Healthcare institution faces controversy over allegations of selective patient admissions
The Supreme Court of Russia has upheld the State Duma's decision to strip deputy Yuri Napso of his powers due to prolonged absence from work. Napso has been absent for over two years, a representative for the former deputy claims this was due to illness. However, the court did not find this a sufficient reason, as the issue revolves around the exercise of public functions by a deputy, rather than labor relations.
On May 29, the Supreme Court declared the early termination of Napso's deputy powers as lawful, dismissing his lawsuit against the State Duma. He had sought to cancel the lower house's decision and be reinstated as a parliamentarian.
His representative presented the court with medical documents and evidence of timely and valid notifications to the State Duma apparatus, the chairman of the faction, and the presidential administration regarding his temporary incapacity. The representatives of the Duma did not attend the hearing and requested the court to consider the case in their absence.
The State Duma expelled Napso, representing the Liberal Democratic Party, in April, citing his prolonged absence from work. According to Russian parliamentary regulations, a deputy's non-performance of duties for 30 or more days is grounds for the loss of their mandate. However, Napso's representative argued that he had only missed six days without a valid reason, with the rest of the time being spent under medical treatment abroad.
Judge Oleg Nefedov expressed surprise at the length of time taken for preparation for the operation. Napso's lawyer countered by explaining the complexity of the human body. Despite this, the former deputy continued to participate in committee work and maintain contact with voters during this period.
Napso's representative cited judicial reviews that suggest the dismissal of an employee on sick leave due to absenteeism is illegal. However, the judge pointed out that this applies to labor relations, but in this case, the issue concerns the performance of a deputy's public functions.
The Central Election Commission agreed with the Liberal Democratic Party's decision to transfer a vacant mandate prematurely. The State Duma regulations recognize absence due to business trips, vacation, or illness as valid, but this was contested by Napso's representative, who argued that if one follows the logic of the Duma's ethics commission, the reason for absence is irrelevant if 30 days have passed, and dismissal is permitted. He also pointed out that there have been precedents of deputies being dismissed for "absenteeism," but in each case, they challenged the fact of their absence. However, there has not yet been a precedent of a deputy being dismissed for a valid reason, he emphasized.
The court's decision, while announced, has not yet provided a detailed explanation. Yevgeny Kabashny, Napso's representative, has yet to comment on the decision, stating he needs to coordinate his position with his client first.
This ruling reinforces the accountability within the Russian legislative branch, confirming that deputy powers can be prematurely terminated through parliamentary expulsion supported by judicial review. It serves as a precedent reaffirming the parliament's authority to terminate deputy mandates early for grounds that meet established criteria, potentially including absenteeism or neglect of duties.
The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the State Duma's expulsion of Yuri Napso serves as a precedent in Russian policy-and-legislation, reaffirming the parliament's authority to terminate deputy mandates early for grounds that meet established criteria, potentially including absenteeism or neglect of duties. This ruling, however, was based on the exercise of public functions by a deputy, rather than labor relations, as the former deputy's lawsuit against the State Duma was dismissed.
