Government Resolution No. 560, which regulates the issue of granting deferrals from military service, has caused numerous discussions and criticism due to the lack of specific grounds for refusal. This creates the opportunity for commissions at territorial recruitment centers (TCCs) to refuse applicants for any reason, which can lead to numerous abuses and legal conflicts.
The Commission at the CCC will have extremely wide discretion in approving or denying a deferral to anyone who submits such an application, except for those reserved by the authorities.
Thus, the Government, by its resolution No. 560 of May 16, approved the Procedure for the Call-up of Citizens to Military Service during Mobilization. It defines the procedure for granting a deferment from military service during mobilization and its registration. This procedure is currently the only act that specifies the mechanism for resolving the issue of whether a person is granted a deferment or not. After all, the law on strengthening mobilization only refers to this conscription procedure on the issue of deferment, without directly answering the question of the grounds for refusing to grant a deferment. “The verification of the grounds for granting a deferment to military service conscripts during mobilization and its registration is carried out by the CCC” - this is all that is said in the law.
As a rule, regulatory legal acts establish, at least in general terms, a list of grounds for a government agency to refuse a citizen's application, such as "insufficiency" or "inconsistency" of documents, incorrect registration, etc. But Resolution No. 560 does not list any grounds for refusal at all. At the same time, the law on administrative procedure, which establishes the principles of reasonableness, rule of law, transparency, etc., does not apply to the CCC.
Thus, Resolution 560 only establishes that to consider issues of granting deferrals to those liable for military service, commissions shall be formed at district (city) CCCs with the following composition:
- the chairman of the commission is the head of the district (city) CCC (separate department);
- members of the commission - representatives of the apparatus, structural divisions (education and science, healthcare, social protection of the population, children's services, administrative services center) of the district, city state administration (military administration).
If there are grounds for receiving a deferment, military conscripts (except for those on reserve) personally submit an application to the head of the commission of the district (city) CCC or its department on the form, to which are attached documents confirming the right to a deferment, or copies of such documents, certified in accordance with the established procedure, specified in the list in accordance with the appendix to the resolution.
The commission studies the received application and supporting documents, assesses the legality of the grounds for granting a deferral, and, if necessary, prepares requests to relevant state authorities to obtain information confirming the applicant's right to a deferral, or uses information from public electronic registers.
The Commission is obliged to consider the application and documents confirming the right to a deferral received for consideration within seven days from the date of receipt, but no later than the next day from the date of receipt of information in response to requests from state authorities.
Based on the review of the received documents, the commission makes a decision to grant or refuse to grant a deferral. The commission's decision is recorded in a protocol.
The decision made by the commission shall be notified to the applicant by telephone, electronic communication or by mail no later than the day following the adoption of such a decision.
In the event of a positive decision, the conscript is provided with a certificate indicating the deferral period in the form specified in Appendix 6.
In the event of a refusal to grant a deferment, the conscript is notified in writing, indicating the reasons for the refusal, using the form specified in Appendix 7. The appendix states that the commission must indicate the reasons for the refusal, but, again, judging by the Cabinet of Ministers' resolution, it may indicate these reasons at its discretion.
Such a decision may be appealed in court.
If the commission decides to refuse to grant a deferment, the conscript is sent for a medical examination to determine his suitability for military service.
In the event of loss (change) of the grounds for granting deferment to those liable for military service, the commission may cancel (change) its previously adopted decision, which shall be notified to the applicant in writing no later than the day following the adoption of such a decision in the form specified in Appendix 10.
Therefore, Resolution 560 does not contain any specifics regarding the list of grounds for refusing to grant a deferral, which raises the question of how a court, which must assess the legality of a decision made by the commission in the event of an individual's appeal, will determine whether the decision of the commission at the CCC was legal, that is, whether it complied with the law on mobilization and Resolution 560.
The problem will not only concern officials who are subject to reservation. Thus, Resolution 560 provides that the issue of granting deferrals to those reserved for state authorities, other state bodies, local self-government bodies, as well as enterprises, institutions and organizations is not considered by the commission.
As a reminder, the Cabinet of Ministers established, by Resolution 560, additional conditions for obtaining a deferment for military conscripts who are providing care (permanent care).
At the same time, as the people's deputies point out, in certain parts the Cabinet resolution does not comply with the law on mobilization.
