Tell me, can my employer request from the antenatal clinic my medical record with the results of all tests and visits to the doctor, medication prescriptions, ultrasound, etc.
Maria

Hello! No, this is prohibited. Only the patient has the right to receive the above-mentioned medical documents.

Chat

lawyer, Rybinsk

2 0

Hello Maria. In addition to the fact that medical confidentiality is protected by law, the Labor Code prohibits an employer from requiring documents from an employee that are not provided for by law. The medical institution is also subject to the obligation to maintain medical confidentiality and does not have the right to transfer information about you to the employer. A medical institution can provide such data only to the investigator and the court upon a reasoned request.

If the inviolability of your life is violated, you have the right to apply to the court or law enforcement agencies with a request to initiate a criminal case.

received
fee 33%

Hello!
Providing any medical information about a citizen to an ordinary organization is illegal, since it is a medical secret.

In accordance with the Law “On the fundamentals of protecting the health of citizens in the Russian Federation”

[Law on the fundamentals of protecting the health of citizens in the Russian Federation] [Chapter 2] [Article 13]

1. Information about the fact of a citizen’s application for medical care, his state of health and diagnosis, other information obtained during his medical examination and treatment constitutes a medical secret.
2. Disclosure of information constituting medical confidentiality is not allowed, including after the death of a person, by persons to whom they became known during training, performance of labor, official, official and other duties, with the exception of cases established by parts 3 and 4 of this article.
3. With the written consent of a citizen or his legal representative, it is permitted to disclose information constituting medical confidentiality to other citizens, including officials, for the purposes of medical examination and treatment of the patient, conducting scientific research, their publication in scientific publications, use in the educational process and for other purposes.











10) for the purpose of monitoring the quality and safety of medical activities in accordance with this Federal Law;

Information can only be provided to law enforcement agencies by court order.

You can only obtain this medical card yourself and provide it to your employer.

received
fee 33%

Hello dear Maria! The medical record is the property of the medical institution and should be kept there. The patient, but not the employer, upon his/her application, is given an extract from the outpatient card, or a certified copy of the outpatient card. To do this, the patient must submit a written application addressed to the chief physician at this clinic.

Article 212 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation imposes the obligation on the employer to ensure preliminary, periodic, and extraordinary medical examinations at his own expense.

However, it is not stated anywhere that the employer has the right to demand a medical card, and even of this nature. The employer’s actions are not legal and no medical institution will issue your card to him.

Chat

Free assessment of your situation

lawyer, Moscow

0 0

Hello!

The employer does not have such rights. Below are the rights of an employer according to the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. And among them there is no right to request a medical card. The employer can only make a request to the chief physician to verify the legality of issuing a “sick leave” to the employee.

Labor Code of the Russian Federation, Article 22. Basic rights and obligations of the employer
The employer has the right:
conclude, amend and terminate employment contracts with employees in the manner and on the terms established by this Code and other federal laws;
conduct collective negotiations and conclude collective agreements;
encourage employees for conscientious, effective work;
require employees to perform their job duties and take care of the employer’s property (including the property of third parties owned by the employer, if the employer is responsible for the safety of this property) and other employees, and to comply with internal labor regulations;
bring employees to disciplinary and financial liability in the manner established by this Code and other federal laws;
adopt local regulations (with the exception of employers - individuals who are not individual entrepreneurs);
create associations of employers for the purpose of representing and protecting their interests and join them;
create a production council (with the exception of employers - individuals who are not individual entrepreneurs) - an advisory body formed on a voluntary basis from among the employees of a given employer, who, as a rule, have achievements in work, to prepare proposals for improving production activities and individual production processes , introduction of new equipment and new technologies, increasing labor productivity and qualifications of workers. The powers, composition, and procedure for the activities of the works council and its interaction with the employer are established by local regulations. The powers of the works council cannot include issues the resolution of which, in accordance with federal laws, falls within the exclusive competence of the organization’s management bodies, as well as issues of representation and protection of social and labor rights and interests of workers, the resolution of which, in accordance with this Code and other federal laws, is assigned within the competence of trade unions, relevant primary trade union organizations, and other representatives of workers. The employer is obliged to inform the works council about the results of consideration of proposals received from the works council and about their implementation;
exercise the rights granted to him by legislation on special assessment of working conditions.

received
fee 33%

Chat

Free assessment of your situation

Darmaev Alexander

Lawyer, Moscow

Free assessment of your situation

1333 replies

502 reviews

Hello.

THE FEDERAL LAW
ABOUT THE BASICS OF CITIZENS’ HEALTH IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Article 13. Maintaining medical confidentiality
1. Information about the fact of a citizen’s application for medical care, his state of health and diagnosis, other information obtained during his medical examination and treatment constitutes a medical secret.
2. Disclosure of information constituting medical confidentiality, including after the death of a person, by persons to whom they became known during training, performance of labor, official, official and other duties is not permitted, except for the cases established by parts 3 and 4 of this article.

4. Providing information constituting medical confidentiality without the consent of a citizen or his legal representative is permitted:
1) for the purpose of conducting a medical examination and treatment of a citizen who, as a result of his condition, is unable to express his will, taking into account the provisions of paragraph 1 of part 9 of article 20 of this Federal Law;
2) when there is a threat of the spread of infectious diseases, mass poisonings and injuries;
3) at the request of the bodies of inquiry and investigation, the court in connection with an investigation or trial, at the request of the prosecutor's office in connection with their implementation of prosecutorial supervision, at the request of the body of the penal system in connection with the execution of criminal punishment and monitoring the behavior of probation a convicted person, a convicted person in respect of whom the serving of a sentence has been deferred, and a person released on parole;
3.1) for the purpose of exercising control by authorized federal executive bodies over the fulfillment by persons recognized as drug addicts or consuming narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances without a doctor’s prescription or new potentially dangerous psychoactive substances, assigned to them when imposing an administrative penalty by the court of the obligation to undergo drug addiction treatment, diagnostics , preventive measures and (or) medical rehabilitation;
4) in the case of providing medical care to a minor in accordance with paragraph 2 of part 2 of Article 20 of this Federal Law, as well as a minor who has not reached the age established by Part 2 of Article 54 of this Federal Law, to inform one of his parents or other legal representative;
5) in order to inform internal affairs bodies about the admission of a patient in respect of whom there are reasonable grounds to believe that harm to his health was caused as a result of illegal actions;
ConsultantPlus: note.
In accordance with Federal Law dated 06/04/2014 N 145-FZ, from January 1, 2017, paragraph 6 of part 4 of Article 13 after the words “federal executive bodies” will be supplemented with the words “and federal government bodies”.
6) for the purpose of conducting a military medical examination at the request of military commissariats, personnel services and military medical (medical flight) commissions of federal executive authorities, in which federal law provides for military and equivalent service;
7) for the purpose of investigating an industrial accident and occupational disease, as well as an accident with a student during his stay in an organization engaged in educational activities, and in accordance with Part 6 of Article 34.1 of the Federal Law of December 4, 2007 N 329-FZ “On physical culture and sports in the Russian Federation" of an accident with a person undergoing sports training and not in an employment relationship with a physical culture and sports organization that does not provide sports training and is the customer of sports training services, while such a person is undergoing sports training in the organization, carrying out sports training, including during his participation in sports competitions provided for by the implemented sports training programs;
8) when exchanging information by medical organizations, including those posted in medical information systems, for the purpose of providing medical care, taking into account the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation on personal data;
9) for the purpose of accounting and control in the compulsory social insurance system;
10) for the purpose of monitoring the quality and safety of medical activities in accordance with this Federal Law;

