Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine № 560: what are the changes?

On May 18, a new law on mobilization, adopted on April 16, came into force. However, another legal act was subsequently adopted. This is the Cabinet of Ministers Resolution № 560 of May 16, 2024 “On Approval of the Procedure for Conscription of Citizens for Military Service during Mobilization, for a Special Period”. Legal experts have already summarized it: “the resolution is a law in itself”. This skepticism is due to the fact that a number of provisions of this bylaw are formulated contrary to the law. This violates the principle of the hierarchy of legal acts.

If you are interested in how to act in your particular situation regarding mobilization, you can order a consultation from the specialists of Prikhodko & Partners Law Firm. We specialize in military law and can help you efficiently and effectively. Despite the legal conflicts between the Law on Mobilization № 10449 and the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine № 560, we have sufficient practice and quickly understand how to act in each specific situation to protect the client’s rights.

What has Resolution № 560 brought to the legal field?

Today, this bylaw regulates the conscription procedure, establishes clear rules and approves forms of applications and acts that were not previously provided for.

As for the structure of Resolution № 560, it consists of 8 sections. They deal with general issues, the procedure for conscription, verification of military records, the procedure for granting deferment from conscription and many other issues.

Particular attention should be paid to Section II, which deals with the procedure for conscription. Among the important aspects enshrined in this section are the following

• the powers of heads of regional and district city state administrations, executive bodies, village, town and city councils in the matter of mobilization are clearly defined;
• the powers of heads of enterprises, institutions and organizations, who now have more responsibilities in this regard, are defined;
• the powers of the heads of regional and district TCCs and JVs, as well as the heads of territorial police bodies, are specified;
• the procedure for serving subpoenas and requirements for them were specified.

Thus, Resolution № 560 has detailed many of the provisions provided for by the law. However, there are also negative aspects. We will mention them in more detail as well.

What provisions of Resolution № 560 caused public disagreement?

The section on the issue of granting a deferment from the draft contains step-by-step instructions for this. It specifies what documents are required and also provides for an application form. However, the norms of Annex №5, which contains a list of documents required for deferment, largely contradict the already mentioned Law. Representatives of the active civil society also began to create petitions in which they convey their position on the inconsistency of the grounds for postponement defined in Resolution № 560 and the Law “On mobilization preparation and mobilization”.

So, we are talking about the following provisions:

• Article 23(1)(3) of the Law stipulates that men and women who have 3 or more minor children are entitled to a deferment. The only exceptions are those who have been in arrears with child support for more than 3 months. Instead, the Resolution has complicated the procedure and stipulated that a prerequisite for deferral from mobilization on this ground is the establishment of paternity. We have already mentioned the principle of the hierarchy of legal acts, which encourages us to be guided by the Law. But what representatives of transfer pricing companies and joint ventures will do in practice is an open question.
• Article 23(1)(9) of the Law provides for the care of a sick wife, husband, father or mother among the grounds for deferral. This refers to both their parents and the parents of the other spouse. Instead, the Resolution obliged in cases of caring for a wife, child or parents to prove that there are no other family members who can provide care, but this obligation applies exclusively to the wife’s parents.
• The Law also provides for the unconditional right to deferment for persons who have parents with disabilities of Group I or II and provide care for them, in the absence of other relatives who are not liable for military service and are required to do so. Simply put, for the only son of such parents, the mere fact of their disability, according to the Law, is grounds for a postponement. The Resolution imposes additional obligations. Two additional documents are required – an act establishing the fact of care, as well as a conclusion of the Medical Examination Committee that the person needs it.

Thus, we see that Resolution № 560 significantly complicates the implementation of certain provisions of the Law in practice.

What changes have already been adopted?

Under the pressure of lively public debate, the Cabinet of Ministers listened to the public opinion in one issue. The requirement for the conclusion of the TCC in the situations described in the last paragraph of the list above was canceled. At the same time, a significant number of inconsistencies between this Resolution and the Law remained.

As for the trends that can be seen in the actions of TCC and JV in practice, we can draw a clear conclusion – it is already necessary to fight for the deferral in court. Therefore, high-quality legal support from specialists who specialize in such requests will help here. You will meet them in the team of Prikhodko & Partners Law Firm.