Mobilization will be checked for convictions – Newspaper Kommersant No. 194 (7395) of 10/19/2022
[ad_1]
The Gatchina city court (Leningrad region) suspended the mobilization of Pavel Mushumansky on his lawsuit against the military registration and enlistment office and the draft commission. A staunch Baptist who previously served as an alternative civilian service (ACS) in a psycho-neurological boarding school, Mr. Mushumansky was sent to the troops in September 2022, despite requests for ACS. The court decided to apply measures of preliminary protection, ordering to suspend the mobilization of the Baptist for the duration of the proceedings. However, there is no hurry to let Mr. Mushumansky out of the military unit.
Representatives of 23-year-old Pavel Mushumansky filed a lawsuit with the Gatchina City Court on October 7. “Evangelical Christian” Mr. Mushumansky in 2019-2021 passed the ACS, working in the laundry room of Kingisepp’s psycho-neurological boarding school. He chose alternative service “due to religious beliefs,” the lawsuit says: “I cannot carry out orders aimed at the destruction, the defeat of living people.” On 24 September 2022 the applicant received a summons to appear at the Gatchina military enlistment office. Pavel Mushumansky arrived there the next day and was mobilized “without a medical examination.” Claimant’s requests for ACS (with reference to previous experience) were ignored.
Mr. Mushumansky asked the court to cancel the decision on mobilization as illegal, replacing it with the ACS. Alternative service, the believer pointed out, is guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The court accepted the statement of Pavel Mushumansky, initiating an administrative case, and on October 12 issued a ruling on it (Kommersant has it). Judge of the Gatchina City Court Marina Girenko suspended the decision of the draft commission of the Gatchina municipal district of the Leningrad Region on his mobilization, as well as the action of the summons to send him to the “place of service”. The definition was sent to the military commissariats of Gatchina and the Leningrad region. “The application of preliminary protection measures is necessary for the administrative plaintiff to protect his rights, freedoms and legitimate interests,” the text of the ruling says. It should be noted that at the time of the court ruling, Mr. Mushumansky was in one of the military units of Luga. The hearing on the claim in the Gatchina court will be held on November 15.
Partial mobilization in Russia was announced on September 21 by President Vladimir Putin’s decree, saying that, first of all, citizens from the reserve who had previously served in the army would be called up to the troops. The Ministry of Defense clarified that we are talking about 300 thousand reservists. On October 14, the president announced that the mobilization procedure in Russia would be completed within two weeks, estimating the number of reservists called up at that time at 222,000 people.
The first claims for the abolition of mobilization began to come from conscripted citizens at the end of September. Thus, on September 30, a resident of St. Petersburg, Daniil Bakalinsky, in his statement to the Frunzensky District Court, demanded that the local conscription commission and military registration and enlistment office replace his service with the ACS, citing his convictions. However, on October 17, the joint press service of the courts of St. Petersburg announced the termination of proceedings in his case (without giving reasons).
According to Art. 9 of the Law “On Alternative Civil Service”, the ACS during the period of mobilization is determined by “federal constitutional laws and other federal laws”. On the government portal “Explain. RF” it is said that the ACS is not provided for during the mobilization. Pavel Mushumansky in his lawsuit points to the clarifications of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the right of citizens to ACS, arguing that this right is “directly effective” and “should be ensured regardless of whether the relevant federal law is adopted or not”.
Vladimir Kitsing, managing partner of the Kitsing and Partners Bar Association, says that the ACS mechanism laid down in the legislation “applies only to cases of replacement of military service by conscription and does not apply to military service by mobilization.” However, the lawyer of the Yakovlev and Partners legal group, Yevgenia Ryzhkova, is sure that the ACS “is not prohibited either during martial law or during the period of mobilization.” “There is no unequivocal opinion on the issue of the possibility of passing the ACS in the current legal situation,” she emphasizes. Legal consultant Arseniy Levinson draws attention to the fact that the state previously recognized Pavel Mushumansky’s right to ACS. In his opinion, it is obliged to respect the “religious convictions” of the applicant in this case as well.
Lawyers and relatives of Pavel Mushumansky applied with a court ruling to the military unit where the plaintiff is located. From there they were sent to the Gatchina military registration and enlistment office, and there, in turn, they announced their readiness to take the applicant away only after his commander’s order to dismiss him. The Baptist’s mother, Marina Mushumanskaya, applied to the district prosecutor’s office, but they referred to the absence of a law on ACS during the period of mobilization.
Against the background of these events, the chairman of the World Union of Old Believers, Leonid Sevastyanov, called on the State Duma to work out the issue of the ACS during the period of partial mobilization, “having clarified the constitutional norm that no one has repealed.” On October 7, members of the New People faction submitted a draft law on ACS during mobilization to parliament: it is proposed to serve in the security of schools and kindergartens.
Ms. Ryzhkova says that the military unit, after receiving the court ruling, “should send the mobilized person to the place of residence.” Mr. Kitsing believes that this is necessary “in order to participate in the trial.” “The court ruling on the application of measures of preliminary protection is enforced immediately, and a court fine may be imposed on those guilty of non-compliance,” he adds. Ms. Ryzhkova clarifies that under Art. 122-123 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation, the amount of the fine can reach up to 100 thousand rubles. “If the leadership of the unit refuses to suspend the decision to mobilize, the lawyers will have to appeal it to the military prosecutor’s office, and also notify the court about it,” adds Vladimir Kitsing.
The court refused the mobilized Petersburger to replace military service with civilian
The Nevsky District Court refused to satisfy the claim of Kirill Berezin, who asked to replace military service with an alternative civilian one. According to him, participation in hostilities is contrary to his beliefs – he is a believer. Mr. Berezin was called on September 24th. On the same day, he applied for the ACS. Representatives of the Nevsky district military registration and enlistment office said that he did not have such a right. Now Mr. Berezin is in a military unit in Belgorod, where he is undergoing training and is preparing to be sent to the NVO zone. “From the side of the commander there were threats towards Kirill. He was told that he would regret the trial, ”said Marina Tsyganova, a representative of Mr. Berezin, with reference to a colleague of the plaintiff. Kirill Berezin in the lawsuit also reports that he was not offered to undergo a medical examination.
The representative of the defendants (St. Petersburg City Military Commissariat and commissions for the mobilization of the region and the city) Irina Aristarkhova confirmed that Kirill Berezin did not have the right to replace military service. She, according to Ms. Aristarkhova, is available only to young people under 27 years old who are not in the reserve of the RF Armed Forces. Kirill Berezin, continued the representative of the defendants, did not report health problems at the military registration and enlistment office, and records based on the results of the medical commission are kept only in cases where mobilized people report health problems. In addition, she believes that there can be no question of contradicting her convictions, since the plaintiff had already completed military service from 2013 to 2014.
In the measure of preliminary protection, that is, the return to St. Petersburg for the duration of the case, the court refused. A 69-year-old grandmother remained dependent on the conscript.
“He (Kirilla Berezina.— “b”) depression and a tendency to suicidal thoughts,” Ms. Tsyganova told Kommersant. “And he had suicide attempts, but they were not recorded.” Lawyer Nikifor Ivanov, speaking on behalf of the mobilized, said that he would challenge the court’s decision: “First of all, we will file a private complaint in order to challenge the ruling on the refusal to satisfy our application for interim measures. We will also be filing an appeal.”
As of October 18, the district courts of St. Petersburg registered 32 lawsuits challenging decisions on mobilization. Most of all in the Krasnogvardeisky court, where ten applications were received. Three cases were dismissed by the Frunzensky Court, as the plaintiffs abandoned their claims.
[ad_2]
Source link
