On 5 May 2026, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation adopted Judgement No. 31-П in accordance with Article 47.1 of the Federal Constitutional Law «On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation». The case on the review of constitutionality of Article 22 (part 1 and item 1 of part 8) of the Federal Law «On Service in the Enforcement Agencies of the Russian Federation and Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation» was considered in connection with the complaint of citizen M.M. Dolmatova.Background
Marina Dolmatova had served since 2006 in a territorial subdivision of the Federal Bailiff Service of the Kurgan Oblast. The contested law, which entered into force in 2020, established the legal basis for service in enforcement bodies as a special type of state service, as a result of which bailiffs ceased to be considered state civil servants. The applicant expressed a desire to serve in these agencies. She passed a physical fitness test, professional psychological screening, and a medical examination. On 31 May 2020, the applicant was dismissed from civil service, and the following day, a three‑year contract for service in the enforcement bodies was concluded with her, as provided by the contested provisions in respect of persons initially entering service in the relevant bodies. Upon the expiry of this term, M. Dolmatova was dismissed. The applicant appealed to the court, arguing that there was no basis for concluding a fixed‑term contract with her. The city court upheld her claims, stating that she could not be regarded as entering service in the enforcement bodies for the first time. However, higher courts reversed that decision.
Position of the Court
In Russia, conditions are created for mutual trust between the state and society, the protection of the dignity of citizens and respect for a working man are guaranteed, and a balance of rights and duties of citizens is ensured. When reforming state service relations, it is necessary to take into account the principle of unity of the legal and organisational foundations of state service. This requires the establishment of regulation that ensures the retention of the personnel composition of the relevant state bodies, if the specific features of a particular type of service remain unchanged.
Changes in the legal regulation of service relations involving bailiffs are due to the need to specify and streamline their legal status. At the same time, the essence of their activities, which necessitated these changes, remained the same after the contested law entered into force. Consequently, the introduction of such a type of state service as service in compulsory enforcement bodies (taking into account the traditional classification of bailiff service as belonging to enforcement bodies in Russian legislation) could not be regarded as the establishment of a fundamentally new type of state service activity.
The legislator, requiring such persons only to undergo professional psychological screening, medical examination and a physical fitness test, proceeded from the presumption that they met the qualification requirements for the positions they were to occupy in the enforcement bodies, including requirements for professional knowledge and skills. This indicated that the recognition of individuals who had previously held positions in the bailiff service as persons entering service in the compulsory enforcement bodies for the first time could only be conditional. At the same time, the transfer of citizens from one type of service to another entailed their dismissal and new appointment to positions with the conclusion of a contract, and the relevant regulation did not directly provide for the conclusion of fixed term contracts in such cases.
At the same time, fixed‑term contracts for service in the enforcement bodies were concluded with such individuals, and upon the expiry of these contracts, these individuals could be dismissed on purely formal grounds (in particular, this situation arose in the applicant’s case).
The contested provisions are inconsistent with the Constitution, because, as they served as the basis for concluding fixed term contracts for service in enforcement bodies for positions involving the performance of similar official duties with citizens who had previously performed state civil service in the Federal Bailiff Service (FSSP) and its territorial bodies under indefinite term service contracts. They also permitted the termination of such service relations on the expiration of their contracts in the absence of objective obstacles to the continuation of those relations, without providing them with guarantees aimed at mitigating the negative consequences of dismissal.
The applicant’s case is subject to review, taking into account the specifics indicated in the Judgement.
Press Service of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation