A common classification of information in internal affairs bodies is its division into blocks that characterize the operational situation:
About the state of law and order in the republic, region, region, city, district, i.e. information characterizing the object of direct influence of the internal affairs body;
About elements of the external environment, i.e. information characterizing phenomena, factors that have a direct or indirect impact on the state of law and order and the activities of internal affairs bodies;
About the state of organization of the internal affairs body, i.e. information characterizing the organ as a system designed to solve specific social problems;
On the functioning of the internal affairs body, i.e. information characterizing the effectiveness of solving problems facing the internal affairs body.
Therefore, under operational situation refers to the external and internal conditions in which internal affairs bodies perform the tasks of fighting crime, ensuring public order and public safety, i.e. implement law enforcement and law enforcement functions.
The operational situation is the main object of analytical activity of the management apparatus, services and divisions of the internal affairs bodies and each of the employees.
In a broad sense, the operational environment refers to a set of conditions, both external and internal, in which internal affairs bodies implement functions to combat crime, protect public order and ensure public safety. It is obvious that external and internal conditions are interconnected.
For example:
The economic situation in the country dictates the internal working conditions of employees internal affairs bodies :
- organizational structure, number, quality of personnel, material and technical equipment of the system, etc.;
The social environment influences the inner world of employees;
It is obvious that internal affairs bodies influence crime, but crime, as part of the external environment, in turn affects internal affairs bodies.
External and internal conditions are not only interconnected, but also interdependent: for example, the organizational structure of the system of internal affairs bodies, etc., directly depends on the structure of crime.
Despite the interconnection and conditionality of conditions, external ones are decisive, form the basis of management, determine the nature and direction of the activities of internal affairs bodies.
The conditions characterizing the internal affairs bodies carrying out activities to maintain and strengthen law and order, in turn, influence external conditions through law enforcement and law enforcement activities. The external and internal conditions in which internal affairs bodies carry out their activities are complex and dynamism, therefore, it is advisable to consider the operational environment as a system consisting of many constantly changing elements at (or for) a certain point in time.
The study of the operational situation is carried out on the basis of various information coming from various sources, so we can say that the operational situation is “a set of interconnected and interacting external and internal conditions (factors) in relation to the subject of management in the systems of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and territorial bodies that determine the state of law and order in serviced territory, the analysis and assessment of the information model of which is the basis for the targeted influence of management apparatuses on the system of subordinate bodies and departments of internal affairs of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation" when solving law enforcement problems.
Based on the above, when analyzing the operational situation, it is necessary to study two blocks of factors that determine the state of law and order in the serviced territory: external and internal.
External factors (conditions) must first of all include the object of influence of internal affairs bodies: crime and delinquency; It should also include the conditions of the conceptual (settings of government bodies, regulatory documents of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, defining goals, objectives, main areas of activity, etc.) and situational external environment of the functioning of internal affairs bodies (which includes territorial-administrative, natural-geographical, economic , demographic, spiritual, socio-cultural, national and other features of the territory and population independent of the Department of Internal Affairs, affecting the situation in the region as a whole and in the serviced territory in particular).
Internal factors (conditions) characterize the system of internal affairs bodies themselves - these are the results of activities to combat crime, protect public order and ensure public safety as a whole of the internal affairs body and its individual services and divisions; organizational structure of the police department, characteristics of forces and means, their distribution over the territory, staffing, quality composition, workload of employees, technical equipment, etc. Finally, the state of organizational work should also be considered internal factors.
Thus, the components of the operational environment are:
Crime;
External operating environment (conceptual and situational);
Results of the activities of the internal affairs body;
Characteristics of ATS forces and assets;
State of management work.
Types of operational environments can be classified on various grounds. Thus, depending on the completeness of the information being studied about the factors (conditions) of the functioning of the internal affairs body, one can distinguish a general (complex) and private (specialized) operational situation. The general operational situation involves the study of all external and internal conditions in relation to all lines of ATS work. The private operational situation is associated with the analysis of individual blocks of the operational situation.
Based on the complexity of the operational environment, three types can be distinguished: stable, complex, and extreme.
It is possible to qualify the operational situation on a temporary basis (for a day, a week, a decade, a month, a quarter, a half-year, nine months, a year), as well as on a territorial basis.
