Reinstatement at Work in Russia: Judicial and Extrajudicial Procedures

 

December 9, 2025

BRACE Law Firm ©

The Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees everyone the protection of their rights and freedoms. If an employee believes they were dismissed illegally, they may apply to a court or a labor inspectorate to restore their rights. If the dismissal is recognized as illegal, the employee will be reinstated at work through a judicial procedure.

This article examines:

• the meaning of "reinstatement at work" under Russian legislation;
• who may reinstate an illegally dismissed employee;
• the actions an employer must take when reinstating an employee;
• the employer’s liability for failing to perform these actions.

What is Job Reinstatement?

The Labor Code of the Russian Federation does not define the term "reinstatement at work". Federal Law No. 229-FZ dated October 2, 2007, On Enforcement Proceedings (the "Law on Enforcement Proceedings") provides some clarity. Pursuant to Article 106 of this law, reinstatement at work is considered actually executed if:

• the dismissal order is canceled;
• the employee is admitted to the performance of former labor duties.

Furthermore, as stated in Clause 38 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 50 dated November 17, 2015, On the Application of Legislation by Courts when Considering Certain Issues Arising in the Course of Enforcement Proceedings, the employer must take the measures necessary for the actual admission of the employee to the performance of former labor duties. In particular, the employer must comply with the conditions for admission to work, such as providing access to state secrets or conducting mandatory preliminary and periodic medical examinations.

We shall illustrate this with an example from judicial practice.

In Case No. 18-KG23-90-K4, [1] I. was hired for the position of a HR specialist. By the employer’s order, she was dismissed under Clause 2 of Part 1 of Article 81 of the Labor Code (reduction in the number or staff of the organization's employees). Disagreeing with the dismissal, I. appealed to a court, which recognized the dismissal as illegal. The employer canceled the dismissal order; however, I. was not admitted to work. On the same day, the employer issued an order declaring downtime due to the employer's fault. I. filed a lawsuit to recognize the downtime order as illegal, arguing that this was a hidden form of the employer evading the execution of the decision. The court of first instance concluded the order was legal because her functional duties had been distributed among other employees during the staff reduction period. Subsequently, the decision was reviewed several times by courts. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation indicated that the inability to immediately provide work is not a ground for introducing downtime. The case materials lacked evidence confirming the existence of economic, technological, technical, or organizational reasons for its declaration. Under such circumstances, the employer's introduction of downtime for I. in the absence of these reasons constitutes an illegal removal of her from work.

Analysis of judicial practice shows that an employer is obliged not only to provide the employee with the opportunity to perform job duties but also to restore the conditions of the labor contract that were in effect at the time of its termination. For instance, in Case No. 33-4984/2019, [2] Z. worked as a cashier at a motor transport enterprise. Subsequently, the labor contract with Z. was terminated due to a staff reduction. A court decision reinstated her at work. The employer canceled the dismissal order but simultaneously issued an order stating that Z.’s workplace would be an office lacking the items necessary for her to perform the duties of a cashier and established a different work schedule. Z. attempted to enter the workplace but was denied access. Subsequently, she was dismissed for truancy. The court concluded that the employer evaded the actions aimed at reinstating the employee and recognized the dismissal for truancy as illegal.

Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 795-O-O [3] confirms these conclusions, stating that the execution of a reinstatement decision is considered complete after the employer’s representative performs all actions necessary to ensure the subordinate actually performs the duties they performed prior to dismissal.

Grounds for Reinstatement at Work

An employee may be reinstated at work:

• pursuant to an order of the labor inspectorate (the "GIT" or the "Labor Inspectorate");
• pursuant to a court decision;
• pursuant to the employer's independent decision.

In the latter case, the employer generally cancels the order upon realizing that it committed violations during the employee's dismissal or desiring to mitigate reputational risks. Cases also occur where the employer becomes a hostage to the situation, recognizing the impossibility of winning a court case. For example, this occurs if a woman, after dismissal, presents a pregnancy document that prevents her termination at the employer's initiative.

Please note that disputes regarding reinstatement at work do not fall within the competence of the labor dispute commission, even if one is established within the company (Article 391 of the Labor Code).

