of the employee himself is also possible.

Other arguments of the cassation appeal were the subject of examination by the court, aimed at a different assessment of the norms of substantive and procedural law and the circumstances established and examined by the court in accordance with the rules of Articles 12, 56 and 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, and therefore cannot serve as a reason for canceling this decision.

The court of first instance examined all the circumstances of the case with sufficient completeness, gave a proper assessment of the evidence presented, the court’s conclusions do not contradict the materials of the case, the legally significant circumstances in the case were correctly established by the court, the substantive law was applied correctly by the court, violations of the rules of procedural law, including on which there are references in cassation complaints, not allowed. Therefore, there are no grounds for setting aside the court's decision.

Based on the above, guided by art. Art. 360, 361 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, judicial board

determined:

The decision of the Tushinsky District Court of Moscow on July 21, 2010 is left unchanged, the cassation appeal is dismissed.

7. Legal basis:

COURT OF THE YAMAL-NENETS AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT

APPEALS DETERMINATION

Judge Anikushina M.M.

Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Yamalo-Nenets Court autonomous region composed of:

the presiding judge Kisilevskaya T.V.,

judges of the panel Breeva S.S., Obernienko V.V.,

with secretary W.,

considered in open court a civil case on D.'s appeal against the decision of the Novourengoy City Court of the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous District of December 04, 2013, which ruled:

Satisfy the claim of the Open joint-stock company National insurance group - "ROSENERGO" partially.

To collect in favor of the Open Joint Stock Company "National Insurance Group - "ROSENERGO" from D. training costs in the amount of 38250 rubles, court costs for the payment of the state fee in the amount of 1228 rubles 86 kopecks; total: 39478 (thirty nine thousand four hundred seventy eight) rubles 86 kopecks.

To refuse to satisfy the rest of the claims to the National Insurance Group - ROSENERGO Open Joint Stock Company.

To collect in favor of D. from the National Insurance Group - ROSENERGO Open Joint Stock Company the legal costs of paying for the services of a representative in the amount of 8304 (eight thousand three hundred and four) rubles 80 kopecks.

Having heard the report of the judge of the court of the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug Breeva S.S., the panel of judges

installed:

Limited Liability Company "National Insurance Group -" ROSENERGO "applied to the Industrial District Court of the city of Barnaul with a claim against D. for reimbursement of training costs.

The requirements are motivated by the fact that on March 13, 2012, labor and student contracts were concluded between the parties. In accordance with the apprenticeship agreement, training is organized for the employee in order to improve their skills. D.'s training took place in the city of Moscow at LLC "Center Maintenance", lasting 6 days, in the period from DD.MM.YYYY to DD.MM.YYYY. After the training, the defendant was issued an appropriate certificate. The cost of training was 45,000 rubles, which the Company paid. In addition, the plaintiff incurred the defendant's travel expenses to the place of study and back, as well as hotel services and a service fee, which amounted to 33,530 rubles. Also, the defendant was transferred per diem in the amount of 2,000 rubles and a scholarship in the amount of 13,500 rubles. conclusion of the contract. An employee who has not worked out the period established by the contract is obliged to fully reimburse the employer for the amount of training costs and other expenses associated with the employee's training process within 1 month from the date of dismissal. DD.MM.YYYY the defendant was dismissed from NSG- "ROSENERGO" at its own request. Based on the foregoing, they ask to recover from the defendant the cost of the costs incurred for the defendant's training in the amount of 94,030 rubles.

Determination of the Industrial District Court of Barnaul Altai Territory dated October 11, 2013, this civil case was submitted for consideration to the Novy Urengoy city court (case file 97).

The case was considered in the absence of a representative of NSG-ROSENERGO LLC.

At the hearing of the court of first instance, the defendant D. and his representative, lawyer VI Burlakov, objected to the satisfaction of the claim.

The court ruled the above decision, with which the defendant D. disagrees, pointing out in the appeal that the court decision was illegal and groundless, since it was issued in violation of substantive law. He believes that during the period of work with the plaintiff he did not receive new profession or specialty, his direction to Moscow was associated with advanced training, in connection with which the expenses incurred by the plaintiff are not subject to reimbursement.

In his response to the appeal, the representative of LLC "NSG-"ROSENERGO" M. expresses his position in support of the court's decision.

When considering the case by the court of appeal, the parties did not participate, they were notified in a timely and appropriate manner.

Having checked the case materials, having discussed the arguments of the appeal, the panel of judges comes to the following conclusions.

According to Art. 327.1 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the court of appeal considers the case within the limits of the arguments set forth in the appeal, presentation and objections to the complaint, presentation.

The court's decision regarding the refusal to satisfy the claims of the claim for the recovery of expenses incurred by the employer for the defendant's travel to the place of study and back, including the service fee, the cost of staying at the hotel and per diem, in the total amount of 35,530 rubles, as well as scholarships, is not appealed and subject appeal review by virtue of h. 1 Article. 327.1 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation is not.