The study and assessment of the operational situation is an integral part of the management activities of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs, as well as territorial internal affairs bodies, during which various types of analyzes are used.
As mentioned above, the operational situation is understood primarily as a set of circumstances and conditions that influence the operational process. However, this definition is not entirely complete, since it does not take into account such essential factors as the place and time of this process. There is no situation at all that is not associated with a specific spatial and temporal location. You can talk about the situation in the world, region, country, locality, on a specific line of work, object, site, and so on, and do this only in relation to a very specific time.
The operational environment is not something frozen or stable. It is constantly in dynamic development and change. Dependence on time is its most characteristic feature. Therefore, we can talk about the operational situation only at a certain point in time.
Thus, the duty department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Kyrgyz Republic monitors the state of crime on the territory of the republic throughout the day, then - for 10 days, one month, quarter, six months, 9 months and for the whole year. Other such features are a reflection of the balance of power between the subjects and objects of operational investigative activities (opposing parties), as well as the conditions in which this opposition occurs.
Taking these clarifications into account, we can give the following definition of the operational situation in the operational intelligence unit:
Operational situation- this is a set of factors, circumstances and conditions that develop at a certain time in a specific area (object, territory) of operational investigative activity and influence the operational investigative process.
A comprehensive study and knowledge of the operational situation is necessary for the development of competent, professionally thought-out operational investigative measures that allow solving the tasks at hand and ensuring the required level of secrecy and security for both individuals participating in operational intelligence activities and for departments of authorities carrying out operational investigative activities.
The factors, conditions, and circumstances that determine the operational situation can be very different. They depend on the areas of operational investigative activity (intelligence, counterintelligence, criminal investigation, administrative investigation), the characteristics of the country or region, the tasks being solved, and so on.
In the theory and practice of operational-search activities, the most frequently used option is the content of the operational situation, consisting of the following three main elements: 1) object cognitive and transformative activities; 2) the forces and means of the bodies carrying out operational investigations, and other relevant bodies, divisions, and organizations interacting with them; 3) the environment in which the activity is carried out.
First element. Objects of operational investigative activities are objects such as: organizations and individuals carrying out various types of illegal activities against interests protected by law, persons who are carriers of operational investigative information or have stable access to it; information of operational and investigative value, government departments, organizations, enterprises, firms of intelligence interest; persons, by their official, social and other position, who have leverage over the objects of the operational investigation and their decision-making; persons, documents, objects that are wanted; persons in respect of whom the issue of access to information constituting a state secret is being decided, access to work on the operation of facilities that pose an increased danger to human life and health, as well as to the environment.
Second element the structures of the operational situation form the forces and means of the bodies carrying out operational intelligence activities and other relevant bodies, divisions, and organizations interacting with them. At the same time, what is considered is not the generally possible existing forces and means, but the actually existing ones, which can be involved in specific operational-search activities and operations.
In other words, the level of combat, service, operational training of law enforcement agencies in the territory of the district, city, region, republic.
The main components of the third element of the operational situation “environment” for operational intelligence operations will be: economic, political, interethnic and other relations that characterize the interaction of individual social strata and groups in a country, region, locality, district; criminological situation; geographical conditions; transport and road network, passenger flows; the presence of foreign firms, organizations and joint ventures, the nature of their activities; demographic, national, social and psychological characteristics of the population; planning and construction and architectural features of settlements, the presence of cultural, sports, entertainment institutions, etc. This will also include the current administrative police and counterintelligence regimes, other preventive measures, and possible targets of illegal aspirations.
Arkhangelsk Garrison Military Court (Arkhangelsk Region) - Civil
The essence of the dispute: Complaints about wrong. valid (abs.) - officials, state and municipal employees
SOLUTION
IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Judge of the Arkhangelsk Garrison Military Court Veselovsky S.S., with secretary Kudrova L.V., with the participation of Fominsky V.N., as well as representatives of the official Eremin A.E. and Evseeva A.I., having considered in open court in the premises of a military court a civil case at the request of Colonel V.N. Fominsky, serving under a contract in the Border Directorate of the FSB of Russia for the Arkhangelsk Region (hereinafter referred to as the Directorate), challenging the actions of the chief Management related to bringing him to disciplinary liability,
INSTALLED:
Fominsky appealed to the military court with a statement in which he asks to recognize as illegal the actions of the head of the Department related to bringing him to disciplinary liability and to oblige the said official to cancel order No. severe reprimand”, as well as to recover legal costs from the Department, consisting of a state fee in the amount of 200 rubles.