Reinstatement at Work by Decision of the Labor Inspectorate

The Labor Inspectorate has the right to issue mandatory orders to eliminate violations of labor legislation, including cases of unlawful dismissal (Article 357 of the Labor Code). At the same time, as indicated in the Review of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, [4] the GIT issues an order to cancel the dismissal order rather than an order to reinstate the employee at work.

If the employer disagrees with the order, they may appeal it. Pursuant to Article 40 of Federal Law No. 248-FZ dated July 31, 2020, On State Control (Supervision) and Municipal Control in the Russian Federation, a pre-trial appeal procedure is mandatory. The complaint must be filed electronically using the Unified Portal of State and Municipal Services. The deadline for filing a complaint is 10 working days from the date the order is received.

The complaint must contain:

• the name of the control body and the full name of the official whose decision is being appealed;
• the registration number of the control event in the unified register of control (supervisory) events against which the complaint is filed;
• the full name and place of residence of the citizen, or the name and location of the applicant organization;
• the desired method of interaction during the consideration of the complaint and the method for receiving the decision;
• information about the appealed decision;
• the grounds and arguments on which the applicant disagrees with the decision;
• the requirements of the person filing the complaint.

The complaint may also contain a petition to stay the execution of the appealed decision of the control body.

The period for considering the complaint is 15 working days from the date of its registration. The decision based on the results of the complaint is placed in the personal account of the controlled person on the Unified Portal of State Services.

Challenging GIT orders is carried out through administrative proceedings in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Please note that according to Article 357 of the Labor Code, the period for an employer to challenge orders in court is 10 days from the date of receipt. We shall illustrate this with examples from judicial practice.

Often, an employer attempts to challenge an order based on formal circumstances — for example, the lack of coordination of the inspection or a violation of the procedure for conducting it. Such arguments do not always work in court.

For example, in Case No. 2-3025/16, [5] the employer disagreed with the labor inspectorate's order and appealed to a court. The employer argued that the employee missed the one-month deadline for seeking protection of their rights and that there was no coordination of the unscheduled on-site inspection with the prosecutor's office. The employer also claimed that the inspectorate exceeded its powers, as reinstatement at work falls under the exclusive competence of the court. However, the court disagreed with the plaintiff's arguments and recognized the order as legal, since the inspectorate has the right to eliminate identified violations of labor rights.

At the same time, in cases where the illegality of the dismissal is not obvious, the court may conclude that it is inadmissible for an administrative body to resolve such an issue.

Thus, in Case No. 88a-26904/2025, [6] an employee was dismissed for truancy. Disagreeing with the dismissal, he filed a complaint with the GIT. Based on the results of the inspection, the Company was issued an order to cancel the dismissal order. The Company appealed to the court to recognize the order as invalid. During the court proceedings, it was established that the employee was absent from work for several days and then presented a certificate of incapacity for work. After its expiration, the employee again failed to report to work and refused to provide written explanations. The court concluded that the issue of the illegality of the dismissal is not indisputable and possesses the characteristics of an individual labor dispute; therefore, the dispute could not be resolved by the administrative defendant. The labor inspectorate's order was canceled.

Taking into account these circumstances and the short deadlines for appealing to court, we recommend challenging the order simultaneously in both the pre-trial and judicial procedures. If the employer does not plan to challenge the GIT order, it must be executed within the timeframes established therein.

Reinstatement at Work by Court Decision

Another ground for reinstatement at work is a court decision.

Such lawsuits are filed with a district court and considered through civil proceedings in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. A lawsuit may be filed at the plaintiff's choice at the employer's location, the plaintiff's place of residence, or the place where the plaintiff performed duties under the labor contract. A mandatory pre-trial dispute resolution procedure is not provided.

In accordance with Article 131 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the statement of claim must contain:

• the name of the court where the statement is filed;
• information about the plaintiff: full name, date and place of birth, place of residence or stay, and one of the identifiers (SNILS, INN, series and number of a passport or driver's license), as well as an optional contact phone number and email address. If the lawsuit is filed by a representative, the full name or name of the representative, the address for correspondence, and one of the representative-citizen's identifiers must also be indicated;
• information about the defendant: name, address, INN, and OGRN; for an employer who is a natural person — full name, date and place of birth, place of residence or stay, and one of the aforementioned identifiers. Optionally, the defendant's phone number and email address may be included;

If the defendant's date and place of birth or identifiers are unknown, this must be stated in the statement of claim. In such a case, the court will request this information from the Social Fund of Russia (the "SFR"), tax authorities, or internal affairs bodies.