For violation of medical confidentiality

A citizen has the right to pre-trially appeal to a medical organization and employees who allowed the disclosure of medical confidentiality with a demand (claim) for compensation for harm.

A citizen has the right to contact the prosecutor with an application to initiate a case for an administrative offense under Art. 13.14 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (Part 1 of Article 28.4 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

A citizen has the right to apply to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation with a statement to initiate a criminal case on the grounds of a crime under Art. 137 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (clause “a”, part 2 of Article 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).

Good afternoon.

As already stated, he does not have such a right.

The answer to this question is also contained in

Approved
Resolution
Presidium of the Supreme Court
Russian Federation
dated November 23, 2005

ANSWERS ON QUESTIONS
…
Question 24: Can information constituting medical confidentiality (in particular, about a citizen’s observation by a psychiatric institution) be provided to a magistrate, lawyer, or deputy?
Answer: According to Article 23 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, everyone has the right to privacy, personal and family secrets, protection of their honor and good name; to the secrecy of correspondence, telephone conversations, postal, telegraph and other messages. Restriction of this right is permitted only on the basis of a court decision.
Collection, storage, use and dissemination of information about a person’s private life without his consent is prohibited. State authorities and local government bodies, their officials are obliged to provide everyone with the opportunity to familiarize themselves with documents and materials that directly affect their rights and freedoms, unless otherwise provided by law (Article 24 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation).
In accordance with Part 1 of Article 61 of the Fundamentals of the Legislation of the Russian Federation on the protection of the health of citizens, approved by the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation on July 22, 1999 (as amended on March 7, 2005), information about the fact of seeking medical help, the state of health of the citizen, the diagnosis of his disease and other information obtained during his examination and treatment constitute medical confidentiality. The citizen must be assured of a guarantee of confidentiality of the information transmitted to him.
A similar norm is contained in Article 9 of the Law of the Russian Federation of July 22, 1992 “On psychiatric care and guarantees of the rights of citizens in its provision” (as amended on August 22, 2004), according to which information about the presence of a mental disorder in a citizen, the facts of applying for psychiatric care and treatment in an institution providing such care, as well as other information about the state of mental health are medical secrets protected by law. To realize the rights and legitimate interests of a person suffering from a mental disorder, at his request or at the request of his legal representative, he may be provided with information about the state of mental health of this person and about the psychiatric care provided to him.
As follows from Part 3 of Article 61 of the Fundamentals of the Legislation of the Russian Federation on the protection of the health of citizens, the transfer of information constituting medical confidentiality is permitted only with the consent of the citizen or his legal representative.
Providing information constituting medical confidentiality without the consent of a citizen or his legal representative is permitted, in particular, at the request of the bodies of inquiry and investigation, the prosecutor and the court in connection with an investigation or trial (clause 3 of part 4 of Article 61 of the Fundamentals).
From the above, it follows that the magistrate has the right to send a request and obtain information constituting medical confidentiality, without the consent of a citizen or his legal representative in connection with an investigation or trial.
Since in the current legislation a lawyer and a deputy are not named among the subjects who can be provided with information constituting a medical secret, this information cannot be provided to them.

Since the Law does not classify employers as such entities, they should be denied access to medical documents in the absence of the employee’s consent.

of the Law on the Fundamentals of Protecting the Health of Citizens in the Russian Federation, medical organizations, medical workers and pharmaceutical workers are responsible in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation for violation of rights in the field of health protection, causing harm to life and (or) health when providing medical care to citizens. The quality of medical care is a property of interaction between a doctor and a patient, determined by the qualifications of the staff, i.e. its ability to perform medical technologies, reduce the risk of progression present in the patient. Quality control involves identifying the compliance of data characterizing the actual state and functioning of the patient’s health with basic indicators identified in advance as benchmarks, the achievement of which is required or desirable as an intermediate or final result of production activities.

Providing a patient’s medical record for a medical insurance organization

The fact is that insurance companies pay doctors for visits. In the fall, inspections are carried out in all clinics. Insurance companies send the clinic management lists with the names of patients whose records they want to check.

Therefore, a week before the inspection, these cards are urgently removed from the registry and all shortcomings are corrected. Next come representatives of insurance companies, looking for something to complain about in the cards.

This may take from several days to a week. Then, ideally, the cards should be returned to the registry. There are also in-patient checks, when the records of patients suffering from certain diseases or patients of certain doctors or departments are checked.

Medical card, where and why they are taken from the clinic for check-up, see?

N 152-FZ “On Personal Data” (hereinafter referred to as the Law on Personal Data) personal data is any information relating to a directly or indirectly identified or identifiable individual (subject of personal data). Information about patients of a medical organization (institution) is personal data, which means information about the facts, events and circumstances of the patient’s life, allowing his or her identity to be identified.

In accordance with Article 7 of the Law on Personal Data, operators and other persons who have access to personal data are obliged not to disclose to third parties or distribute personal data without the consent of the subject of personal data, unless otherwise provided by federal law. In accordance with paragraph 2 of Art.

HomeNewsAutoWorkHomeLeisureBusinessDatingHealthMailForumsWeatherReal EstateAdvertisementsTourismPosterSPEDaCatalogHelpCommunication Services: , | Publications: | Forums: , Update | List of Forums | Search | Rules | Statistics | Blocking list | Online: 3 Topics Author Answers Views Last response “hot” questions of housing and communal services (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7) Moderator 158 127181 Apr 18, 2018 09:18 Fludilka. (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5) Moderator 108 125426 01 Apr 2018 13:58 Illegal commissions and credit insurance! (BLOCK-POST advises) (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | .... | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53) GoodJobMaster (at the checkpoint!) 1313 308967 21 Feb 2018 23:43 Notaries of Yekaterinburg (1 | 2 | 3) Moderator 52 153422 04 Jan 2018 12:29 FAQ - look before you ask! (1 | 2) Moderator 32 138840 08 Dec 2017 11:29 Military registration and enlistment office. 10 things a conscript should know.