At the court hearing, Fominsky explained that he was brought to disciplinary liability for failure to provide a list of military personnel serving in the Far North and subject to planned replacement, as well as for failure to fulfill the plan for replacing military personnel who served the established terms in the territory of the Chechen Republic and the Republic of Dagestan, but did not I agree with this order due to the incorrect definition of the disciplinary offense, the severity of the penalty applied and the biased attitude towards it, not taking into account mitigating circumstances, and requests that his demands be satisfied.
The representative of the official, Eremin, acting on the basis of a power of attorney, without recognizing the applicant’s demands, explained that due to the failure to comply with the instructions of the Personnel Directorate of the Border Service of the FSB of Russia to carry out a planned replacement of border guards serving in military service in the regions of the Far North and equivalent areas and having served the established terms in the territory of the Chechen Republic and the Republic of Dagestan, a trial was scheduled against the head of the personnel department Fominsky, which was carried out in accordance with the requirements of the law and the Disciplinary Charter of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, with clarification of all the circumstances relevant to this proceeding, order of the head of the Department No. No. dated August 14, 2014 was issued by an appropriate official, within the limits of the rights and powers granted to him, there are no grounds for its cancellation.
The representative of the official, Evseev, acting on the basis of a power of attorney, asked that the demands be denied.
Having heard the arguments of the persons involved in the case, having examined the evidence in the case materials and the evidence presented by the parties, the court comes to the following conclusions.
A copy of the contract confirms that Fominsky V.N. entered into a contract for military service for the period until September 24, 2016.
As can be seen from the extracts from the orders of the Deputy Head of the Border Service of the FSB of Russia dated December 19, 2012 No. and dated December 24, 2012 No. No. to the heads of border departments, in order to timely implement measures for the transfer of military personnel included in the Transfer Plan for employees of the Border Departments of the FSB of Russia in the Chechen Republic The Republic and the Republic of Dagestan, who have served the established periods of military service in these regions, must submit proposals for their placement by February 1, 2013, and select candidates for replacement; activities related to the passage of a military medical commission by military personnel and members of their families, Volga Federal District, preparation and referral to the Directorate of their personal affairs to be completed by June 1, 2013; study and approval of submitted candidates must be completed by July 1, 2013; the use of vacations by these military personnel must be completed by July 1, 2013; The transfer of military personnel to new places of military service should be completed by September 1, 2013, and the personnel department of the PS FSB of Russia should be informed monthly about the progress of the work.
Thus, from the extract from the order of the deputy head of the FSB PS of Russia No. dated December 19, 2013, it is clear that as of December 15, 2013, replacement employees from the Arkhangelsk PS (2) did not arrive at the FSB of Russia PS in the Chechen Republic.
From the extract from the order of the head of the Border Guard Service of the FSB of Russia No. dated January 16, 2014, it can be seen that the border department, as of January 10, 2014, has not carried out a planned replacement of border guard officers - the FSB of Russia Directorate for the Republic of Dagestan - 3 people (100%). PU of the FSB of Russia for the Chechen Republic - 4 people (66%), the order of the FSB of Russia dated December 15, 1999 No. No. regarding the preparation of a plan for the replacement of military personnel serving under contract in the regions of the Far North and equivalent areas was not implemented, as well as instructions were given to conduct an investigation into these facts.
An extract from the plan for the replacement (recruitment) by military personnel of the Border Directorate of the FSB of Russia for the Arkhangelsk Region of employees who served the established terms in regions with a difficult operational situation for 2013 confirms that one serviceman arrived from the Border Directorate of the FSB of Russia for the Chechen Republic without replacement, the replacement of four more servicemen (who arrived at the Border Department of the FSB of Russia in the Chechen Republic from other regions) was not carried out; replacement of military personnel from the Border Directorate of the FSB of Russia for the Republic of Dagestan was not carried out, since one of the candidates was withdrawn, and another candidate to replace the withdrawn serviceman was not selected, approval of two more candidates was carried out after the expiration of the established deadlines - personal files were sent to the Directorate only on August 12 2013, approval was completed on October 14, 2013, there was no loss of military personnel in the Directorate for the Republic of Dagestan.
