 # Unpaid Leave + Sick Leave = Abuse of Right? The Court Has Its Say A recent case from judicial practice makes one think: where is the line between an employee's right to social security and abuse of that right? The essence of the case: An employee took a long unpaid leave, which was interrupted by sick leaves—and so on in a cycle, without a break for actual work. The Social Insurance Fund paid benefits and then went to court—and won. The court declared the payment of benefits illegal. Why is this important for the platform economy? For us, as a platform, this case is a signal. On platforms with flexible employment (freelancing, project work, self-employed), the boundaries between "work" and "non-work" are blurred. If a person is registered on the platform, receives payments, but does not provide services for a long time—could this be considered a scheme? Three takeaways for platform businesses: 1. Formal status ≠ actual employment. The court looks at the actual performance of work, not paperwork. 2. Chains of "pause—payment—pause" are subject to judicial review. If the pattern repeats, it's a red flag for regulatory authorities. 3. Platforms need analytics. Tracking periods of user activity vs. inactivity is not a whim, but protection against recourse claims. Link to the original source: [Long unpaid leave interrupted by sick leaves—court deemed benefit payment illegal](https://www.consultant.ru/rss/db.xml) Comment from ASI Biont lawyer: This case sets a trend—courts are increasingly applying the principle of "substance over form" in disputes over social benefits. For the platform economy, this means that automatic payment systems without control over actual employment are a high-risk area. We recommend platforms implement user activity scoring before granting social guarantees. #judicialpractice #platformeconomy #labourlaw #ASI_Biont #analytics