Unjust enrichment is subject to restitution

In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 971 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Belarus, a person who, without grounds established by law or contract, has acquired or saved property (acquirer) at the expense of another person (victim) is obliged to return the unduly acquired or saved property (unjust enrichment) to the latter, except for cases provided for by Article 978 of this Code.

According to Article 18 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus of December 29, 2012 "On State Benefits for Families Raising Children", the right to a childcare allowance for a child with a disability under the age of 18 is held by the mother (stepmother) or father (stepfather) in a complete family, a parent in an incomplete family, an adoptive parent (adoptive mother), a guardian (custodian) of a child with a disability, or another person actually caring for him, subject to the conditions specified in this article.

The state allowance for childcare for a child with a disability under the age of 18, which is part of the family benefits provided for by the Law, is not assigned or paid for children in educational institutions with a round-the-clock stay. The payment of state benefits is terminated in the event of placing a child in an educational institution with a round-the-clock stay.

The obligation of recipients of state benefits to report circumstances that entail a change in the amount of the state benefit or the termination of its payment is also provided for, no later than five calendar days after their occurrence.

Overpaid amounts of state benefits (due to the submission of documents with knowingly false information, non-submission or untimely submission of information about the occurrence of circumstances that entail a change in the amount of the state benefit or the termination of its payment, other changes affecting the right to receive the state benefit, as well as due to other overpayments) are subject to return by the recipient of the state benefit.

It should be taken into account that Article 978 of the Civil Code stipulates that monetary payments provided to a citizen as a means of subsistence are not subject to return, except in cases of calculation error and bad faith of the recipient (submission of forged documents that served as the basis for the accrual of such amounts or other deception). In the event of a dispute, the recipient must prove that the person who provided the money or property knew that they had no obligation to do so and acted without coercion.

As practice shows, courts make mistakes in cases of this category.

Thus, by a district court decision, a claim by the labor, employment, and social protection department of the district executive committee against A. for the recovery of state child care benefits paid for a disabled child was denied. In denying the plaintiff's claims, the court motivated its decision by the absence of bad faith in the defendant's actions, who did not inform the labor, employment, and social protection department of the district executive committee about the child's placement in an educational institution with a round-the-clock stay, since she did not conceal this fact, and an employee of the state institution "Territorial Center for Social Services of the Population of the District" was aware of it.

However, the court's conclusion was not based on the norms of substantive law and the evidence in the case.

The case materials showed that when applying for child care benefits for a disabled child under the age of 18, A. signed an application containing a receipt-obligation, according to which she undertook to immediately notify the labor, employment, and social protection authorities about the child's placement in a boarding-type educational institution.

From the moment the child was placed in an educational institution with a round-the-clock stay, A., living separately from him, ceased to be the person actually caring for him and, accordingly, lost the right to receive benefits.

A.'s bad faith was expressed in the failure to fulfill the obligation undertaken when signing the application.

on the appointment of a childcare allowance for a disabled child under 18 years of age, non-compliance with the requirements established by law, with the actual cessation of care for the daughter due to her placement in an educational institution with round-the-clock stay.

The court of appeal overturned the court's decision on the appeal protest of the prosecutor and issued a new decision satisfying the claim.

Deputy Head of the Department of the Vitebsk Regional Prosecutor's Office for Supervision of the Legality of Court Decisions in Civil Cases A.G. Sashcheko