Verification of outpatient cards by medical insurance organizations

Rules and procedures for organizing and carrying out by insurance medical organizations and compulsory medical insurance funds control over the volumes, timing, quality and conditions of providing medical care by medical organizations in the volume and on the conditions established by the territorial compulsory health insurance program and the contract for the provision and payment of medical care under compulsory medical insurance are determined by Order of the Federal Compulsory Health Insurance Fund dated December 1, 2010 N 230 “On approval of the Procedure for organizing and monitoring the volume, timing, quality and conditions of providing medical care under compulsory health insurance” (hereinafter referred to as the Order of the Federal Compulsory Medical Insurance Fund Insurance No. 230).

Insurance and outpatient card

Order of the Federal Compulsory Medical Insurance Fund N 230, a medical organization does not have the right to prevent access to materials necessary for monitoring the volume, timing, quality and conditions of providing medical care by medical organizations, and is obliged to provide the requested information. At the same time, the medical organization (institution) bears responsibility, provided for by current legislation, for the safety of outpatient cards and other documentation containing information about patients.
Therefore, based on an analysis of the current legislation, it is not entirely correct to provide representatives of medical insurance organizations with the opportunity to collect medical cards from the clinic to monitor the volume, timing, quality and conditions of medical care.
You turn to the regiment for help. We don’t go there and no one needs our card, similar to STRING 08/16/2010, 22:09 Oh, and our medical card is constantly being checked :), our card is very often “lost” - that’s why when the card is not there, I tell the receptionist myself that it is probably being checked by the manager. Our insurance company checks it very often YUL2 08/16/2010, 10:14 pm In the end, do any comments speak to YOU ​​or is this purely a medical matter? olga1611 08/16/2010, 11:09 pm In the end, do they tell YOU any comments or is this a purely medical matter? We (the parents) shouldn’t make any comments. The cards are checked by the head of the clinic and the insurance company.

Attention

The latter may express dissatisfaction with the clinic for certain things. For example, there is no monthly patronage for up to a year, tests are prescribed incorrectly, etc.

Why does the insurance company ask for a medical record?

STRINGA 08/17/2010, 12:32 In the end, do any comments speak to YOU ​​or is this purely a medical matter? Nope, our card is exemplary :)), see a doctor only before vaccination and for reference in the garden :) (ugh, ugh 3 times!!!) Natalek 08/17/2010, 19:41 They check the doctors and the staff. After the check, we usually have all the analyzes carefully taped up, well, new records sometimes appear like “no complaints,” it doesn’t bother me because there really weren’t any at that time.

Natalek 08/17/2010, 19:44 And if, for example, we were prescribed procedures (physiotherapy), but we didn’t go... :(Is this also reflected somewhere? (well, that we didn’t go) P.S. And I’m also worried about the torn out sheet... and there are crumpled pages... Well, we didn’t go, so what? We don’t go often either.

Within the meaning of paragraph 4 of the Order of the Federal Compulsory Medical Insurance Fund N 230, the subjects of control, in addition to the territorial compulsory medical insurance funds, medical organizations that have the right to carry out medical activities and included in the register of medical organizations operating in the field of compulsory medical insurance, are, among others , medical insurance organizations. According to clause 2 of the Law on the Fundamentals of Protecting the Health of Citizens in the Russian Federation, control of the volume, timing, quality and conditions of providing medical care is carried out by conducting medical and economic control, medical and economic examination, and examination of the quality of medical care.

Within the meaning of Part 8 of Art. 40 of the Law on the fundamentals of protecting the health of citizens in the Russian Federation, paragraph.
He won’t do anything for you, but the doctor may not be so sweet, he’ll get tired of proving that, for example, on the day when the stat card was issued for you, you were at an appointment (and let’s say the sheet in the card was torn out) Sаng Real 08/17/2010, 00:52 V In the end, do any comments speak to YOU ​​or is this purely a medical matter? They scold me:065: for writing on the card and crossing out their lies, such as fake patronage or a soft stomach, etc. - and no one looked at us at all - I can cross out and write - there was no inspection:015: because it’s not a fic lie! :wife: MASHULICHKA 08/17/2010, 01:19 they check not us but our pediatrician)))) they also asked us lyolkin 08/17/2010, 07:43 we also keep the cards at home and there is some kind of check at the clinic, then we They call and ask to bring the cards, and after checking, I take them again.

Medical secrecy. Questions and answers Argunova Yulia Nikolaevna

In what cases is it permissible to provide information constituting medical confidentiality without the consent of the citizen?

In what cases is it permissible to provide information constituting medical confidentiality without the consent of the citizen?

Providing information constituting medical confidentiality, without agreement a citizen or his legal representative is allowed in cases strictly specified in Part 4 of Art. 13 of the Health Protection Law. There are twelve such cases. Compared to the previously valid Fundamentals, their number has actually doubled. The list of cases, as well as subjects who have the right to request such information, is exhaustive.

1. Providing information for the purpose of conducting a medical examination and treatment of a citizen who, as a result of his condition, is unable to express his will, taking into account the provisions of paragraph 1 of Part 9 of Art. 20 of the Law on Health Protection (Clause 1, Part 4, Article 13 of the Law on Health Protection).

Clause 1, Part 9, Art. 20, to which the wording of this ground refers, allows medical intervention without the consent of a citizen or his legal representative, if such intervention is necessary for emergency reasons to eliminate a threat to a person’s life and if his condition does not allow him to express his will or there are no legal representatives (in relation to minors and incapacitated persons).

This basis is not new in legislation. It was provided for in clause 1, part 4, art. 61 of the previously effective Fundamentals and was formulated as follows: “for the purpose of examining and treating a citizen who is unable, due to his condition, to express his will.” In addition to citizens with acute somatic pathology who are in an unconscious state that is dangerous to life and health, it was customary to include here also citizens with mental disorders in a state of altered consciousness, acute psychosis in a situation where his representative is unavailable. However, in its new edition, this norm contains a reference exclusively to clause 1, part 9, art. 20 of the Law on Health Protection and does not refer to paragraph 3 of Part 9 of Art. 13, concerning persons suffering from severe mental disorders. Consequently, on the last paragraphs of Part 1, Part 4, Art. 13 of the Health Protection Act does not apply.

2. Providing information in the event of a threat of the spread of infectious diseases, mass poisonings and injuries (clause 2, part 4, article 13 of the Law on Health Protection).