• the nature of the violation of the plaintiff's rights, freedoms, or legitimate interests and their requirements;

As a rule, requirements include the cancellation of the dismissal order, the recovery of wages for the period of forced absence, and compensation for moral harm.

• the circumstances on which the plaintiff bases their claims and the evidence confirming them;
• the price of the lawsuit and the calculation of the amounts to be recovered (the price of the lawsuit is indicated if, in addition to reinstatement requirements, a property claim is made, such as for the recovery of earnings during the forced absence);
• a list of documents attached to the statement.

The following must be attached to the statement of claim:

• documents confirming the circumstances of the case and the plaintiff's position;
• a notification confirming the delivery of the lawsuit to other participants in the case.

The deadline for filing a statement of claim with the court is one month from the date the copy of the dismissal order was delivered to the employee or from the date the labor book was issued/information on labor activity was provided (Article 392 of the Labor Code). This deadline is not preclusive. The court may restore it if valid reasons exist. The law does not establish a list of such reasons. In practice, courts recognize circumstances that objectively prevented the employee from timely appealing to the court, such as the employee's illness, being on a business trip, or the need to care for seriously ill family members.

The lawsuit is not subject to state duty, and the employee is also exempt from paying court costs (Article 393 of the Labor Code).

How to Process an Employee's Reinstatement

A court decision on reinstatement at work is subject to immediate execution (Article 396 of the Labor Code). The law does not specify what constitutes "immediate" execution. As clarified by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, [7] immediately means no later than the first working day after the day the enforcement document is received by the bailiff service. This must be done even if you plan to challenge the legality of the decision in higher courts in the future.

Please note that the provisions of Article 396 of the Labor Code do not apply to the execution of a labor inspectorate order. The execution of such an order is carried out within the timeframes specified in the order itself.

For example, in Case No. 2-1543/2020, [8] P. appealed to a court with a lawsuit against an employer for the recovery of compensation for moral harm in the amount of 1,000,000 rubles. In support of the claims, he stated that his dismissal was recognized as illegal by a decision of the state labor inspectorate, with subsequent reinstatement at the workplace. The employer did not inform him of this information, and the director refused to hire him. During this time, he had no other income and was studying at his own expense. The court established that the labor inspectorate had confirmed the fact of P.’s illegal dismissal, and therefore the employer was issued an order to cancel the dismissal order. The employer responded to the order by stating that P. was already working for another employer and that it was impossible to execute the order. The lawsuit was dismissed.

When reinstating an employee, the employer must perform the following actions:

1. Cancel the dismissal order and organize actual admission to work.

It is advisable for the employee to sign the cancellation of the dismissal order, and in case of refusal, a corresponding act should be drawn up by a commission. If the employee does not report to work, we recommend sending a copy of the order by registered mail with notification.

If the employee's position was eliminated at the time of reinstatement, the employer cannot refuse reinstatement for this reason. The employer must amend the staff list and reintroduce the eliminated position.

However, reinstatement at work is not actually possible in all cases:

• if it is impossible to reinstate the employee at their former job due to the liquidation of the organization, the court recognizes the dismissal as illegal and obliges the liquidation commission to pay them average earnings for the entire period of forced absence. Simultaneously, the court recognizes the employee as dismissed under Clause 1 of Part 1 of Article 81 of the Labor Code due to the liquidation of the organization.
• if the employee was hired under a fixed-term labor contract and the term of the labor contract has already expired by the time the court considers the dispute, the court recognizes the dismissal as illegal and changes the date of dismissal and the wording of the ground for dismissal to dismissal upon the expiration of the labor contract term (Clause 60 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 2 dated March 17, 2004, On the Application of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation by the Courts of the Russian Federation).

Also, upon the application of an employee whose dismissal is recognized as illegal, the court may limit itself to a decision on the recovery of average earnings for the time of forced absence and on changing the wording of the ground for dismissal to dismissal at the employee's own request (Parts 3 and 4 of Article 394 of the Labor Code).

