Cut back without reason, the size of moral harm forbade the judges of the Supreme court. The Supreme court explained that judges should not dismiss plaintiffs ‘ stock phrases about “proportionality” and “fairness” penny of compensation.

the Reason for the next educational program for judges from the armed forces was the complaint of the inhabitant of Saransk Stanislav Kalashnikov. For eight years the man had worked as a driver of “Gazelle” in a private firm. When I got to work, the boss assured that all official: work-book, white wages, deductions to the Pension Fund. But when the driver resigned, he revealed the ugly truth. Premiums for the employee employer paid only the first two years, and then for some reason changed his mind. That is six years out of eight Kalashnikov worked on the bird’s rights. Moreover, even the work book superiors he did not want to give. Therefore, the driver could not get a new job and the stress ended up in the hospital. Forgive negligent bosses the driver refused and filed a lawsuit. Demanded to employ him officially the first day of his real job, to pay to the FIU and the FSS are all the required fees and also to pay compensation for unused leave. In addition, the plaintiff requested the court to charge the company 100 thousand rubles for moral damage. The ground was rife: health gave away, the new work there, and even a young son, whom the plaintiff brings one to feed on. However, the Leninsky district court of Saransk have decided that 5000 rubles for such suffering is enough. In an appeal the decision stood. But the high court found in the work of their colleagues a lot of violations. Important: the courts did not consider that the right to work, which violated the careless boss of the driver, enshrined in the Constitution. As stressed by sun in its definition, each person has the right to free choice of employment, and respect, safe working conditions, rest and a decent salary. Despite this, the courts do not bother to indicate the reasons why the violation of the constitutional rights of the person they have evaluated a total of five thousand rubles. Instead, the decision only duty is a common phrase on the reasonableness and fairness of compensation. VS reminded the judges that, despite their independence, they have no right to arbitrarily assess the evidence and must first of all take into consideration how important the situation is for the life of the plaintiff. In addition, courts must specify in the decision the specific circumstances on the basis of which they appreciated a person’s suffering in a particular amount.