As can be seen from the conclusion based on the results of the proceedings approved by the head of the Border Department of the FSB of Russia on February 13, 2014, in relation to Colonel V.N. Fominsky. a trial was held in which circumstances mitigating disciplinary liability were indicated - the repentance of the serviceman and aggravating disciplinary liability - the commission of two disciplinary offenses, for none of which disciplinary action was applied to the serviceman, he was familiar with this conclusion and had no comments.
From the sheet of familiarization with the rights of a serviceman subject to disciplinary liability dated February 13, 2013, it is clear that Fominsky made the familiarization on the specified date.
Fominsky’s explanations dated January 26, 2014 confirm that the lists of military personnel serving under contract in the Far North and equivalent areas to be replaced in 2014 have not been submitted since 2011, there were no comments on this issue, and since 26 employees The departments to be replaced in 2014 did not apply for transfer reports to a new duty station, and accordingly, no coordination was carried out on the issue of their further military service.
Fominsky’s report dated January 22, 2014 confirms that he admits his guilt for incomplete implementation of the plan to replace military personnel who served the established terms in the territory of the Chechen Republic and the Republic of Dagestan, and asks that when applying disciplinary punishment, his long absence from service be recognized as a mitigating circumstance.
According to extracts from the orders of the Head of the Department dated October 3, 2013 No. No., dated October 31, 2013 No. No., dated November 12, 2013 No. No. and dated December 6, 2013 No. No., Colonel V.N. Fominsky. did not perform official duties during the periods from September 10 to September 27, from October 5 to October 26 and from November 15 to December 27, 2013 due to illness and the provision of vacation and rest days, respectively.
As can be seen from the extract from the order of the head of the Department dated February 14, 2014 No. No., to the deputy head of the Department - head of the personnel department, Colonel V.N. Fominsky, for failure to complete the assigned task and insufficient management of the department to control its activities and the quality of work, the execution of orders in it , as well as organizing work on the formation and execution of command reserves of military personnel and civilian personnel in regions with a difficult operational situation, areas with unfavorable climatic conditions, and other reserves created at the direction of the leadership of the FSB of Russia, the Border Service of the FSB of Russia and on the basis of the conclusion based on the results of the proceedings announced severe reprimand.
Articles 28.1-28.10 of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation No. 76-FZ of May 27, 1998 “On the status of military personnel” (hereinafter referred to as the Federal Law) regulate the procedure for bringing military personnel to disciplinary liability.
Article 16 of the Regulations on the procedure for military service, approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of September 16, 1999 No. 1237 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations), establishes that military personnel undergoing military service under a contract in the regions of the Far North and equivalent areas are subject to planned replacement. areas with unfavorable climatic or environmental conditions, as well as in military units located outside the Russian Federation. The duration of military service in the specified areas and the lists of these areas are determined by the Government of the Russian Federation.
Part 2 of Art. 16 of the Regulations stipulate that the procedure for organizing and conducting planned replacement of military personnel is established by the heads of the federal executive authorities in which military service is provided.
According to the provisions of paragraph 4 of Art. 16 of the Regulations, a serviceman may continue military service in the area where the period of military service is established, based on official necessity and with his consent. In this case, the additional period of military service must be established in agreement with the serviceman and be at least one year.
As can be seen from clause 2 of the Procedure for organizing and carrying out the planned replacement of military personnel of the Federal Security Service performing military service under a contract in the Far North and equivalent areas, areas with unfavorable climatic or environmental conditions, as well as performing military service outside the Russian Federation ", approved by order of the FSB of Russia dated December 15, 1999 No. military service in security agencies in areas where the period of military service is established, are transferred as a planned replacement to the security agencies from where they were sent.
Thus, clause 3 of the Procedure determines that a serviceman undergoing military service in an area where the period of military service is established may refuse a planned replacement and continue serving in the specified area.
Clause 8 of the Procedure provides that in order to organize the planned replacement of military personnel annually, before November 1 of the current year, lists of military personnel to be replaced in the next year.
