The government commission assessed a new batch of parliamentary bills

The Government Commission on Legislative Activities approved the next package of reviews of parliamentary initiatives. In particular, the bills of United Russia members Andrei Kartapolov and Andrei Krasov, adopted in the first reading, which give the right to commanders of military units during martial law to impose disciplinary arrest without trial on military personnel, were recognized as requiring improvement. A Kommersant source in the Duma apparatus believes that these amendments may remain in limbo.

At a meeting on November 20, the Cabinet Commission approved reviews of two bills by the head of the Duma Defense Committee Andrei Kartapolov and his first deputy Andrei Krasov (both United Russia) on the specifics of the use of disciplinary arrest of military personnel during mobilization, martial law and in wartime. The Duma adopted both documents in the first reading on March 15, but then work on them was suspended. According to the amendments, not only garrison courts, but also commanders of military units will be able to send offenders to the guardhouse. In this case, the payment of monetary remuneration is suspended for the period of disciplinary arrest.

The Legal Commission in its review speaks of the need to finalize the initiatives for the second reading, pointing out their inconsistency with Art. 22 of the Constitution, according to which arrest for a period of more than 48 hours is allowed only by court decision. In addition, it is necessary to coordinate the list of persons entitled to impose disciplinary arrest with the disciplinary charter of the armed forces and indicate that such arrest is ordered based on the results of the proceedings.

The commission also did not like the idea of ​​suspending the payment of monetary allowances, which “is the main means of material support and stimulation of the performance of military service duties.”

“The fact that the bills were conceptually supported, but then stalled, indicates that the problem is not acute and topical in nature,” a source in the State Duma apparatus explained to Kommersant. “Given that among those who signed a contract for the military service, there are prisoners, there may have been cases where authority was required to immediately be sent to the guardhouse. At the same time, there are constitutional norms on the grounds for extrajudicial arrest, which, apparently, it was decided not to be interpreted broadly in order to avoid cases of arbitrariness. It is quite possible that the projects will remain in limbo, since the need for them will no longer exist.”

At the same time, the legal commission gave a positive response to the bill adopted in the first reading on November 16 by the heads of the State Duma and Federation Council committees on state construction Pavel Krasheninnikov (ER) and Andrei Klishas, ​​as well as deputy Irina Pankina (ER) on judges in four new constituent entities of the Russian Federation. There, according to the project, until January 1, 2026, Russians with a higher legal education in the specialty “law enforcement” received in the specified territories or in Ukraine will be allowed to compete for vacant positions of judges. In this case, a conclusion on recommendation for the position of judge will be received by candidates who have an “excellent” or “good” rating based on the results of the qualification exam.

The commission also supported the bill of United Russia member Natalya Kostenko on exemption from paying state fees for registering property rights when inheriting property of persons who died while performing their duty to protect law and order or save human life.

At the same time, a number of initiatives of the parliamentary opposition received negative reviews from the government commission.

Thus, the proposal of Sergei Leonov (LDPR) to provide a 50% reduction in the payment of transport tax for those motorists who were not held accountable for violating traffic rules during the year was not supported. The review states that compliance with laws is a constitutional duty of citizens and it is unlawful to encourage its compliance with benefits. Previously, with the same wording, the commission rejected a similar project by Vladislav Davankov (“New People”).

The initiatives of A Just Russia – For Truth, aimed at tightening migration policy, were also not approved. Party leader Sergei Mironov proposed granting the right to additional measures of state support only to those parents or adoptive parents who acquired Russian citizenship no later than five years before the birth or adoption of children. The Commission in its response refers to Art. 6 of the Constitution, according to which citizenship is uniform and equal regardless of the basis for acquisition. After a person is granted Russian citizenship, he is fully subject to the constitutional guarantees determined by the status of a citizen of the Russian Federation, the Cabinet of Ministers emphasizes.

The Social Revolutionaries also advocated that applicants for Russian citizenship take an exam in the Russian language and Russian history from the age of 14 (now from 18).

The commission’s review states that this provision “is not supported by data that allows us to assess at what age a person is able to assimilate this kind of information, including learning a foreign language.”

Yaroslav Nilov (LDPR) proposed giving parents of schoolchildren a day off on September 1 as part of paid leave upon their request, so that they could go to the assembly line with their children. The Legal Commission did not approve of this idea either, since “the projected changes do not take into account the different working hours established for certain categories of workers and the duration of the ceremonial assembly.”

Finally, there was no support for Boris Chernyshov’s (LDPR) amendments on mandatory accompaniment of TV advertising with a countdown. According to the commission, the legal limitation on the maximum duration of an advertising block “allows viewers to estimate the duration of interruptions in television programs for advertising, so there is no need for additional legal regulation.”

Ksenia Veretennikova