Recovering Employee Training Costs in Russia: Legal Guide for Employers

 

September 23, 2025

BRACE Law Firm ©

 

The Russian labor market is currently experiencing a talent shortage. In such a situation, it is often faster and more efficient to train an existing employee in new competencies than to search for a new one. However, after acquiring additional skills, an employee might leave for another employer offering better working conditions.

To minimize these risks, a company may enter into an agreement with the employee requiring them to work for a specific period. The ability to recover training expenses from an employee who resigns before the end of this period largely depends on whether the legal relationship was correctly documented.

This article examines:

• when a contract with a mandatory work period may be concluded;
• which form of contract to choose;
• which conditions should be included in the contract;
• how to recover training expenses if the employee fails to fulfill the work obligation.

Due to the significant volume of material, this article will not cover the specifics of training specialists under targeted education programs for secondary vocational or higher education.

Training of Employees: Right or Obligation of the Employer?

According to Part 1 of Article 196 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation (the "Labor Code"), the employer determines the necessity for employee training (professional education and professional training) and additional professional education for its own needs.

The concepts of professional training, professional education, and additional professional education are regulated by Federal Law No. 273-FZ dated December 29, 2012, On Education in the Russian Federation (the "Education Law").

Professional education is a type of education aimed at the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and the formation of competencies of a certain level and volume during the completion of primary professional educational programs, allowing one to conduct professional activities in a specific field and (or) perform work in a specific profession or specialty (Paragraph 12 of Article 2 of the Education Law).

Professional education includes the following levels:

• secondary vocational education (SPO);
• higher education (bachelor's, specialist, and master's degrees).

Professional training is a type of education aimed at the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and the formation of competencies necessary to perform specific labor or service functions (specific types of labor or service activities, professions) (Paragraph 13 of Article 2 of the Education Law).

Professional training aims to acquire professional competence, including for work with specific equipment, technologies, hardware and software, and other professional tools, obtaining qualifications in a blue-collar profession or white-collar position, and assigning (where applicable) qualification grades, classes, or categories without changing the education level.

The list of blue-collar professions and white-collar positions for which professional training is conducted was approved by Order of the Ministry of Education of Russia No. 534 dated July 14, 2023. [1]

Additional professional education is a type of education aimed at satisfying educational and professional needs, personal professional development, and ensuring that a person's qualifications correspond to the changing conditions of professional activity and the social environment (Part 1 of Article 76 of the Education Law). Additional professional education is carried out through the implementation of advanced training programs and professional retraining programs. Individuals possessing or pursuing secondary vocational or higher education are eligible for these programs.

Henceforth, we shall refer to any of these types of professional education and training as "employee training".

An exception to the rule of the employer's independent choice of training forms and periods occurs when training is a condition for employees to perform certain types of activities (Part 4 of Article 196 of the Labor Code). For example, medical and pharmaceutical workers must improve their professional knowledge within the periods and in the manner established by the Ministry of Health of Russia, while medical organizations must ensure the professional training, retraining, and advanced training of medical workers (Articles 73 and 79 of Federal Law No. 323-FZ dated November 21, 2011, On the Fundamentals of Health Protection of Citizens in the Russian Federation). A similar obligation for periodic training is established for auditors, teachers, civil servants, and several other categories of workers.

Regarding such cases, the following position has emerged in judicial practice: if an employer is obligated to train employees by law, it has no right to demand compensation for training expenses.

For example, in Case No. 88-9256/2023, [2] an institution sued employee I. to recover training expenses. The claim stated that the institution and I. had entered into an employment contract under which I. was hired as a ward nurse. Subsequently, I. was sent to advanced training courses in "Nursing in Psychiatry", and a supplementary agreement was signed requiring her to work for at least three years. Due to I.'s resignation before the period expired, the institution demanded 12,413.25 rubles in training costs. The court concluded that I. had completed advanced training for her primary job function. By law, organizing such training is the duty of the medical organization and must be paid for at its expense. The claim was denied.

In other cases, the employer determines the forms and frequency of training and additional professional education, as well as the list of necessary professions and specialties, while considering the opinion of the employees' representative body. Typically, this is defined in a collective bargaining agreement or a local act regulating employee training. An annual training plan is also approved, specifying the forms of training and the number of employees to be sent during the relevant period.

Furthermore, as noted by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, [3] labor legislation contains no provisions allowing an employee to independently determine the time and place of retraining, even when advanced training is an employer's obligation. Labor legislation also does not provide for the possibility of compensating an employee for costs related to training when the employee underwent such training independently on their own initiative.

Thus, as a general rule, the employer determines the necessity and forms of employee training, except where expressly provided by law. In the latter case, the employer must send the employee for training and pay for it from its own funds without any reciprocal consideration from the employee, including a post-training work requirement.

