YAKUTSK, November 6. /Corr. Susanna Rozhina/. Next week the Supreme court of Russia will consider the legality of a lifetime of social guarantees of the first persons of Yakutia. On Friday said Vice-speaker of the Parliament of the Republic Olga Balakina.
“Next week this issue will be considered in the Supreme court of Russia. We have provided all the documents relating to the budget, to assess the situation. The Parliament of the Republic and the office of the head of the region adhere to the consolidated position for the protection of the law. This is our Republican passed law, and we protect him in the Supreme court of Russia,” she said.
According to the investigation front, in 11 regions of the country, including in Yakutia, the laws of these regions are provided for former heads of various incentives, which could include, depending on the subjects the preservation of the public houses, the apartments, unit assistants, and most of the monthly remuneration.
“Our new research shows how burdensome may be in the country for the budgets of all levels “gold warranty”. This phenomenon is almost universal, therefore, we believe that entities should reconsider spending on “gold warranty” – leads the press service quoted the head of the project “For fair procurement” Anton Getta.
Earlier the office of public Prosecutor of Yakutia also judicially challenged lifetime sigurantei leaders of Yakutia.
In particular, the contested norms establishing the monthly lifelong monetary maintenance, to ensure living space and transportation, medical support, sanatorium treatment, provision of state security during the first three years from the date of termination of the delegation of authority for use on the territory of the Republic government bond and other communications available to the state authorities of the Republic and local government bodies, for financial and logistical support of the office of the assistants, as well as monthly cash benefits to disabled members of the family of the President, who stopped his powers after his death.
The representatives of the Parliament did not agree with the stated requirements. But the Supreme court of the Republic agreed with the arguments of the Prosecutor and its decision recognized the contested norms contradict the Federal legislation, invalid and not applicable.