2. Pay average earnings for the time of forced absence from work.

The amount of average earnings is specified in the court decision (Article 394 of the Labor Code). As clarified by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, [9] the severance pay paid upon dismissal is subject to offset. However, the average earnings are not subject to reduction by the amount of temporary disability benefits paid to the plaintiff within the period of the paid absence or unemployment benefits.

The deadlines for payments for the time of forced absence are not explicitly defined in the law. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation [10] expressed the opinion that they are made simultaneously with the issuance of the order to cancel the dismissal. However, other approaches are encountered in judicial practice. For instance, in Case No. 88-19055/2022, [11] the court indicated that pursuant to Article 211 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a court decision on the payment of wages to an employee is subject to execution within three months. In Case No. 88-4574/2023, [12] the court reached the opposite conclusion regarding the inapplicability of Article 211 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the need to pay compensation after the court decision enters into legal force.

Due to the contradictory nature of judicial positions, we recommend being guided by the operative part of the court decision and assessing the risks of adverse consequences for its non-execution, as discussed below.

3. Make a corresponding entry in the labor book or submit information to the SFR.

If a labor book is maintained, the entry regarding the dismissal is recognized as invalid upon the employee's reinstatement (Clause 12 of the Procedure for Maintaining and Storing Labor Books, approved by Order of the Ministry of Labor of Russia No. 320n dated May 19, 2021).

If a labor book is not maintained, information on labor activity must be submitted to the SFR using form EFS-1.

4. Make corrective entries in the employee's personal card and the time sheet, and make additions to the vacation schedule.

For example, in Case No. 2-276/2025, [13] an employee was reinstated in his position by a court decision. He was not included in the vacation schedule for the current year. Upon his application, he was granted vacation for the previous vacation period, but was refused paid vacation for the current period due to the approval of the vacation schedule. The employee appealed to the court with a requirement to recognize the refusal to grant annual paid vacation as illegal and for compensation for moral harm.

The court of first instance concluded that the employer, after reinstating the plaintiff at work and in violation of the requirements of the Labor Code, failed to make appropriate changes to the vacation schedule and did not agree on the vacation periods to be provided in the current year. Having established the fact of the violation of the plaintiff's labor rights, the court recovered compensation for moral harm in the amount of 10,000 rubles. This decision was supported by the appellate court. The cassation court took into account that the vacation was actually granted to the employee in the current year and indicated that the current legislation does not contain provisions on the right of an employee, in the event of reinstatement at work, to be granted annual vacation at their request at a time specified by them. The court canceled the decision to recover moral harm.

Thus, failure to perform actions aimed at correcting documents also entails risks for the employer in the form of potential judicial disputes and compensation for moral harm.

Dismissal of an Employee Hired for the Position of a Reinstated One

The reinstatement of an employee who previously performed this work is a ground for the dismissal of a new employee hired for this position (Clause 2 of Article 83 of the Labor Code).

Termination of a labor contract on this ground is permissible if it is impossible to transfer the employee, with their written consent, to another job available to the employer (either a vacant position or work corresponding to the employee's qualifications, or a vacant lower position or lower-paid work) that the employee can perform taking into account their state of health. In this case, the employer is obliged to offer the employee all vacancies meeting the specified requirements available in the given locality. The employer is obliged to offer vacancies in other localities if this is provided for by the collective agreement, agreements, or the labor contract.

Please also note that dismissal under this clause is possible only if the employee is reinstated by a decision of a court or the GIT. In the case of an independent decision by the employer company, the labor contract with a newly hired employee cannot be terminated on this ground.

Upon dismissal, the employee is paid a severance benefit in the amount of two weeks' earnings, unless a higher amount is established by the collective or labor contract (Article 178 of the Labor Code).

Liability for Non-Execution of a Reinstatement Decision

For non-execution of a labor inspectorate order within the established timeframe, the employer will be held administratively liable under Part 23 of Article 19.5 of the CAO RF. This entails the imposition of a fine on officials in the amount of 30,000 to 50,000 rubles or disqualification for a term of 1 to 3 years; on individual entrepreneurs — from 30,000 to 50,000 rubles; and on legal entities — from 100,000 to 200,000 rubles.

In case of non-execution of a court decision on reinstatement at work, the bailiff sets a new deadline for fulfilling the requirement and issues a resolution on the recovery of an enforcement fee from the employer (Part 1 of Article 105, Part 2 of Article 106 of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings).