How to Document the Contractual Relationship with an Employee?

Under Part 2 of Article 197 of the Labor Code, an employee's right to training and additional professional education is exercised by concluding a supplementary contract between the employee and the employer. The Labor Code provides several options for documenting the contractual relationship:

• concluding an apprenticeship contract;
• including a work requirement in the employment contract;
• concluding a training agreement;
• other methods not prohibited by law.

The procedure and conditions for concluding an apprenticeship contract are defined in Chapter 32 of the Labor Code. An employer may conclude such a contract for education with or without time off from work with a person seeking work or with an existing employee. An apprenticeship contract with an existing employee is supplementary to the employment contract.

Mandatory requirements for the content of an apprenticeship contract are established in Article 199 of the Labor Code. Thus, an apprenticeship contract must contain:

• the names of the parties;
• a specific qualification to be acquired by the apprentice;
• the employer's obligation to provide the employee with the opportunity to train according to the contract;
• the employee's obligation to complete the training and work for the employer under the employment contract for the period established in the apprenticeship contract in accordance with the acquired qualification;
• the term of the apprenticeship;
• the amount of payment during the apprenticeship period;
• other conditions determined by the agreement of the parties.

The Labor Code also establishes guarantees for apprentices:

• Apprenticeship time during the week must not exceed the established normal working hours.
• By agreement with the employer, employees may be completely released from work under the employment contract or perform work on a part-time basis.
• Apprentices may not be assigned to overtime work or sent on business trips unrelated to the apprenticeship.
• Labor legislation, including occupational health and safety regulations, applies to apprentices.
• During the apprenticeship period, the employee receives a stipend, the amount of which depends on the qualification being acquired and cannot be lower than the minimum wage (MROT). Work performed by the apprentice during practical classes is paid according to established rates.

Undoubtedly, an apprenticeship contract has advantages, such as the ability to secure a work requirement when training occurs at the employer's own production facility without sending the employee to an educational organization. However, it does not always correspond to the actual relationship.

For instance, Rostrud, in Letter No. PG/24297-6-1 dated December 11, 2024, stated that under Part 1 of Article 199 of the Labor Code, an apprenticeship contract must indicate the specific qualification being acquired. However, when an employee is sent for advanced training, they do not acquire a new qualification; therefore, advanced training cannot be the subject of an apprenticeship contract. In such cases, the regulatory body believes a different method of documenting the contractual relationship must be chosen.

Furthermore, other conditions in practice may not meet legislative requirements. For example, if an employer sends an employee to an educational organization in another locality, it is obligated to pay the average wage, whereas a significant condition of an apprenticeship contract is the mandatory payment of a stipend, which is not considered labor remuneration. Additionally, the duration of training and compliance with occupational safety requirements may fall outside the employer's control. Thus, an apprenticeship contract is not always in the employer's best interest.

As practice shows, more effective contractual structures exist that are only briefly mentioned in the Labor Code. According to Article 57 of the Labor Code, an employment contract may include an obligation for the employee to work for at least a specified period after training if the training was conducted at the employer's expense. Consequently, if an employee is sent for training after the employment contract is signed, the corresponding changes can be made through a supplementary agreement. Article 249 of the Labor Code, which regulates the reimbursement of employer costs, also mentions a "training agreement". Henceforth, we shall refer to any such contract as a "training agreement".

The use of such legal structures was considered by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which affirmed their constitutionality in Ruling No. 498-O dated March 24, 2015. According to the Constitutional Court, this ensures a balance of rights and interests between the employee and the employer: the employee improves their professional level and gains additional advantages in the labor market, while the employer is compensated for training costs if the employee terminates the employment relationship prematurely without valid reasons.

Unlike apprenticeship contracts, the Labor Code does not establish detailed requirements for the content of training agreements. Let us consider which conditions are advisable to include and which are deemed invalid by courts.

1. Type of Training. We have discussed the types and levels of education in Russia in detail. Note that employers sometimes pay for participation in seminars, conferences, and workshops to improve employee skills. This is not expressly prohibited; however, there is no guarantee that courts will recover such funds.

For example, in Case No. 88-20573/2020, [4] a company and an employee entered into a training agreement under which the employer sent the employee to a seminar titled "Assembly and Installation of Siemens Electrical Equipment" at a Siemens international training center, and the employee agreed to work for 36 months. The employer paid 1,392,702.98 rubles for the seminar. The employee terminated the contract at their own initiative before the period expired. The employer sued to recover 550,813 rubles, including tuition, airfare, accommodation, travel, visa fees, etc.

The district court partially granted the claim, awarding 280,000 rubles for the tuition. The appellate court overturned this, arguing that the services (seminars) were provided by a company that was not an educational organization, and the employee did not receive a new specialty or qualification. The cassation court overturned the appellate decision, stating that labor legislation does not make the employee's obligation to reimburse costs dependent on obtaining a new specialty or qualification. The employee gained a market advantage at the employer's expense, and the reimbursement claim was lawful.

