Ukrainian courts began to receive lawsuits from Ukrainians, who, in their opinion, were illegally drafted to the front. And some of the requests have already been granted.
So, there are already at least two satisfied claims (they can be found at the links here and here). The plaintiffs demanded that their conscription be declared illegal. Let’s consider them in more detail.
So, the plaintiff from Uzhgorod was called up for military service on mobilization. The man insisted that he could not be a soldier, because he was a researcher and was subject to immediate dismissal from military service. It is noted that such a basis is spelled out in Article 23 of the Law of Ukraine “On mobilization preparation and mobilization.”
The Uzhgorod military registration and enlistment office objected to the claim and asked to refuse to satisfy it. The police brought the man to the military registration and enlistment office, but the man did not have any documents confirming the status of a researcher. According to the results of the military medical commission, the plaintiff was found fit for military service. Already in court, it was confirmed that the man is indeed a senior researcher, candidate of technical sciences, works at the Institute of Telecommunications and Global Information Space of the HAH of Ukraine and is a higher education researcher. Accordingly, the order for the military unit to perform military service was recognized as groundless and unlawful.
“In this particular case, the military registration and enlistment office defended the position that the plaintiff did not tell them that he had appropriate grounds for deferring from conscription. But as we can see, the police brought the man to the military enlistment office. Accordingly, the person was hardly going to go there on that day and did not even collect any documents. The court stated the fact that a person should not carry with him all the documents for the military registration and enlistment office. Moreover, when the military registration and enlistment office learned about such circumstances, it was necessary to immediately check whether this person had such grounds. it was necessary to send some requests,” says Roman Likhachev, a lawyer for the UGSPL, a participant in the Tribunal for Putin global initiative. It was he who analyzed both court decisions, as the first such precedent in judicial practice.
The decision of the Dnepropetrovsk District Administrative Court also deserves attention. The man was called up for military service as a conscript, but at the same time, from the extracts from the orders, there is an injunction that the plaintiff did not serve in the Armed Forces, which in turn violates paragraph 4 of the Decree of the President of Ukraine No. 69/2022 “On general mobilization “. That is, the plaintiff did not have relevant military experience. In addition, the plaintiff was given the title of “soldier” before taking the oath.
As a result, the court concluded that, firstly, contrary to the requirements of the current legislation, during the mobilization of the plaintiff, he was identified as a person who already had experience in military service and had a military specialty. Secondly, given the fact that the plaintiff did not do military service and did not receive a military registration specialty, it was possible for the latter to be awarded the military rank of “soldier” only after he had taken the Military oath. Thus, the claims were upheld.
“This is an interesting case: the issue of dismissing a person who has no military experience is being considered. This is a pilot case, I see this for the first time. Yes, there are several reasons for canceling the order of the military commissariat, but lack of experience was still the main reason. Interestingly, there will be further with a similar decision, because there are still many similar cases,” the lawyer says.
He notes that after such a court decision, a person is actually dismissed from military service: the order that he was mobilized is canceled.
Who is not subject to mobilization
It is worth recalling who is not subject to general mobilization in Ukraine. It:
– women and men who have three or more children under the age of 18;
– women and men independently raising a child (children) under the age of 18;
– women and men, guardians, trustees, adoptive parents, parent-educators raising a child with a disability under the age of 18;
– women and men, guardians, trustees, adoptive parents, parent-educators raising a child with serious illnesses;
– women and men who maintain an adult child who is a person with a disability of group I or II;
– people who support orphans or children deprived of parental care, under the age of 18 years.
In addition, the Verkhovna Rada expanded the list of persons not subject to mobilization. So, they gave a reprieve from conscription to scientific, scientific-pedagogical and pedagogical workers. Also, women and men liable for military service, whose close relatives died or went missing during the implementation of measures to ensure national security and defense, repulse and deter Russian armed aggression in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, as well as to ensure national security and defense, rebuff and containment of armed aggression against Ukraine during martial law.
By the way, many soldiers learn that they have a deferment from conscription already in the ranks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, says Roman Likhachev. And when a person is already serving, he is unlikely to be allowed to go home.
“If a person had grounds for a deferment, but went to serve, then, as military lawyers write, there are no grounds for dismissal from service,” the lawyer says. He notes that of all the appeals to him on military matters, about half relate to dismissal. He recalled the chaotic delivery of subpoenas, but noted that this is quite legal. Nowhere in the law is it specified exactly where a summons can be served.
However, this does not negate the fact that many men and women serve at the front, who are entitled to a deferment from conscription. The lawyer said that he recently received an appeal from the military. A man at the front, a two-year-old child with a disability on his support, a man has the right to be fired, but he serves. Now the wife of a military man urgently needs to go to the hospital, and there is no one to leave the child with – there are no grandparents. The situation is stalemate.
“I think that the state needs to turn on the mechanism of social care for military families. This is how they worked in the USA – why not apply this experience? Perhaps it is worth turning on the mechanism of social support for each family,” says Roman Likhachev.
He emphasizes that military families may find themselves in a difficult situation, for example, become internally displaced persons. In this case, local authorities should take care of them. The military must fight, and not think about the conditions under which his family survives.
“I think that in order for people to want to serve, more motivation is needed. This includes social support for the family, and timely payment of compensation for the death of a military man. The state should also pay more attention to the families of prisoners of war,” says Roman Likhachev.