Thus, in order to prevent the spread of infectious diseases, Federal Law No. 52-FZ of March 30, 1999 “On the sanitary and epidemiological welfare of the population” provides for a number of restrictive measures. Article 33 of the Federal Law establishes measures in relation to patients with infectious diseases, persons suspected of such diseases and persons in contact with these patients. These persons are subject to laboratory examination and medical observation or treatment, and if they pose a danger to others, mandatory hospitalization or isolation by reasoned decision of the chief state sanitary doctor or his deputy (Article 51). All cases of infectious diseases and mass non-infectious diseases (poisonings) are subject to registration by health care organizations at the place where such diseases (poisonings) were detected, state registration and reporting on them by bodies exercising federal state sanitary and epidemiological supervision.

It is quite understandable that in these cases, information about patients that constitutes medical confidentiality can be disclosed without their knowledge. At the same time, clause 2, part 4, art. 13 of the Law on Health Protection, in contrast to other paragraphs of Part 4 of Art. 13, does not contain any indication as to who, if the listed threats occur, this information can be communicated to, which, in our opinion, is an omission of the legislator.

The list of diseases that pose a danger to others, approved by Government Decree No. 715 of December 1, 2004, includes 15 types of such diseases. The legal status of persons with one or another disease included in this list is not the same. The rules on the disclosure of medical confidentiality in relation to such citizens are not prescribed in sectoral regulatory legal acts, with the exception of the sectoral Federal Law of June 18, 2001 No. 77-FZ “On preventing the spread of tuberculosis in the Russian Federation”. According to paragraph four of part 1 of Art. 12 of this Federal Law, persons with tuberculosis, as well as persons under dispensary observation in connection with tuberculosis, have the right to maintain medical confidentiality, with the exception of information directly related to the provision of anti-tuberculosis care to a patient with tuberculosis and the implementation of anti-epidemic measures. Such a special legal regime of information, which is an exception to the general rule, on the one hand, limits the rights of the patient, and on the other, provides guarantees for the realization by citizens of the right to health care. For this reason, it cannot be regarded as violating the constitutional rights of the patient.

3. Providing information at the request of the bodies of inquiry and investigation, the court in connection with an investigation or trial (clause 3, part 4, article 13 of the Health Protection Law).

This refers to cases where the citizen in respect of whom information is requested turns out to be a participant in a criminal or civil proceeding, or a participant in proceedings in a case of an administrative offense.

3.1. Within criminal process Part 1 Art. 86 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation establishes the right of the inquirer, investigator, prosecutor and court to collect evidence during criminal proceedings through investigative and other procedural actions. However, it does not determine the procedure for obtaining, when carrying out such actions, information that constitutes a secret protected by law, including medical confidentiality. This norm is blanket and is subject to application in conjunction with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, defining the subject of evidence, regulating the grounds and procedure for conducting investigative and other procedural actions, as well as with the norms of other legislative acts, in particular the Law on Health Protection.

Information, certificates, copies of documents containing medical confidentiality are provided to the bodies of inquiry and investigation, as well as to the court, free of charge if there is a properly completed request, which indicates the deadline for submitting the necessary information. It should follow from the text of the request from law enforcement agencies that this information is needed specifically in connection with the investigation. It may, for example, indicate the number of the criminal case or the procedural status of the person in respect of whom information is requested (suspect, accused, victim, witness), or reflect the fact that a criminal case has been initiated for causing this or that harm, etc. The information requested may relate to a specific person or persons. Requests demanding to provide information regarding “all persons registered at the dispensary” or “to indicate which of the citizens listed on the list sought psychiatric help” are unlawful.

It is important that at the stage before the initiation of a criminal case during a pre-investigation check, such information is requested and cannot be provided. Law enforcement agencies often do not pay attention to the circumstance specified in the law under which such information can be requested, namely, “in connection with an investigation.”

In this regard, the position of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Moscow City Court (ruling dated September 21, 2010 in case No. 33-26890), which upheld the decision of the Savyolovsky District Court of Moscow dated June 8, 2010 to refuse P’s claim, seems unfounded . to the Federal State Institution “GB MSE for the Moscow Region” for compensation for moral damage.

P. in his claim indicated that on February 2, 2009, the administration of the GB ITU issued a certificate of his state of health at the request of the Department of Internal Affairs at Art. Smolensk in connection with his statement that a crime had been committed against him. The certificate was issued in violation of Art. 61 of the Fundamentals, since information is provided to the investigative bodies only in connection with a criminal case, and at the stage of the pre-investigation check it is prohibited to disseminate it. In this case, no case was initiated, but only verification material. He regarded the actions of the doctors as interference in his private life, the spread of medical confidentiality, which affected his position in society, including in the circles of the Government of the Republic of Belarus, who have a bad opinion of him and consider him an unhealthy person, and the certificate was the main reason for refusing initiation of a case.

The court found that on January 30, 2009, the ODS of the Orsha Department of Internal Affairs received by fax a statement from P. to bring to criminal responsibility unknown persons who, on January 9, 2009, after drinking alcohol together on the Orsha-Smolensk electric train, attacked him with robbery and beating. To collect information on the specified fact of the police department at Art. Smolensk sent a request and received a response on May 4, 2009, which, according to the plaintiff, is illegal.

The court of first instance based on Art. 9 of the Law on Psychiatric Care and Art. 61 Osnov came to the conclusion that the law allows the issuance of information constituting medical confidentiality at the request of the bodies of inquiry and investigation without the consent of the citizen and does not prohibit the issuance of such information at the request of the bodies of inquiry and investigation of foreign states. Therefore, the defendant had the right to release the specified information at the request of the inquiry and investigation body of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Belarus. The plaintiff's argument that the issued certificate served as a reason for refusing to initiate criminal proceedings based on his application, in the court's opinion, was also not confirmed. The Judicial Collegium did not find any violations of substantive law that could lead to the cancellation of the decision of the court of first instance.

This case from judicial practice is very indicative. Judging by the plot of the case, the plaintiff is a person suffering from a mental disorder. Unfortunately, more than once in our practice we have encountered a situation where employees of internal affairs bodies, having received a message from a citizen about causing him this or that damage, tried to refuse to initiate a criminal case when they became aware, for example, that he is under the supervision of a psychoneurological dispensary. At the same time, the fact that illegal actions were committed against this citizen after receiving such information was no longer verified. As follows from the circumstances of this case, the internal affairs bodies requested information from the bureau of medical and social examination, whose management was not supposed to provide medical information. The ITU Bureau could only confirm or deny the fact that a given citizen had been assigned a disability group. The conclusion of the Judicial Collegium of the Moscow City Court that the ITU Bureau has the right to issue such information at the request of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of another state only based on the fact that the Law on Psychiatric Care and the Fundamentals of do not contain a prohibition on this matter. Issues of transferring information at the request of law enforcement agencies of foreign states are regulated by special rules, which the court must be aware of.