Its amount for an individual entrepreneur is 5,000 rubles, and for a legal entity — 50,000 rubles. If the employer violated the deadlines for paying compensation for the time of forced absence, the enforcement fee is 7% of the amount to be paid, but not less than 1,000 rubles from an individual entrepreneur and 10,000 rubles from a legal entity (Part 3 of Article 112 of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings).

In the event of a subsequent failure to comply with the requirements, the employer will be held administratively liable under Part 1 of Article 17.15 of the CAO RF for non-execution of the requirements of the bailiff. The fine for officials is from 10,000 to 20,000 rubles, and for legal entities — from 30,000 to 50,000 rubles. The bailiff will also determine a new deadline for execution. Upon subsequent non-execution, the fines increase.

Furthermore, in the event of a delay by the employer in executing a court decision or a labor inspectorate order, the employee must be paid average earnings for the entire time of the delay (Article 396 of the Labor Code). It is also possible to recover interest for the period of delayed payments in the amount of 1/150 of the key rate of the Bank of Russia for each day of delay (Article 236 of the Labor Code) and for moral harm.

For example, in Case No. 33-22117, [14] A. appealed to a court with a lawsuit against an Employer for the recovery of wages, compensation for violation of the deadlines for paying wages, and compensation for moral harm. In support of the claims, the employee stated that he was in an employment relationship with the defendant but was illegally dismissed under Clause 8 of Article 81 of the Labor Code for committing an immoral act. By a court decision, the plaintiff was reinstated at work, and wages for the time of forced absence were recovered in his favor. A bailiff initiated enforcement proceedings; however, the court decision was not executed. A resolution was issued against the Employer for the recovery of an enforcement fee, as well as a resolution on administrative liability under Part 1 of Article 17.15 of the CAO RF. However, the actual reinstatement of the plaintiff at work was not performed. The lawsuit was granted.

In conclusion, reinstatement at work should be understood as not only the cancellation of the dismissal order but also the actual admission of the employee to the performance of former labor duties, as well as the restoration of the former conditions of the labor contract.

Under current legal regulation, the grounds for reinstating an illegally dismissed employee may be a court decision, a labor inspectorate order, or the employer's independent decision. Such disputes do not fall within the competence of the labor dispute commission.

The procedure for issuing, challenging, and executing GIT orders to cancel a dismissal order is insufficiently regulated, which creates additional obstacles for both parties to the labor contract. Due to the aforementioned circumstances, judicial proceedings are the most effective method of protection for both the employer and the employee. Furthermore, given the particular importance of these relationships, we believe that the right to consider disputes related to reinstatement at work should be the exclusive competence of the judicial authorities.

A court decision on reinstatement at work is subject to immediate execution. The execution of a GIT order is performed within the timeframes specified in the order itself. Significant adverse consequences may arise for the employer for failing to execute a labor inspectorate order or a court decision.

_________________________

References

1. Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 28, 2023 No. 18-KG23-90-K4.
2. Appellate Determination of the Altai Krai Court dated June 4, 2019 in Case No. 33-4984/2019.
3. Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated November 15, 2007 No. 795-O-O.
4. Review of the Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for the First Quarter of 2011.
5. Decision of the Nalchik City Court of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic dated April 18, 2016 in Case No. 2-3025/16.
6. Cassation Determination of the First Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction dated October 14, 2025 No. 88a-26904/2025.
7. Clause 38 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 17, 2015 No. 50, On the Application of Legislation by Courts when Considering Certain Issues Arising in the Course of Enforcement Proceedings.
8. Appellate Determination of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan dated September 29, 2020 in Case No. 2-1543/2020.
9. Clause 62 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 17, 2004 No. 2, On the Application of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation by the Courts of the Russian Federation.
10. Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated April 23, 2010 No. 5-V09-159.
11. Determination of the First Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction dated July 18, 2022 in Case No. 88-19055/2022.
12. Determination of the Seventh Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction dated March 21, 2023 in Case No. 88-4574/2023.
13. Determination of the Fourth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction dated September 23, 2025 No. 88-21608/2025 in Case No. 2-276/2025.
14. Appellate Determination of the Moscow City Court dated October 20, 2015 in Case No. 33-22117.