In resolving the claim for the recovery of tuition fees from D., the court of first instance proceeded from the fact that the defendant, being a party to the student agreement, assumed obligations to fulfill its conditions, however, the conditions associated with the implementation of labor activity for five years with the employer, did not fulfill (resigned of his own free will), which served as the basis for the recovery of expenses incurred by the plaintiff in connection with his training, in proportion to the time worked by D..

The Judicial Collegium cannot agree with the indicated conclusions of the Court of First Instance due to the following.

In accordance with Art. 198 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, an employer - a legal entity (organization) has the right to conclude with a job seeker, or with an employee of this organization, a student agreement for receiving education on the job or with a break from work.

Thus, the purpose of the apprenticeship agreement is vocational training or retraining of an employee in a particular profession, specialty. It is through the conclusion of apprenticeship contracts that employees exercise the right to vocational training, retraining, including training in new professions and specialties.

The court established that an employment contract was concluded between NSG-ROSENERGO LLC and D.<данные изъяты>, in accordance with which the respondent was hired as a programmer of the 1st category of the software and information support(case file 6 - 8).

In accordance with clause 2.1 of the employment contract, the main task of the employee was to ensure the programming and administration of corporate information systems, their smooth operation.

Besides, in official duties the employee was to ensure the installation, maintenance of programs:<данные изъяты>in the subdivision of the Customer (clause 2.2.1 of the agreement).

DD.MM.YYYY the parties concluded a student agreement No. 2, which provides that in order to acquire new professional knowledge and advanced training, the employer organizes for an employee holding the position of a programmer of the 1st category of the software and information support department, training, which is carried out by the employer (case file 10 - 11). Contract term from DD.MM.YYYY to DD.MM.YYYY.

According to the student agreement N dated DD.MM.YYYY concluded between the employee and the employer, the employee is obliged to work for the employer for at least 5 years. At the same time, if the employee, on his own initiative, terminates the employment contract earlier than the period specified in clause 1.7 of the employment contract, or the employment contract is terminated at the initiative of the employer in accordance with Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the employer has the right to recover the amount spent on employee training (clause 1.8 of the employment contract).

The provisions of Chapter 31 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation regulate the issues of professional training, retraining and advanced training of employees.

The basic rights and obligations of the employer for the training and retraining of personnel are enshrined in Art. 196 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. Thus, the employer has the right to independently determine the need for professional training and retraining of personnel for their own needs.

For employees undergoing professional training, advanced training, the employer must create the necessary conditions for combining work with training, provide guarantees established by labor legislation and other regulatory legal acts containing norms labor law, collective agreement, agreements, local regulations, labor contract.

So, in accordance with the order of NSG-"ROSENERGO" LLC dated DD.MM.YYYY N 131k D., who graduated in<данные изъяты>year<данные изъяты>"with the award of the qualification "mathematician system programmer" in the specialty "applied mathematics and informatics" (case sheet 117), who in 2008 was awarded a master's degree in applied mathematics and informatics in the direction "applied mathematics and informatics" in the same educational institution (case file 118), was sent by the employer for training with a break from work in Moscow at the Technical Service Center LLC, to improve the professional level for the period from DD.MM.YYYY to DD.MM.YYYY (4 days ) (case file 15, 16).

DD.MM.YYYY D. was issued a certificate confirming his training at the "System Administrator" course in software systems<данные изъяты>(case sheet 27).

Thus, having analyzed the provisions of the labor legislation governing the grounds for concluding a student agreement (Chapter 32 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation), as well as the procedure and conditions for conducting vocational training, retraining and advanced training of employees (Chapter 31 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation), taking into account the evidence presented and the established circumstances, the panel of judges concludes that in this case there was no vocational training for D. or his retraining out of work, which is prerequisite conclusion of a student agreement in accordance with Art. 198 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, and advanced training of an employee, which is paid for by the employer, since it is a necessary condition for the implementation of his labor activity (work with programs<данные изъяты>) (Article 187 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

In these circumstances, the court came to the wrong conclusion about the recovery from the defendant of the expenses incurred by NSG-ROSENERGO LLC in connection with the improvement of his qualifications in the amount of 38,250 rubles, and therefore, the court decision in this part is subject to cancellation, with the adoption of a new decision on the refusal of NSG-ROSENERGO LLC to satisfy the claims for reimbursement of the costs of D.'s education and court costs.

The panel of judges cannot agree with the conclusions of the court on the application to the legal relations that have arisen by virtue of Part 2 of Art. 61 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation of the appeal ruling of the Altai Regional Court dated January 30, 2013, since the subject of its consideration was an assessment of the circumstances of the existence of grounds for terminating the student agreement concluded between the parties, due to the Company’s failure to fulfill its obligations under the agreement (case sheet 130 - 138), which is not is essential to the merits of the present dispute.

According to paragraph 1 of Art. 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court awards to the party in whose favor the decision of the court was made, the court awards reimbursement on the other side of all court costs incurred in the case, except for the cases provided for by part two of Article 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.

Article 94 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation provides that the costs associated with the consideration of the case include, among other things, the costs of paying for the services of representatives.