If in the above case the causal connection between a certificate of a person’s mental state and the refusal to initiate a criminal case at his request was not established by the court, then in the case given below, a close connection has been established between the data characterizing the mental characteristics of a citizen and the refusal to initiate a case .

Thus, the Kuvandyk District Court of the Orenburg Region, by its decision of January 24, 2012, rejected the claim of S.V. Savitsky. to Garifullin about the protection of honor and dignity.

From the case materials it follows that Savitsky applied to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia “Kuvandyksky” with a statement to bring to criminal responsibility the unknown persons who caused him bodily harm. District police inspector Garifullin issued a decision to refuse to initiate a criminal case, indicating the following: “Interviewed Bochkarev V.I., Bogdanov Yu.V., Astafieva N.I. characterized Savitsky S.V. mediocre. Together with their mother, they lead a secretive lifestyle, do not communicate with anyone, and are unfriendly. They go outside only when absolutely necessary. Kovaleva A.I. explained that previously she and her neighbors regularly had scandals. Savitsky S.V. is considered a mentally not completely healthy person; he behaves somehow inappropriately, not like all normal people.”

According to the plaintiff, Garifullin interfered with his private life, violated medical, personal and family secrets, the right to personal dignity, insulted and slandered him.

According to the court, Garifullin, in accordance with Art. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation checked the report of a crime, on the basis of Part 1 of Art. 148 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation issued a decision to refuse to initiate a criminal case. During the drafting of the text of the resolution, Garifullin’s actions were determined by the norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, and not by the desire to disseminate information related to the assessment of the plaintiff’s personality. The information itself about the presence of the disease in Savitsky does not contain information that detracts from the honor and dignity or business reputation of the citizen. This information is not defamatory or offensive. According to clause 3, part 4, art. 13 of the Law on Health Protection, the provision of information constituting medical confidentiality, without the consent of a citizen, is permitted at the request of the bodies of inquiry and investigation in connection with the investigation, as a result of which the provision of information about the health of the victim in a procedural document is not a violation of medical confidentiality.

In this case, the plaintiff, unfortunately, did not formulate his claims entirely correctly. However, the court incorrectly determined his procedural status as a victim, which he was not recognized as, since no criminal case had been initiated and therefore information about the state of his mental health could not be requested.

Some authors often incorrectly guide the heads of medical organizations in terms of their responsibilities to comply with the requirements of investigative authorities. Thus, the legal adviser of the PND No. 22 of Moscow, T.I. Khokhrina, points out, in particular, that “all” medical institutions must comply with requests from “employees” of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation regarding information related to medical confidentiality, as part of the verification of a crime report , as well as conducting a preliminary investigation and even exercising other powers. As you can see, the dispensary’s legal adviser is ready to provide confidential information to any “employees” of the Investigative Committee on virtually any matter. Indeed, in accordance with parts 2 and 3 of Art. 7 of the Federal Law of December 28, 2010 No. 403-FZ “On the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation”, the requirements (requests, instructions) of an employee of the Investigative Committee presented (sent, data) when checking a report of a crime, conducting a preliminary investigation or exercising other powers, mandatory for execution by all enterprises, institutions, organizations, officials and other persons immediately or within the period specified in the requirement (request, instruction). However, this general rule must be applied taking into account the special restrictive rule established by Part 4 of Art. 13 of the Health Protection Law.

Justified in this regard, the cassation ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan dated July 26, 2011, which left unchanged the decision of the Ishimbay City Court of the Republic of Belarus dated June 23, 2011, and the cassation appeal of the Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for the Republic of Belarus - without satisfaction.

As follows from the case materials, Samko E.G. filed a lawsuit against the Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for the Republic of Belarus for compensation for moral damages for violation of constitutional law in the form of illegal collection, storage, use and dissemination of confidential information about private life. Samko indicated that when reading the materials of the pre-investigation check, which was carried out on his application, he discovered a photocopy of his outpatient card with a description of the diseases and doctors’ opinions. There were also official requests from the Investigation Department. Samko explained that the defendant’s illegal actions caused him physical and moral suffering, which resulted in all his complaints about his health becoming public knowledge.

The court of first instance justifiably came to the conclusion that the Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for the Republic of Belarus, by sending requests to the ICRB to provide information constituting medical confidentiality in relation to Samko, violated the law, since checking a citizen’s appeal was not included in the grounds , allowing you to request such information without the consent of the citizen. The court, having established the fact of causing moral damage to Samko, partially satisfied his claims.

In this case, it is surprising that the plaintiff did not involve the medical institution as a defendant in the case, which illegally provided information at the request of the Investigative Department. In another case cited in this manual, a citizen filed a claim against both a law enforcement agency and a medical institution. The court in its decision placed all the blame solely on the medical institution.

The Leninsky District Court of Tyumen came to exactly the opposite and, from our point of view, unfounded conclusions in its decision of June 25, 2013 (administrative case No. 12-731/2013). The court satisfied the prosecutor's protest and canceled the magistrate's decision of May 29, 2013 to terminate the proceedings in the case of an administrative offense under Art. 17.7. Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, in relation to the deputy. Chief physician for surgery of the State Budgetary Healthcare Institution "OKB No. 2" Tsarik S.L. due to the lack of corpus delicti of an administrative offence. The court sent the administrative case to the magistrate for a new trial.

It was established that on April 10, 2013, the hospital received a request from Art. investigator of the interdistrict investigative department of the Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of Russia for the Tyumen Region on the provision of an autopsy report or a report of a forensic medical examination of N. in connection with the conduct in accordance with Art. 144–145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation checks on the material regarding the death of N., who died in the hospital. In response to the request, Tsarik said that such information cannot be provided, since it is a medical secret, and its disclosure can be carried out only in cases provided for in Part 4 of Art. 13 of the Law on Health Protection, and asked to change the basis for obtaining the requested information.

May 13, 2013 Deputy The prosecutor of the Leninsky Autonomous District of Tyumen issued a decision against Tsarik to initiate a case for an administrative offense under Art. 17.7. Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation - deliberate failure to comply with the legal requirements of the investigator arising from his powers. However, the magistrate dismissed the case.

In his protest, the prosecutor indicated that the conclusion of the magistrate that the actions of Tsarik S.L. there is no intent as a mandatory sign of the subjective side of the offense, it is not motivated. Tsarik, an official empowered to make decisions on providing or not providing the requested information, decided to refuse to provide documents to the investigator. This refusal, according to the prosecutor, is unfounded, since the Law on Health Protection and the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation have equal legal force and apply to all citizens and legal entities.