Analyzing the above, the military court comes to the conclusion that Fominsky, being the deputy head of the Directorate - head of the personnel department, by virtue of his duties had to control the length of stay of military personnel in areas with unfavorable climatic conditions, as well as in areas with a difficult operational situation, providing for restrictions on the time of their stay, conduct a high-quality selection of candidates for deployment to these areas, compile and send to personnel authorities lists of military personnel serving in areas with unfavorable climatic conditions and subject to planned replacement, the latter was not compiled and sent to a higher personnel authority, and the applicant Fominsky himself did not deny this fact either during the proceedings or during the court hearing, and, in addition, part of the measures in the plan for the transfer of military personnel who served the established terms on the territory of the Chechen Republic and the Republic of Dagestan was not completed within the established period, and they themselves the military personnel were never transferred to the specified Border Directorates, while the Directorate was not exempted from carrying out these activities, and therefore, after identifying the indicated shortcomings, an official investigation was carried out within the established ten-day period, as a result of which the head of the Directorate, within the limits of his authority, issued order No. No. dated February 14, 2014 on bringing Fominsky to disciplinary liability, which is legal and justified, and Fominsky’s statement is not justified and cannot be satisfied.
The applicant's arguments that the 26 employees of the Department to be replaced in 2014 were not subject to inclusion in the list, since each of them expressed a desire to continue serving in these areas and, accordingly, he should not have provided the list in the absence of such military personnel, and that the head of the Department had the authority to independently transfer such military personnel if they expressed a corresponding desire or the appearance of an official need, are rejected by the court, since the current regulatory legal acts clearly provide for the compilation of lists of planned replacements and their submission to a higher personnel authority, and from No one relieved Fominsky of this responsibility.
In addition, the court also rejects the applicant’s arguments that the Directorate had no obligation to replace military personnel who were not sent by the Directorate to areas with a difficult operational situation, since such a responsibility was assigned to the Directorate by a replacement plan approved by a higher command in the prescribed manner, and this plan was not cancelled.
As for Fominsky’s arguments that when imposing a disciplinary sanction, the head of the Department incorrectly identified aggravating circumstances, all the circumstances were not taken into account when determining his guilt, the omission to weaken control over the implementation of the plan is not a disciplinary offense, correspondence and reports in part were not taken into account concerning doubts about the execution of the plan, these arguments are also rejected by the court, since the Federal Law establishes an exhaustive list of aggravating circumstances, one of which is the commission of two or more disciplinary offenses, for none of which a disciplinary sanction was applied to the serviceman, as can be seen from the conclusion Based on the results of the trial, all of the above facts were taken into account when imposing a disciplinary sanction, and in addition, although the fact of Fominsky’s long absence from service in the fall of 2013 was confirmed at the court hearing, however, the deadline for completing the action plan expired on September 1, 2013, after which The applicant did not perform military service for a long time.
Guided by Art. Art. - , 258 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, military court
DECIDED:
To refuse the application of Fominsky V.N.
The decision can be appealed on appeal to the Northern Fleet Military Court through the Arkhangelsk Garrison Military Court within a month from the date of the final decision of the court.
The presiding judge in the case is S.S. Veselovsky
In the course of developing and implementing decisions related to general or special areas of the internal affairs department’s work, as well as when analyzing the results of the activities of bodies as a whole or within specific services, the concept of “operational situation” is often used. Despite the apparent obviousness, the question of clarifying this term is fraught with certain difficulties. Let us next consider what the operational situation is.
Terminology problem
The difficulty in clarifying the definition is primarily due to the lack of legal interpretation. This is due to the fact that the term “operational environment” refers primarily to management activities. In addition, there are several approaches to interpretation by representatives of science and practitioners. The most common, however, is the criminological approach. In accordance with it, the key element is crime in its various manifestations.
Operational environment: definitions
As mentioned above, in science and practice there are several approaches to explaining the term. Thus, according to V.D. Malkov, the operational situation is associated with changes in the socio-demographic characteristics of the population, the structure and dynamics of crime, as well as the subject composition of the acts. G. A. Tumanov expresses the opposite point of view regarding the content of the term in question. In his opinion, the definition depends on the conditions and factors of the external environment. Tumanov considers it all public systems that are not covered by the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
He includes economic-geographical, climatic, socio-demographic and other factors. At the same time, crime acts as one of the components of the external environment. It is considered as a specific system. G. G. Zuikov believes that the operational situation gives an idea of the information content of the work of the internal affairs department. It reflects the crime rate, environmental conditions and public order. According to Zuykov, the assessment of the operational situation is carried out based on information about the acts committed, the circle of persons falling within the sphere of authority of law enforcement agencies, as well as the conditions and reasons for illegal actions. 
conclusions
When comparing the above interpretations, it can be noted that the definition given by Malkov is too narrow in content. With this approach, it is impossible to obtain a complete picture of the state of the operational situation. In this case, we can only state the current level of crime. At the same time, the likelihood of taking proactive measures seems quite low. The definition provides an abstract analysis of the phenomenon of crime. It does not take into account the factors that cause it and are associated with it.