By virtue of h. 1 Article. 100 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the party in whose favor the court decision was made, at its written request, the court awards, on the other hand, the costs of paying for the services of a representative within reasonable limits.

In support of the costs incurred to pay for the services of a representative, the plaintiff presented a warrant from a lawyer Burlakov The.AND. (case file 108) and a receipt for the amount of 21,000 rubles (case file 141). These expenses were incurred by the plaintiff for legal advice representative, his study of the materials of the civil case, analysis of documents and participation in the court of first instance to consider the civil case.

The court awarded NSG-ROSENERGO LLC in favor of D. court costs for paying for the services of a representative in proportion to the amount of satisfied claims in the amount of 8304 rubles.

Meanwhile, given that the Company’s claims were denied in full, the judicial panel, based on the circumstances of the case, the amount of work performed by the representative, the nature of the services provided, the duration of the trial, taking into account the category of the dispute, the requirements of reasonableness enshrined in Art. 100 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, considers it right to reimburse the defendant D. incurred by him the costs of the representative in full, but since 8304 RUB. the court has already recovered in favor of the defendant, the amount of 12,960 rubles is subject to additional recovery. The above indicates a change in the decision of the court in terms of court costs recovered from the plaintiff in favor of the defendant.

Guided by Art. Art. 328 - 330 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, judicial board

determined:

The decision of the Novy Urengoy City Court of the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous District of December 4, 2013 is canceled in part.

Limited Liability Company "National Insurance Group - "ROSENERGO" in satisfying the claim against D. for the recovery of training costs in the amount of 38250 rubles, court costs for the payment of the state fee in the amount of 1228 rubles 86 kopecks; in total: 39478 rubles 86 kopecks - to refuse.

Change the decision of the Novy Urengoy City Court of the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous District of December 4, 2013 regarding the recovery of court costs.

To recover from the Limited Liability Company National Insurance Group - ROSENERGO in favor of D. legal costs in the amount of 12,960 rubles.

The rest of the court's decision is left unchanged.

S.S. Breeva

Secretary

N.N.KOPEIKINA

With respect and wishes for comfortable work, Svetlana Gorshneva,

Prohibited documents in the personnel service
Inspectors of the GIT and Roskomnadzor told us what documents should never be required from newcomers when applying for a job. You probably have some papers from this list. We have compiled full list and selected a safe substitute for each forbidden document.

If you pay vacation pay a day later than the deadline, the company will be fined 50,000 rubles. Reduce the notice period for the reduction by at least a day - the court will reinstate the employee at work. We have studied judicial practice and prepared safe recommendations for you.

_____________________________

*(1) Article 36 of the Federal Law of November 29, 2010 No. 326-FZ “On Compulsory Medical Insurance in the Russian Federation” (Sobraniye Zakonodatelstva Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2010, No. 49, Art. 6422; 2011, No. 25, Art. 3529 ; No. 49, item 7047; No. 49, item 7057; 2012, No. 31, item 4322; No. 49, item 6758; 2013, No. 7, item 606; No. 27, item 3477; No. 30, 4084; No. 39, 4883; No. 48, 6165; No. 52, 6955; 2014, No. 11, 1098; No. 28, 3851; No. 30, 4269; No. 49 , item 6927; 2015, No. 51, item 7245; 2016, No. 1, item 52; No. 27, item 4219).

*(2) Clause 9 of the Rules for the use by medical organizations of the funds of the normalized insurance stock of the territorial fund of compulsory medical insurance for financial support of measures to organize additional professional education of medical workers in advanced training programs, as well as to purchase and repair medical equipment, approved by a decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated April 21, 2016 No. 332 (Collected Legislation of the Russian Federation, 2016, No. 18, Art. 2626) (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).

*(3) Subparagraph "a" of paragraph 5 of the Rules.

*(4) Article 54 of the Federal Law of December 29, 2012 No. 273-FZ “On Education in the Russian Federation” (Sobraniye Zakonodatelstva Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2012, No. 53, Article 7598), subparagraph “b” of paragraph 5 of the Rules.

Document overview

Employees of medical organizations engaged in the field of CHI can improve their skills at the expense of the normalized insurance stock of the TFOMS.

The rules for choosing an appropriate educational program and an educational institution for advanced training by an employee are prescribed.

For this, the Internet portal of continuous medical and pharmaceutical education is used. Access to it is provided through the ESIA and the Federal Register of Medical Workers.

The Internet portal contains a list of educational programs. There are several forms of training - simulation, electronic, distance, network, internship.

The employee must be included in the relevant action plan approved by the regional authority. He registers on the Internet portal and submits a preliminary application for enrollment in the chosen educational program.

The health worker must coordinate with the head of the medical organization (employer) the subject of the educational program, educational institution and training periods.

The employer concludes an appropriate agreement with the educational organization.

General information for healthcare professionals. Training in residency (internship) at the expense of the federal budget Training of employees at the expense of OMS funds

NMO at your own expense

NMO does not provide knowledge

The NMO system is not thought out

Answer

Document overview

Interesting articles

Interesting articles