The court in its decision indicated that the investigator, in accordance with Art. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation is obliged to verify the report of a crime. At the same time, he has the right to request documents. According to Part 4 of Art. 21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, requests of the investigator presented within the limits of his authority are mandatory for execution. By virtue of Art. 7 of the Federal Law “On the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation”, an investigator of the Investigative Committee has the right to demand that managers and other officials of organizations provide the necessary documents to clarify issues that arose during the verification of a report of a crime and the preliminary investigation. According to the court, conducting an inspection in accordance with Art. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation is a stage of preliminary investigation; accordingly, the investigator has the right to request documents as part of such an inspection. From the court’s point of view, failure to provide the requested information entails delaying the inspection, which affects the rights of participants in criminal proceedings.

Further, the court justified its decision by referring to the obligation to comply with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, in particular its Art. 55, according to which the rights and freedoms of man and citizen may be limited by federal law to the extent necessary in order to protect the foundations of the constitutional system, morality, health, rights and legitimate interests of other persons, ensuring the defense of the country and the security of the state. According to Art. 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, criminal proceedings have the following purposes: 1) protection of the rights and legitimate interests of persons and organizations who have suffered from crimes; 2) protection of the individual from illegal and unfounded accusations, convictions, and restrictions on his rights and freedoms. Taking into account the above, the court concluded that the failure to provide information to the investigator as part of his inspection in accordance with Art. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation will lead to the adoption of an illegal and unfounded decision based on the results of consideration of a report of a crime, which will entail a violation of the rights and legitimate interests of persons and organizations that are victims of the crime. Accordingly, the guilty person will avoid responsibility, which is unacceptable.

We, unfortunately, do not have information about how the re-examination of the case of an administrative offense under Art. by the magistrate ended. 17.7. Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, brought against the deputy. chief physician of the hospital. I would like to hope that the magistrate will resist the onslaught of the prosecutor and make a lawful decision.

The decision of federal judge S.V. Lomakin, who agreed with the position of the prosecutor, is based, in our opinion, on an incorrect interpretation of the norms of substantive and procedural law. In reality, the pre-investigation check is not a stage of the preliminary investigation. This, among other things, is confirmed by the wording of Art. 7 of the Federal Law “On the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation”, cited by the court. It provides for the right to request documents in two different cases: during the verification of a report of a crime “ And» during the preliminary investigation. In clause 3, part 4, art. 13 of the Law on Protection includes only cases of investigation as a basis for requesting information constituting medical confidentiality. In this regard, we can welcome the initiative of the deputy. the chief physician of the hospital, who, refusing to provide the requested information, asked the investigator to change the basis for obtaining it. Preliminary investigation is considered to be a stage of the criminal process, which is subsequent to the stage of initiating a criminal case. The pre-investigation check, as is known, precedes the stage of initiating a criminal case and therefore is “outside the brackets” of the criminal process.

At the same time, it should be noted that in such categorical judgments of the court regarding the inevitable adoption by the investigator of an illegal and unfounded decision if he is refused to provide the information he requested during the pre-investigation check, there is some truth. It would probably be advisable to consider expanding the grounds provided for in clause 3, part 4, art. 13 of the Health Protection Law, by including cases of verification of a crime report. However, it will be possible to raise this question only after the stage of the pre-investigation check is recognized as a stage and acquires clear procedural regulation.

This remark has some basis. From the decision of the Leninsky District Court of Tyumen that we reviewed, it remained unclear in which hospital patient N. died, in whose death a pre-investigation investigation was carried out. If N.’s death occurred in another medical institution (not the one to which the request was sent), then this institution is not an interested party. Its management will provide information about their patient without fear of being accused. If the patient for whom the autopsy report was requested died in this hospital, and the medical workers, based on the results of the investigator’s examination of the requested documents, may be accused of negligence or another crime, then the provision of such documents to the investigator at the stage of the pre-investigation check may lead to a violation of the rights of medical workers . After all, according to Part 1 of Art. 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation “no one is obliged to testify against himself...”. In this situation, such evidence may be the autopsy report of the deceased patient. It must be obtained as part of an investigative action (search, seizure) in connection with a criminal case.

Notch original medical documents is an investigative action; it should be distinguished from a request for information constituting medical confidentiality in the form of extracts, certificates, copies of documents. According to clause 7, part 2, art. 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, only the court, including during pre-trial proceedings, is authorized to make a decision on the seizure of documents containing secrets protected by law. In the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 9, 2008 No. 26, it was specifically explained to the courts that the seizure of outpatient cards and medical histories is carried out on the basis no request A court decision(Part 3 of Article 183, Article 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). If it is necessary to seize documents containing medical confidentiality, the investigator, with the consent of the head of the investigative body, and the investigator, with the consent of the prosecutor, initiates a petition to the court to carry out an investigative action, for which a resolution is issued. The petition is considered by a single judge no later than 24 hours from the date of receipt. Having considered the said petition, the judge makes a decision to authorize the investigative action or to refuse to carry it out, indicating the reasons for the refusal. When making a seizure, a protocol is kept with the participation of witnesses. A copy of the protocol remains with the medical organization.

In this regard, the position of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, set out in the cassation ruling of May 15, 2013 No. 56-O13-21 and contradicting the norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation and the explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, is puzzling. In his cassation appeal against the verdict of the Primorsky Regional Court, the lawyer of the convicted person drew attention to the fact that the conclusion of the forensic psychiatric examination No. 334 of February 19, 2010 is unacceptable evidence due to the fact that when conducting it, the experts used the medical history of the expert subject, which was removed from psychiatric hospital without a court decision, which contradicts the requirements of Art. 165 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.

The panel of judges, however, left the cassation appeal unsatisfied. In her opinion, the examination by experts of the medical history of a sub-expert who was removed from a psychiatric hospital without a court decision cannot lead to the recognition of the conclusion of a forensic psychiatric examination as inadmissible evidence. Having quoted the provisions of clause 7, part 2, art. 29 and part 3 of Art. 183 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation on the judicial procedure for the seizure of documents containing secrets protected by law, as well as the provisions of paragraph 3 of Part 4 of Art. 13 of the Law on Health Protection, from which it follows that the provision of information constituting a medical secret without the consent of a citizen is permitted at the request of the investigative authorities in connection with the investigation, the judicial panel came to the conclusion that industry legislation provides for the possibility of withdrawing information constituting a medical secret, in the absence of a court decision.

