See more
Publication date: 18.04.2024
Practicing attorney and lawyer with more than 12 years of practical experience in various branches of law
Bill 10449 was passed and will go into effect on May 18. In this article, let's discuss what changes are planned in it in terms of the boundary terms of military service and in terms of dismissal from the AFU. I will say that it looks somewhat better than the primary version, where everything wanted to cancel. But still not perfect.
Boundary term of military service
The main argument for promoting Bill 10449 was to demobilize those who have been serving since the beginning of the war. And some kind of settlement of this issue. But as always our citizens were deceived. And in fact it still remains unresolved to the end.
The boundary term of military service for those who are 18 to 25 years old and who have signed a contract has been set at 1 year. But let me remind you that such persons, if they have not served before, are not subject to mobilization without their voluntary consent.
The term of 1 year is also set for medical and psychology contractors.
But as for the rest - nothing is clear.
The term of military service under the contract is 3 years for contract soldiers. For other positions - other terms. But it is also stated here that during martial law terms can be as these and until the announcement of the decision on demobilization, ie it is unclear until what period.
And then it is written that this term for the rank and file can be extended for another 3 years.
For mobilized, non-contractors, for officers there is a boundary term of military service of 18 months. And for the rest it is written that these terms are set by a separate decision of the President, including can be until the end of the special period or the announcement of demobilization. So there are no terms for the mobilized. This is how they deceived people.
Changes in the rules of dismissal from military service
Here separately I want to analyze exactly the grounds for dismissal for family reasons, because they have undergone significant changes.
And they want to equalize them both for contract workers and for mobilized. Now there are different grounds for different categories. But they want to make them the same.
For female servicemen the right to dismissal will be preserved if they are pregnant, or if they are on leave to care for a child up to 3 years, and in some cases up to 6 years. Or if both parents are servicemen and there is a child up to 18 years old. But this is only for women.
The right to dismissal is preserved for large families with 3 or more children under 18 years of age, provided that there is no arrears of alimony for a period of more than 3 months.
The right to dismissal for single fathers is preserved, but in a slightly modified form.
It is retained for those servicemen where the mother is dead, deprived of parental rights, missing or recognized as deceased.
Also added is the right to discharge if the second parent is serving a sentence in prison.
And as for single mothers - those who in the birth certificate of the child record of the father is made under Art. 135 of the Family Code of Ukraine from the words of the mother.
As for those whose mother is alive, not deprived of parental rights, but because of the war can not participate in the upbringing of the child, it is interesting. At first this provision was going to be removed altogether. But it was left, in a slightly modified form.
It is also possible to establish through the court the fact that the child is under the upbringing and maintenance of the father without the participation of the mother, but this must be established only by a court decision. Decisions of the guardianship authorities, local authorities are not suitable. And the fact of the child's upbringing and maintenance must be established. Previously, there were no requirements for maintenance.
Adoptive parents, guardians, custodians, foster parents, foster parents, foster parents who have minor children under 18 years of age, deprived of parental rights or orphaned children in their care have received the right to dismissal.
Previously, such persons had the right to defer mobilization, but they did not have the right to dismissal. Now they want to add it, which is quite logical.
But as for the right to dismissal of those servicemen who have a disabled child under 18 years of age, the grounds for dismissal have become more complicated. It remains. But if now it does not depend on the presence or absence of other relatives of the child, now they want to add a provision that this right arises only if the child has no other persons obliged to bring him up. That is, if there is a mother - the husband will not be able to dismiss.
Also remains a basis for dismissal the presence of an adult disabled child, but here it is also necessary to prove that he is on the maintenance of a person liable for military duty.
The presence of a child with a particularly serious disease according to a special list is also a reason for dismissal. But if there are other relatives obliged to support the child, including the mother, the right to dismissal is lost.
The basis for dismissal remains the need to provide constant care for a wife, a disabled person of group 1 or 2. And it, as now, does not depend on the presence or absence of other relatives.
Although I personally do not like the wording "the need to provide constant care", because it is possible that they will require a certificate of MSEC or LCC with the conclusion that she needs care and a document on her care. Not a sure thing though. I'm probably just picking on words. But need to keep that in mind and see how it goes in practice.
Grounds for dismissal such as the need to provide constant care for the wife disabled group 3 remained, but only if the wife's disability is established due to cancer, the absence of a limb, hand, foot, one of the paired organs, or in connection with the presence of cancer, mental disorder, cerebral palsy or other paralytic syndromes.
If another disease was the cause of the wife's disability group 3 - there is no basis for dismissal.
And the dismissal does not depend on the presence or absence of other relatives of the wife.
Such a basis for dismissal as the need to provide constant care for his parent or his wife's parent, disabled group 1 or 2, remained. But now just their disability in itself will not be enough.
Now, in order to be entitled to dismissal under these circumstances, such persons must have no relatives of the first and even second degree of kinship (parents, adult children, spouse, brothers, sisters, grandparents, grandchildren) or these relatives must have a certificate of the LCC or MSEC with the conclusion that they need constant care. And not even just a disability, but specifically an MSEC certificate.
A lot of servicemen were discharged on this basis. And now after these amendments it will be available to few.
Similar amendments and concerning dismissal in connection with the need to care for a relative of the 2nd degree of kinship (grandmother, grandfather, grandchildren, brother, sister), disabled persons of the 1st or 2nd group. They must also have no other first- or second-degree relatives, or these relatives must have a certificate from the MSEC or LCC stating that they are in need of permanent care.
The ground for dismissal as care for a disabled person of group 1 or 2, who is not a relative, or a relative of a further degree of kinship, is excluded.
As well as the ground for dismissal for caring for those who according to the certificate of MSEC or LCC need permanent care is excluded.
And this ground is excluded both for those who were caring for a parent, wife, husband, or wife's parent who is in need of care, and for those who were caring for a grandparent or someone who is not a relative or a more distant relative.
All, these grounds for dismissal are no longer grounds for dismissal according to these amendments.
Guardianship of an incapacitated person is still a ground for dismissal. But as we all know, this is a complicated legal process for 1.5-2 years. It is necessary to obtain a court decision, which entered into legal force, on the recognition of the person as incapacitated. And this is possible only in the presence of mental defects in such a person. And it is necessary to formalize guardianship over him through the court or guardianship authorities.
The grounds for dismissal for those whose relatives (husband, wife, son, daughter, father, mother, sibling) were servicemen during the ATO or from the beginning of martial law in Ukraine and were killed or missing in connection with military service remained, but slightly reduced.
From this list of relatives they have removed incomplete brother and sister (those with whom only 1 parent is in common), and removed grandmother and grandfather. Accordingly, the list of persons who will be entitled to dismissal on this basis is reduced.
But a ground for dismissal is added for those who have a relative (husband, wife, son, daughter, father, mother, sibling) posthumously awarded the title of Hero of Ukraine.
Escort to the military commission for the purpose of obtaining a border crossing permit is popular now, border crossing permit for men, crossing permit border, lawyer escort to the TCC are popular questions.