Tumanov's approach seems more correct. However, it does not clearly define the external factors that are significant. At the same time, Tumanov does not raise the question of the need to take administrative violations into account. He indicates that they can be considered as a component of the operational environment. This approach not only deprives the definition of clarity, but also significantly complicates the practice of its application. Zuikov's interpretation seems to be the most meaningful. But even in it, the description of external conditions requires adjustment. First of all, it is necessary to specify social and economic factors. 
Additionally
In management theory, there is another approach to the concept of the operational environment. In accordance with it, the phenomenon under consideration is presented as a system that consists of two structured subsystems. They are the external environment in which the Ministry of Internal Affairs and its divisions operate. The second subsystem is the law enforcement agency itself, which functions within its competence. Indicators characterizing the external environment are socio-political, economic, ideological, demographic, national, geographical and other factors. As for the law enforcement agency, which acts as a relatively isolated subsystem, the range of characteristics is outlined by its means and forces. Common to both components is the indicator of crime and other violations of law and order. 
Explanations
All the interpretations presented above characterize the essence of the operational situation with a certain level of reliability. However, there is a significant drawback that can be traced in them. It is associated with an underestimation of the importance of the entire complex of factors that determine the operational situation. If we talk about a comprehensive analysis, the above authors take into account only the level and results of the fight against criminal manifestations. In this case, we are not talking about a system, but only about a phenomenon that does not represent any practical significance.
Crime level
Isolating this indicator as the only one or a priority when analyzing the operational situation allows us to evaluate the work of mainly the criminal police. At the same time, public security agencies are relegated to the background. Their work is only partially analyzed. At the same time, it is the public security agencies that are called upon to maintain law and order. It follows that the definition must include a broad concept of violation of the law. This will allow us to move from quantitative to qualitative characteristics. 
Specifics of the analysis
Due to their massive nature, administrative offenses have a significant impact on the crime level, creating favorable conditions for its increase. If they are not taken into account, a rather complex operational environment may arise. At the same time, law enforcement agencies will not be able to correct the situation in a short time. In addition, they can act as a factor shaping public opinion about law and order and the work of police departments in specific regions. Certain changes in the indicators that characterize the areas of activity of the criminal police cannot act as the only, much less objective, justification for the deterioration or improvement of the operational situation. It should not be reduced solely to the level of crime, since along with it administrative offenses also belong to the objects of organizational and legal regulation. 
Systems approach
Using it, you can most fully explain the concept of the operational environment. In accordance with the systemic approach, it represents the level of crime and administrative violations, public safety, law enforcement, expressed by a set of quantitative and qualitative indicators, as well as related socio-political, demographic, economic processes, destabilizing or stabilizing factors that are of significant importance for a specific territory at a given time. The operational situation, in addition, reflects the effectiveness of organizational and legal measures established by law and applied by police officers in their work.
Case No. 76 Copy
SOLUTION
IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Bryansk Garrison Military Court consisting of:
presiding judge - judge N.Yu. Zaitseva, with secretary O.V. Gulina, with the participation of the applicant M.P. Krylovsky, his representative M.A. Kamyshnikov, representatives of the chief<данные изъяты> – <данные изъяты>Ponasenko A.V. And<данные изъяты>Kibalchich A.A., assistant military prosecutor of the Bryansk garrison<данные изъяты>Isachenko V.N., having considered in open court a civil case at the request of a former military man under contract<данные изъяты>Krylovsky M.P. on challenging the actions and decisions of the boss<данные изъяты>related to his illegal dismissal from military service -
installed:
Krylovsky filed a statement in court challenging the actions of his boss<данные изъяты>related to his illegal dismissal from military service.
Believing his rights have been violated, the applicant asks the court to cancel the boss’s order<данные изъяты>about his dismissal from military service and reinstate him in the lists of personnel<данные изъяты>in a previously held position.