Since seizure, as already indicated, is an investigative action, seizure of medical documents cannot be carried out at the stage of pre-investigation check. However, in connection with the amendments made to Art. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation Federal Law No. 23-FZ of March 4, 2013, according to which at the stage of considering a report of a crime it became possible to order a forensic examination, some judges began to issue a sanction for the seizure of medical documents even before the initiation of a criminal case.

Thus, the Moscow City Court (appeal resolution dated October 24, 2013 in case No. 10-1065/2013) upheld the decision of the Simonovsky District Court of Moscow dated September 3, 2013, which satisfied the petition of the investigator Simonovsky MSO Investigative Directorate for the Southern Administrative District of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation in Moscow on permission to seize medical documents based on the materials of the pre-investigation check at NPC LLC.

Lawyer Gritsenko I.Yu. in his appeal, he raised the issue of canceling the court decision as unfounded and illegal, since such a petition by the investigator could be submitted exclusively within the framework of a criminal case. In this case, the lawyer referred to the provisions of Part 1 of Art. 23 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Part 1, Art. 183, part 1 art. 144 and part 1 of Art. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. In his opinion, the court also did not specify the list of documents related to medical confidentiality and subject to seizure during the seizure, and did not clarify this issue with the investigator during the court hearing. Gritsenko also referred to the fact that, while granting the investigator’s request, the court in its ruling did not motivate its conclusion that there were substantive grounds for the seizure of documents related to medical confidentiality, and did not assess the validity of the investigator’s request for the need to seize it, based on materials submitted to the court.

However, the Moscow City Court did not agree with the arguments of lawyer Gritsenko, pointing out that, in accordance with Part 1 of Art. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, when checking a report of a crime, the investigator has the right to request documents, seize them in the manner established by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, and order a forensic examination. According to the court of appeal, the court of first instance referred to the circumstances in connection with which there was a need to seize medical documents. Namely, that as part of the ongoing investigation into the discovery of the corpse of F.T.N. with injuries in the head area, it was necessary to assess the actions of the employees of NPC LLC from the point of view of the presence in them of signs of a crime under Art. 238 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

It seems that the seizure of medical documents, which were discussed in the considered court decision, should have been carried out not during the pre-investigation check, but after the initiation of a criminal case upon the discovery of a corpse with signs of violent death.

The possibility of ordering a forensic examination, including a forensic psychiatric examination, at the pre-investigation stage (which in itself is legal nonsense) leads in practice to the justification for “dragging” other investigative actions that are possible only at the preliminary investigation stage to the pre-trial stage. , including seizure of medical documentation.

As stated in the Information Letter of the Moscow Department of Health dated May 16, 2008 No. 12–17/220 “On the procedure for submitting information containing information constituting medical confidentiality,” when original medical documents are confiscated, a copy of them should be made. The accuracy of the copy of the document is certified by the signature of the head of the medical institution or an authorized official and the seal of the institution indicating the date of issue of the original, the last name, first name, patronymic of the official who received the original, and the details of his official ID. The official who has received the original medical documents signs (with a transcript) on the copy upon receipt and certifies that this copy is faithful to the original document. The original document on the request for medical documentation remains in the medical institution and is stored with a certified copy of the medical documents.

When seizing medical documents on electronic media, the participation of an information security specialist is necessary, who copies information from the seized electronic media to other electronic media and transfers them to the administration of the medical institution.

To the organs inquiries, which have the right to request information constituting medical confidentiality include: internal affairs bodies, their territorial, including linear, police departments (departments, departments), bodies of the Federal Security Service, the Federal Bailiff Service, state drug control, state fire supervision; Customs; heads of institutions and bodies of the penal system; commanders of military units, formations, heads of military institutions or garrisons; captains of ships on long voyages; leaders of geological exploration parties and wintering camps remote from the locations of the investigative bodies; heads of diplomatic missions and consular offices of the Russian Federation (Article 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation).

Preliminary investigation carried out by investigators of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, internal affairs bodies, and the FSB. State Drug Control Service, which also has the right to contact a medical organization with a corresponding request.

Failure to submit or untimely submission to a state body (official) of information (information), the submission of which is provided for by law and is necessary for this body (official) to carry out its legal activities, as well as the submission of such information incompletely or in a distorted form, shall entail a warning or penalty administrative fine for citizens in the amount of 100 to 300 rubles; for officials - from 300 to 500 rubles; for legal entities – from 3 to 5 thousand rubles (Article 19.7 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

3.2. Within production in a case of administrative offense in accordance with Art. 26.10. Of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, a judge, body, or official in charge of a case of an administrative offense has the right to issue a ruling on the request for information necessary to resolve the case. The requested information must be sent within three days from the date of receipt of the determination, and in the event of an administrative offense entailing administrative arrest or administrative deportation, immediately. If it is impossible to provide the specified information, the organization is obliged to notify the judge, body, or official who made the decision about this in writing within three days.

Information constituting medical confidentiality may be requested after a ruling has been issued to initiate a case of an administrative offense and conduct an administrative investigation (Clause 4, Part 4, Article 28.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation). Administrative investigation in accordance with Art. 28.7.

The Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation is carried out in cases where, after identifying an administrative offense in a number of areas of legislation (in the field of sanitary and epidemiological welfare of the population, environmental protection, alcohol production, traffic, legislation on narcotic drugs, etc.), an examination or other procedural actions are carried out, requiring significant time investment. The decision to initiate a case and conduct an investigation is made by an official authorized in accordance with Art. 28.3. The Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation draws up a protocol on an administrative offense, in the form of a ruling, and by the prosecutor in the form of a resolution.

From the text of paragraph 3, part 4, art. 13 of the Law on Health Protection, according to which information constituting medical confidentiality can be provided only in connection with an investigation or legal proceedings, it can be concluded that this information cannot be provided in cases not related to an administrative investigation. This applies to those cases where a case of an administrative offense is considered initiated from the moment a protocol on an administrative offense is drawn up or a protocol on the inspection of the place where the offense was committed (clauses 1–3, part 4, article 28.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation), that is, in those cases when no administrative investigation is required.

In accordance with Art. 17.7. of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, deliberate failure to comply with the legal requirements of an investigator, inquiry officer or official carrying out proceedings in a case of an administrative offense shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of one thousand to one thousand five hundred rubles; for officials - from two thousand to three thousand rubles; for legal entities - from fifty thousand to one hundred thousand rubles or administrative suspension of activities for a period of up to ninety days.