2. Purpose of Training. According to Paragraph 3 of Article 264 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, advanced training costs are included in other expenses related to production and sales. To minimize risks of tax authority claims regarding the unreasonableness of expenses, it is advisable to state the purpose of the training in the agreement (e.g., to master new technologies, expand production, or increase the client base).

3. Work Requirement Condition. This condition must be formulated as specifically as possible to minimize potential disputes regarding the position and duration the employee must work after training.

The law does not regulate the length of the work period. Typically, it ranges from one to five years. We recommend a reasonable approach to setting this period based on the amount spent, the duration of training, and the importance of the new knowledge to the company.

4. List of Training Expenses Paid by the Employer. Training expenses may include tuition fees, guarantees and compensations (travel expenses for training in another locality, average earnings), and payment for study materials.

Specifying these expenses in detail in the agreement will help prove the costs incurred in the event of a legal dispute.

In conclusion, the obligation to work after training must be documented in writing through a contract between the employee and the employer. The choice of contract type should depend on the form of training, and all obligations should be coordinated in detail.

What Expenses Can an Employer Recover?

According to Article 249 of the Labor Code, if an employee resigns without valid reasons before the expiration of the term specified in the employment contract or training agreement, they must reimburse the employer for training costs, calculated proportionally to the time not worked after training, unless otherwise provided in the agreement.

Thus, based on this provision, the employer's right to recover costs arises if the following mandatory conditions are met:

• training was conducted at the employer's expense;
• a work requirement was provided for in the employment contract or training agreement;
• the employee resigned before the end of the agreed period;
• the reason for resignation is not valid.

Let us examine the issues that cause the most disagreement.

1. Reasons for the Employee's Failure to Fulfill Obligations. Although the Labor Code mentions only resignation as a reason for reimbursement, courts recognize the possibility of recovery if an employee is expelled for academic failure or fails a final exam.[5]

Furthermore, many disputes arise regarding "valid reasons" for resignation. The Labor Code does not provide an exhaustive list of valid reasons that exempt an employee from reimbursement. As clarified by the Ministry of Labor of Russia,[6] the validity of a reason is decided in each case based on specific circumstances.

Practice shows that employees often cite the employer's failure to fulfill contract obligations as a valid reason.

In Case No. 78-KG21-30-K3, [7] an employee argued that his refusal to work was valid because the stipend provided by the apprenticeship contract was paid irregularly and withheld for one month due to an unsatisfactory grade. As a result, he was essentially deprived of his "means of subsistence" and forced to quit training and find another job. The court supported the employee, noting that making a stipend dependent on grades worsens the apprentice's position compared to the Labor Code, which requires stipend payments without conditions. The claim was denied.

In Case No. 88-31531/2022, [8] an employee successfully argued that being transferred to a position that did not match the training profile was a valid reason. Valid reasons may also include a physical inability to continue working, such as the illness of the employee or a close relative, or being drafted into military service.

Courts have deemed the following as "invalid" reasons: resignation due to retirement, [9] resignation due to moving to another locality, [10] and termination by mutual agreement of the parties.[11]

To avoid disputes, it is advisable to define "valid reasons" for resignation within the training agreement.

2. List of Recoverable Training Costs. While recovering tuition fees is generally straightforward, recovering associated costs is more complex. In the Review of Judicial Practice on Material Liability of Employees, [12] the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation stated that the Labor Code guarantees the reimbursement of travel expenses to employees sent for training in another locality. Such expenses are not included in the "training costs" and are not subject to recovery if the employee leaves prematurely.

These costs, which the employer must reimburse for business trips, include travel to and from the training site, housing rental, and per diems. Following this position, most courts refuse to award travel expenses even if the training agreement includes a reimbursement clause. Courts also typically refuse to recover the average wage paid to the employee during the training period.

In Case No. 69-KG18-7, [13] a company sued employee P. for 778,916 rubles in training costs. P. had been sent to a professional training institution and agreed to work for three years. She resigned early. Upon resignation, her tuition costs were deducted from her salary by agreement. When she refused to reimburse the average wage and travel expenses paid during training, the company sued. The court stated that under Article 167 of the Labor Code, an employee sent on a business trip is guaranteed their position, average earnings, and travel reimbursement. Including these in recoverable training costs contradicts the Labor Code.

A slightly different approach may apply to stipends paid under an apprenticeship contract. Article 207 of the Labor Code expressly provides that if an apprentice fails to fulfill their obligations without a valid reason, they must return the stipend received. However, if the stipend was essentially the average wage maintained for the employee under Article 187 of the Labor Code, recovery will likely be denied. [14]

3. Amount of Incurred Costs. As a general rule under Article 249 of the Labor Code, an employee must reimburse costs proportionally to the time not worked. However, the training agreement may provide otherwise.