At the court hearing, the applicant and his representative Kamyshnikov supported the stated demands and insisted on their satisfaction in full. At the same time, the applicant confirmed that a full settlement of monetary and clothing allowances had been made to him.
In support of his position, the applicant’s representative pointed out that Krylovsky did not violate the terms of the contract. For a disciplinary offense, expressed in violation of Articles 19, 34 and 43 of the Charter of the Internal Service of the RF Armed Forces, he had already been severely reprimanded; for the same offense he did not have the right to bring him to disciplinary liability a second time in the form of dismissal from military service due to failure to comply terms of the contract.
Also, according to Kamyshnikov, the certification procedure for the applicant, provided for in Article 26 of the Regulations on the Procedure for Military Service, was violated in relation to the applicant, since he was initially prepared for dismissal due to his refusal to perform military service in regions with a difficult operational situation in the absence of other reasons that could serve as a basis for his early dismissal from military service.
At the same time, according to the applicant’s representative, the procedure for transferring military personnel to a new place of military service, established by Article 15 of the Regulations on the Procedure for Military Service, was violated.
Chief's representatives<данные изъяты>Ponasenko and Kibalchich, at the court hearing, did not recognize the applicant’s demands and, considering the actions of the military official they represented to be legal, asked the court to refuse Krylovsky’s application.
Further, the representatives, complementing each other, explained that the dismissal procedure in accordance with the current legislation of the Russian Federation was observed, and the dismissal was carried out not as part of the implementation of a disciplinary sanction, but in connection with the applicant’s failure to comply with the terms of the contract, which was expressed in a systematic violation of military discipline (previously he was repeatedly involved to disciplinary liability) and the presence of an outstanding disciplinary sanction “severe reprimand”.
Also, Ponasenko’s representative pointed out that the applicant’s refusal to perform military service in regions with a difficult operational situation indicates Krylovsky’s dishonest performance of his duties and is a violation of Article 9 of the Code of Ethics and Official Conduct of Employees<данные изъяты>, prescribing<данные изъяты>be prepared to move for further military service to other regions, including those with difficult operational conditions.
Having heard the explanations of the parties, as well as the conclusion of the prosecutor, who considered the applicant’s demands not to be satisfied, and having examined the evidence presented, the military court finds no grounds for satisfying Krylovsky’s application.
At the court hearing it was established that Krylovsky served in military service<данные изъяты>
According to the boss's order<данные изъяты>No.-ls from DD.MM.YYYY Krylovsky was dismissed from military service to the reserve due to failure to fulfill the terms of the contract (subparagraph “c” of paragraph 2 of Article 51 of the Federal Law “On Military Duty and Military Service”) and was excluded from the lists of personnel<данные изъяты>with DD.MM.YYYY.
In accordance with subparagraph “c” of paragraph 2 of Article 51 of the Federal Law “On Military Duty and Military Service”, a soldier performing military service under a contract may be early dismissed from military service due to his failure to fulfill the terms of the contract.
As follows from the contract for military service, Krylovsky accepted the obligation to conscientiously perform all general, official and special duties of military personnel established by legislative and other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation.
Based on the requirements of Article 26 of the Federal Law on the Status of Military Personnel, military personnel are obliged to strictly comply with the Constitution and laws of the Russian Federation, the requirements of general military regulations, unquestioningly carry out the orders of commanders, and the provisions of Article 16 of the Charter of the Internal Service of the RF Armed Forces oblige the serviceman to be disciplined.
According to an extract from the order of the Acting Chief<данные изъяты>from DD.MM.YYYY No.-ls, based on the materials of the proceedings from DD.MM.YYYY, Krylovsky was given a “severe reprimand” for an offense committed in violation of Articles 19, 34 and 43 of the Charter of the Internal Service of the RF Armed Forces.
A copy of the conclusion based on the results of the inspection and investigation into the accident involving warrant officer I.V. Yurchenko. from DD.MM.YYYY it is confirmed that Krylovsky is part of a group of military personnel<данные изъяты>committed an offense that consisted of violating the boss’s ban on drinking alcoholic beverages, which resulted in an accident that resulted in the death of a person.
