Main
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation declared the dismissal of a mother of four children unlawful

An inspector of the Audit Chamber of the Artemovsky Urban District was dismissed in December 2023 due to a “loss of trust.” The employer made this decision on the grounds that the employee had failed to submit income declarations for a period of three years.
In her defense, the employee explained that she had been on maternity leave caring for her child, which required her full attention and caused her official duties to recede into the background. She is the mother of four children, three of whom are minors, while her husband is unable to work due to health reasons.
Furthermore, the employee did not have the necessary software to complete the required declarations. She repeatedly applied to the Chairman of the Audit Chamber requesting permission to use her workplace computer to fill out income, expenditure, and property declarations, citing the absence of other technical means, but her requests were denied “on the grounds that material and technical resources may not be used for purposes unrelated to official duties.”
As a result, the employee managed to submit income information only for one year. Disagreeing with her dismissal, she appealed the employer’s decision in court.
The court of first instance partially upheld her claims, recognizing the dismissal as unlawful. The employee was reinstated to her position as inspector of the Audit Chamber of the Artemovsky Urban District. The employer was ordered to pay her compensation for the period of forced absence from work and moral damages in the amount of 5,000 rubles. The court’s decision was subject to immediate enforcement.
However, the appellate and cassation courts disagreed with these conclusions, finding that the employee had committed a corruption-related offense and that dismissal was the only possible disciplinary measure.
Upon reviewing the cassation appeal, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation overturned the rulings of the appellate and cassation courts and upheld the decision of the court of first instance.