Given the discretionary nature of this rule, some employers include a clause for full reimbursement regardless of time worked. However, there is a risk that a court will find such a condition invalid.

In Case No. 2-3852/2022, [15] the court concluded that a clause in an apprenticeship contract requiring full reimbursement instead of proportional reimbursement worsens the employee's position and contradicts Article 249 of the Labor Code.

4. Recovery of Penalties. Employers often establish penalties (fines) for early termination of the employment contract. However, the prevailing judicial position is that labor legislation does not provide for the recovery of any funds from an employee beyond the actual training costs.

In Case No. 88-215/2022, [16] an institution and Z. entered into an apprenticeship contract where the institution paid for Z.'s residency (ordinatura), and Z. agreed to work for at least ten years. Due to Z.'s failure to fulfill the obligation, the institution sued for 950,625 rubles, including a penalty. The agreement set a penalty of three times the training costs and double the housing costs. While the court found no grounds to exempt the defendant from his obligations, it stated that since the law does not provide for penalties against apprentices, the claim for penalties was denied.

Thus, if an employee fails to fulfill the work obligation, the employer may recover training costs. However, judicial practice shows that these costs do not include funds paid as guarantees and compensations provided for by the Labor Code.

How to Recover the Employer's Expenses?

If an employee is willing to voluntarily reimburse training costs upon resignation, we recommend executing a reimbursement agreement. It should include:

• the employee's obligation to voluntarily reimburse the damage;
• the debt amount;
• the procedure and deadlines for repayment.

A common question is whether the debt can be withheld from the employee's wages. There is no unified judicial opinion on this. Article 137 of the Labor Code, which lists the grounds for undisputed wage deductions, does not include this case. Consequently, some courts[17] find such deductions illegal and award the withheld amount back to the employee as wage arrears, along with interest for delayed payment. To mitigate risks, we recommend not performing unilateral deductions without a written statement from the employee.

If the employee disagrees with the reimbursement, the employer must file a claim in a court of general jurisdiction. The statute of limitations is one year, typically starting from the date of resignation.

In conclusion, the "freedom of contract" in training agreements is limited by law and enforced by courts to protect the employee as the weaker party. Nonetheless, such agreements serve the employer's interests by allowing them to train staff while securing a work commitment or cost reimbursement.

An employer may recover training costs if the following conditions are met:

• the employer directed the employee to training, and such training is not a mandatory legal condition for the employee's job function;
• training was paid for by the employer;
• a training agreement with a work requirement was executed;
• the employee resigned before the end of the term without a valid reason.

The employer can expect compensation for costs related to the training process. However, these costs do not include funds paid as guarantees and compensations under the Labor Code.

To minimize disputes, more detailed legislative regulation regarding training agreements is required.

_____________________________

References

[1] Order of the Ministry of Education of Russia No. 534 dated July 14, 2023, On Approval of the List of Blue-Collar Professions and White-Collar Positions for Which Professional Training is Conducted.

[2] Ruling of the Sixth CCA of General Jurisdiction dated April 13, 2023, No. 88-9256/2023 in Case No. 88-9256/2023.

[3] Review of Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 3, 2017 (approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on July 12, 2017).

[4] Ruling of the Second CCA of General Jurisdiction dated November 10, 2020, in Case No. 88-20573/2020.

[5] Appellate Ruling of the St. Petersburg City Court dated September 13, 2018, No. 33-17527/2018 in Case No. 2-2182/2018.

[6] Letter of the Ministry of Labor of Russia dated October 18, 2017, No. 14-2/V-935.

[7] Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 9, 2021, No. 78-KG21-30-K3.

[8] Ruling of the First CCA of General Jurisdiction dated November 22, 2022, No. 88-31531/2022.

[9] Appellate Ruling of the Moscow City Court dated August 30, 2017, in Case No. 33-34566/2017.

[10] Appellate Ruling of the Vologda Regional Court dated August 23, 2013, No. 33-3829/2013.

[11] Appellate Ruling of the Moscow City Court dated August 8, 2016, in Case No. 33-29369/2016.

[12] Approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on December 5, 2018.

[13] Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 2, 2018, No. 69-KG18-7.

[14] Appellate Ruling of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court dated August 5, 2021, in Case No. 33-11138/2021.

[15] Ruling of the Third CCA of General Jurisdiction dated July 17, 2023, No. 88-14875/2023 in Case No. 2-3852/2022.

[16] Ruling of the Sixth CCA of General Jurisdiction dated January 20, 2022, in Case No. 88-215/2022.

[17] Appellate Ruling of the Moscow City Court dated October 14, 2016, in Case No. 33-37776/2016.