In accordance with the extract from minutes No. 2 of the meeting of the certification commission<данные изъяты>from DD.MM.YYYY, held with the participation of the applicant on the issue of his early dismissal from military service, Krylovsky does not meet the requirements for official conduct, dishonestly performs general, official and special duties, and also refuses to perform military service in regions with complex operational situation, in connection with which it is advisable to apply for his dismissal from military service to the reserve on the grounds provided for in subparagraph “c” of paragraph 2 of Article 51 of the Federal Law “On Military Duty and Military Service” (due to the serviceman’s failure to fulfill the terms of the contract).
As follows from the representative’s explanations<данные изъяты>Ponasenko, this decision was made by the commission after a comprehensive and complete study of the applicant’s official activities, as well as characterizing documents, including his service card, from which it is clear that he was repeatedly brought to disciplinary liability in the period from 2009 to 2011.
From the conclusion on failure to fulfill the terms of the contract by Krylovsky dated March 15, 2012, it follows that during his military service he established himself as follows: he has deficiencies in professional knowledge, performs his general, official and special duties in bad faith, is undisciplined, has an outstanding disciplinary sanction in the form of “ severe reprimand,” and also refuses to perform military service in regions with a difficult operational situation.
Thus, it is clear that the boss<данные изъяты>when carrying out activities prior to Krylovsky’s dismissal from military service, all the requirements of Article 34 of the Regulations on the procedure for military service were met. Officials analyzed the applicant’s official activities and attitude to military duty; they saw no reason to doubt the validity of the officials’ actions in relation to Krylovsky upon his dismissal from military service.
Based on the above, the military court comes to the conclusion that the command, which by law was granted the right to evaluate the performance results of its subordinates, had sufficient grounds for Krylovsky’s dismissal from military service due to his failure to comply with the terms of the contract for military service and, as a consequence, the legality of the superior’s order challenged by the applicant<данные изъяты>about early dismissal on the specified grounds.
In coming to this conclusion, the court takes into account the presence of an outstanding disciplinary sanction against the applicant, the negative characterization of his official activities by officials<данные изъяты>taking into account previous violations of military discipline, as well as his failure to comply with Article 9 of the Code of Ethics and Official Conduct<данные изъяты>, which instructs these employees to be prepared to move for further military service to other regions, including those with difficult operational conditions. As follows from Chapter 4 of this Code, violation by employees of its provisions is subject to consideration, including at meetings of certification commissions. The fact that the applicant was familiar with the Code is not disputed by him and is confirmed by an extract from Minutes No. 2 of the meeting of the Management Attestation Commission.
At the same time, since Krylovsky’s transfer to a new duty station with a difficult operational situation was not carried out according to the established procedure, his disagreement with such a transfer cannot be recognized by the court as his failure to fulfill the terms of the contract, however, this circumstance does not affect the above conclusion of the court about the legality of the applicant’s dismissal due to the basis he disputes.
Since the court established the fact of Krylovsky’s dismissal from military service not as a disciplinary sanction, but in accordance with the Federal Law “On Military Duty and Military Service,” the arguments of the applicant’s representative to the contrary are untenable.
In addition, according to paragraph 13 of Article 34 of the Regulations on the procedure for military service, approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of September 16, 1999 No. 1237, giving an opinion from the certification commission for dismissal from military service on the basis provided for in subparagraph “c” of paragraph 2 of Article 51 of the Federal of the Law “On Military Duty and Military Service” (due to the serviceman’s failure to comply with the terms of the contract) is not a mandatory condition preceding the dismissal of a serviceman from military service on the above grounds.
The arguments set out in the statement that a full settlement was not made with the applicant were also not confirmed at the court hearing; on the contrary, they are refuted by certificate No. 192 dated May 4, 2012 and Krylovsky’s explanations.
Other grounds for illegality of dismissal and exclusion of the applicant from the lists of personnel<данные изъяты>was not presented to the court.
Based on the above, guided by art. Art. 194, 196-199 and 258 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, military court
decided:
In satisfaction of the application of Krylovsky M.P. on challenging actions and decisions<данные изъяты>related to his illegal dismissal from military service - to refuse.
The decision can be appealed on appeal to the Moscow District Military Court through the Bryansk Garrison Military Court within a month from the date of the final decision of the court.
The presiding judge in the case, N.Yu. Zaitseva
Secretary of the court session O.V. Gulina