3.3. Within civil process The only body authorized to request information constituting medical confidentiality is the court (federal judge, magistrate). In accordance with Part 1 of Art. 57 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the parties and other persons participating in the case present evidence. The court has the right to invite them to provide additional evidence. If it is difficult for these persons to provide the necessary evidence, in particular due to the fact that this evidence is information constituting medical confidentiality, the court, at the request of these persons, assists in collecting and requesting evidence. The petition to request evidence must indicate the evidence (for example, an outpatient card), and also indicate what circumstances that are important for the correct consideration and resolution of the case can be confirmed or refuted by this evidence, and indicate the reasons preventing the receipt of evidence (in this case this reason is the confidential nature of the information and the special procedure for its provision), and the location of the evidence (clinic, dispensary, hospital). The court issues a request to the party to obtain evidence or requests evidence directly. The person who has the evidence required by the court sends it to the court or transfers it in sealed form to the person who has the corresponding request for presentation to the court (Part 2 of Article 57 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).

The Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation provides a special rule on liability for failure to provide information at the request of the court. According to Part 3 of Art. 57 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, officials or citizens who are unable to present the evidence required by the court at all or within the period established by the court must notify the court about this within five days from the date of receipt of the request, indicating the reasons. In case of failure to notify the court, as well as in case of failure to comply with the court's request to present evidence for reasons recognized by the court as disrespectful, a fine is imposed on the guilty officials or on citizens who are not persons participating in the case - for officials in the amount of up to 1 thousand. rubles, for citizens - up to 500 rubles. At the same time, the imposition of a fine does not relieve the relevant officials and citizens who own the requested evidence from the obligation to present it to the court.

In practice, there are cases when a person who is a party to a civil case considers the court’s right to request such information at the request of the other party as a disclosure of medical confidentiality, which, of course, is a delusion.

Thus, the Kavkazsky District Court of the Krasnodar Territory, by its decision dated September 18, 2012 (case No. 2-594-12), refused to satisfy the claim of Drozdov N.A. to the Municipal Budgetary Institution "Central District Hospital" to invalidate information letters about the state of his health, submitted by the hospital to the court, and compensation for moral damages in connection with the disclosure of medical confidentiality.

The court decision stated that this information was presented in connection with the consideration of case No. 2-320/2012 as written evidence to the objections to Drozdov’s claim in order to clarify the circumstances relevant to the correct resolution of the case. Their presentation cannot be considered a disclosure of medical confidentiality, since the plaintiff and defendant choose the method of presenting evidence based on the requirements of Art. 56 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. Information about the state of health has the procedural status of written evidence (Article 71 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation). This written evidence was handed over to one of the parties - directly to Drozdov himself. And thus, information about the presence of various diseases and diagnoses became the property of only the sick Drozdov himself. The hospital did not allow any violation of Drozdov’s rights. Information regarding his health condition was not provided to outsiders. Apart from the plaintiff and the defendant, there were no other participants in the trial, and no witnesses were questioned. The circumstances established by the court have preliminary significance and are not subject to appeal or proof.

It is not a violation of medical confidentiality for a judge to familiarize himself with the medical documentation of the plaintiff (defendant), or for a doctor to announce at a court hearing the diagnosis of his patient, who is a party to the case, if the diagnosis given to him is relevant to the subject of the dispute.

Thus, the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court (appeal ruling dated January 11, 2013 in case No. 33-315/2013) upheld the decision of the Chkalovsky District Court of Yekaterinburg to refuse Savchenko’s claim against the regional health care institution for recognition illegal actions of the doctor, expressed in the disclosure of his diagnosis during a court hearing in a civil case.

It was established that during the consideration of the case regarding Savchenko’s claim against a healthcare institution for the recovery of wages, losses and compensation for moral damage, the doctor, as a representative of the medical institution, objecting to Savchenko’s claims, informed the court of his diagnosis, which is a medical secret. This information was communicated to the court without Savchenko’s prior request or consent.

The court concluded that reporting the diagnosis of the plaintiff’s illness was necessitated by the need for an objective consideration of the labor dispute, since without reporting the diagnosis and explaining the symptoms of the plaintiff’s mental disorder, it was not possible to prove in court that the plaintiff’s arguments were distorted in his interpretation and did not correspond to reality. When resolving the dispute, the court was required to check the circumstances of establishing the plaintiff’s unsuitability to perform his professional activities.

4. Providing information constituting medical confidentiality at the request of the prosecutor's office in connection with the implementation of prosecutorial supervision (clause 3, part 4, article 13 of the Law on Health Protection).

This basis was introduced by Federal Law No. 205-FZ of July 23, 2013 “On amendments to certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation in connection with clarification of the powers of the prosecutor’s office of the Russian Federation on the processing of personal data.”

A corresponding amendment was made to the Federal Law of January 17, 1992 No. 2202-1 “On the Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation”. Article 4 on the principles of organization and activities of the prosecutor's office is supplemented by paragraph 2 1. Prosecutor's offices are given the right to obtain, in cases established by the legislation of the Russian Federation, access to the information they need to carry out prosecutorial supervision, access to which is limited in accordance with federal laws, including processing of personal data. Laws that restrict access to information include, but are not limited to, the Health Protection Act and the Mental Health Care Act.

Paragraph 7.1 of the order of the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation dated December 7, 2007 No. 195 “On the organization of prosecutorial supervision over the implementation of laws, observance of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen,” prosecutors are instructed to focus on protecting the right of citizens to health care and medical care enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Most often, prosecutors encounter such violations of legislation in this area as:

– provision of medical care and services for a fee, while the law provides for the provision of one or another type of assistance (services) free of charge to the patient;

– imposing additional (usually paid) medical services on the patient when this is not required for health reasons;

– failure to provide or untimely provision of free or discounted medicines and medical products to categories of citizens established by law;

– failure to comply with the terms and conditions of medical care (putting on a waiting list, etc.);

– illegal refusal to provide medical care (for example, in the absence of a compulsory medical insurance policy, lack of registration or registration in another place, etc.).

Violations are also identified in the field of providing psychiatric care: violation of the procedure for involuntary examination or hospitalization in a psychiatric hospital, violation of the patient’s rights under Art. 37 of the Law on Psychiatric Care, disclosure of medical confidentiality. Exercising their powers during inspections in psychiatric institutions, prosecutors get acquainted with outpatient cards, medical histories, observation logs and other medical documents without obtaining the consent of the patients of these institutions. In the methodological recommendations specially published by the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation on the organization and procedure for carrying out prosecutorial checks of the implementation of the Law on Psychiatric Care, it is directly stated that “the prosecutor must familiarize himself with, study and analyze” these documents.

“ON THE LIST OF MEDICAL CONTRAINDICATIONS FOR WORK USING INFORMATION CONTAINING A STATE SECRET” In accordance with Article 22 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On State Secrets” dated July 21, 1993 No. 5485-1 (Collected Legislation