The Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug stated that the reservation of the company’s employees is not an absolute basis for deferment from service.

Surgutneftegaz employee Sergei Vakhrameev from Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug-Yugra failed to challenge the call to mobilization service in court. The plaintiff insisted that he was entitled to a reservation from the enterprise, but the military commissariat stated that his profession and position did not imply a delay. At the same time, the district court, in its decision, with reference to departmental methodological recommendations, noted that the reservation is not an “absolute reason” for granting a delay, and military commissariats can attract booked citizens.

After receiving two summonses to appear at the military commissariat for mobilization, in March 2023 Sergey Vakhrameev filed a lawsuit with the Surgut City Court against the military commissar of Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug and the city draft board. An employee of Surgutneftegaz indicated that he was included by the employer in the list of citizens who are in reserve, for whom it is necessary to issue deferrals from conscription for mobilization in wartime. On this basis, the plaintiff asked to declare the decision on his mobilization, made in October last year, illegal and demanded to be obliged to grant a deferment from the draft. Mr. Vakhrameev also stated that the “A” fitness category was assigned to him by mistake: due to the presence of a neurological disease, he should be assigned the “B” fitness category. When passing the commission in the military commissariat, he assures, no medical examination was carried out.

The representative of the military commissariat stated at the court session that the letter from Surgutneftegaz with the lists of employees who are entitled to a deferment (the plaintiff was among them) was received only on October 11, 2022. During the reconciliation of the list with the list of company positions, Mr. Vakhrameev’s application for booking was denied, she added.

The representative of Surgutneftegaz PJSC, in turn, said that the summons was handed to Sergey Vakhrameev on September 30, and on October 3, the employer sent a letter with a request to consider the possibility of canceling it, as well as making a reservation. However, already on October 12, Sergei Vakhrameev was mobilized, which he announced by telephone to the deputy head of the gas processing department (GTU) of Surgutneftegaz.

The military registration and enlistment office of Surgut did not find grounds for canceling the plaintiff’s summons, since at the time the draft commission issued a resolution of September 23, 2022 No. 2, the position of Mr. Vakhrameev was not included in the corresponding list.

On October 20, the UPG re-submitted the list to the military commissariat, however, since Mr. Vakhrameev was mobilized, he was no longer included in the list.

In April of this year, the city court dismissed the claim of Sergei Vakhrameev, and at the end of July, the KhMAO-Yugra court considered an appeal against this decision. The authority confirmed that the requirements for booking Mr. Vakhrameev were not met, he was not put on a special record, that is, in fact, at the time of the contested decision, there was no booking.

But the presence of armor does not always save from conscription, the court stated.

“According to paragraph 5 of the general section of the guidelines, the reservation is not an absolute basis for granting a deferral, since military commissariats have the right to attract reserved citizens to carry out their mobilization activities,” the decision of the appellate instance states. It should be noted that the case file refers to “Methodological recommendations for booking citizens of the Russian Federation who are in the reserve of the armed forces of the Russian Federation and work in local governments and organizations, for the period of mobilization and in wartime, approved by a resolution of the Interdepartmental Commission on booking citizens, in reserve, dated July 5, 2017 No. 16.

The district court left the decision of the city instance unchanged, and the appeal – without satisfaction.

The assertion that the military commissariats have the right to attract booked citizens does not comply with the law, Nikita Filippov, head of the De Jure law office, disagreed with the arguments of the court in a conversation with Kommersant.

He points out that the booking is carried out in accordance with No. 31-FZ “On mobilization training and mobilization in the Russian Federation”, other federal laws, legal acts of the President of the Russian Federation and the government: “Thus, instructions and, all the more so, methodological instructions in themselves cannot contradict the law , and Article 23 of the mentioned law directly provides for exemption from conscription for military service of citizens subject to reservation.

In addition, he continues, in paragraph 5 of the general section of the guidelines referred to by the court, it is indicated that the lists and terms of attracting reserved citizens must be coordinated by the military registration and enlistment offices with the heads of organizations: “In fact, we are talking about the fact that, firstly, the military they can only agree (agree) with the organization itself on the possibility of attracting reserved citizens, and secondly, it is obvious that such involvement is not a call for military service for mobilization, but the performance of certain actions (works) necessary to ensure mobilization activities for a specific period “.

“The fact that military commissariats have the right to attract booked citizens to carry out their activities cannot mean that the reservation is not an absolute basis for the deferment granted in accordance with Article 18 of Federal Law No. 31,” says Artem Yablokov, partner at the Yablokov Brothers law firm.

At the same time, the lawyer draws attention to the circumstance indicated in the court decision: at the time of the medical examination, Mr. Vakhrameev did not express any complaints about his state of health.

“Of course, it is possible to ask a question about the completeness and correctness of the inspection. But if the examination sheet contains the signature of the person, and the person confirmed the absence of remarks regarding health at the time of the examination, the court will have doubts about the validity of the disease.”

Maria Ignatova, Yekaterinburg; Ekaterina Volkova