The law allows women with medical and pharmaceutical education to be registered for military service without their personal presence, but there are no mechanisms for the forced conscription of such women from abroad, lawyers interviewed by the Interfax-Ukraine news agency explained.
“The obligation to register for military service does indeed exist. If a person is physically outside Ukraine, they must notify the territorial recruitment center at their place of registration, in particular by email, that they are temporarily abroad. However, there is no mechanism that would allow the state to forcibly return a citizen to fulfill this obligation. This also applies to those who are abroad under the temporary protection mechanism,” said Zoryana Skaletska, partner at Ario Law Firm and Minister of Health in 2019-2020.
She noted that in the context of military registration of women with medical or pharmaceutical education, “it is important to distinguish between the concepts of ‘compulsory’ and ‘automatic’ registration.”
“Compulsory always means restriction of freedom, and we do not have such mechanisms. However, automatic registration is indeed provided for. The Cabinet of Ministers’ resolution of July 30, 2025, allows such women to be registered for military service without their personal presence,” she said.
Skaletskaya explained that there are currently three mechanisms through which women with medical or pharmaceutical education can be entered into the Unified State Register of Conscripts, Military Service Obligators, and Reservists: through an educational institution, through a personal message, and through an employer.
“Thus, ‘automatic registration’ actually takes place through official notification of the educational institution or employer, but does not imply coercion or physical control by the state,” Skaletskaya noted.
She also emphasized that the law does not provide for separate liability specifically for women with medical or pharmaceutical education who have not registered for military service, since there are now general rules on violations of the law on military duty and military service, which provide for a fine of 850 to 1,700 hryvnia.
“Theoretically, this article can also be applied to women who have the relevant education but have not applied to the TCC and SP, especially if they are not employed and received their diploma many years ago. However, in practice, the application of this norm is still limited,” she noted.
Skaletskaya pointed out that the TCC and SP will only be able to automatically identify such persons when the Unified State Register of Conscripts, Military Service Obligators, and Reservists has technical access to the Ministry of Education’s diploma database.
“Currently, such interaction between the registers has not been introduced, so we do not see active prosecution of female medical professionals who have not registered,” she said.
Skaletskaya pointed out that “the practice of submitting information about female graduates of medical institutions to military registration and enlistment offices existed even before the current changes, but now we have another problem: the data in the registers is often not updated.”
“If we talk about the practical meaning of this control, its purpose is not punishment, but the ability to quickly recruit medical specialists if necessary for the defense sector. But it is important to understand that even in this case, a woman can only be recruited after passing a military medical commission (VVC), and not all of them are recognized as fit for service based on its results,” the lawyer emphasized.
She also noted that military registration control applies to all enterprises regardless of ownership, including private clinics.
For her part, Galina Chernyakina, a lawyer at Barristers, noted that the registration of women with medical or pharmaceutical education is exclusively a registration measure and is not equivalent to mobilization, i.e., it does not in itself mean compulsory conscription or military service without a corresponding decision by the state.
At the same time, she noted that “restrictions on traveling abroad during martial law apply exclusively to male citizens of Ukraine between the ages of 18 and 60 who are subject to military registration and mobilization, while women who have medical or pharmaceutical education and are subject to military service are not restricted in their right to travel abroad, even during a period of general mobilization.”
“Accordingly, women who are abroad under a temporary protection program or on other grounds cannot be forcibly returned to Ukraine for military registration, mobilization, or military service,” she said.
Chernyakina noted that the main type of liability for violating military registration rules is administrative, which provides for fines, and criminal liability can only arise in the case of actual evasion of mobilization after receiving a summons.
“However, so far, the practice of bringing women who are subject to military registration in accordance with the law to administrative or criminal responsibility is rare,” she said.
Source: https://ru.interfax.com.ua/news/general/1114670.html
Barristers, LAWYER, LEGISLATION, military registration, pharmaceutical education, WOMEN, Чернякіна
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has recognized that M.S.L. does not have effective legal remedies for its complaints in Ukraine. This decision is the first substantive decision in the ECHR’s practice against Ukraine regarding the application of sanctions in accordance with the Ukrainian law “On Sanctions.”
As Elvira Lazarenko, a partner at the Barristers law firm, told the Interfax-Ukraine news agency, the relevant decision in the case of M.S.L., TOV v. UKRAINE” was published by the ECHR on October 16, 2025 (https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-245275%22]}).
Lazarenko noted that “today, there is a fairly well-established practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in ‘sanctions cases’, which states that there is limited possibility for judicial review of decisions by state bodies on the application of sanctions due to the discretionary powers of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine and the President of Ukraine to resolve issues of national security.”
“This practice has long been criticized by lawyers, as it demonstrated the de facto refusal of Ukrainian courts to review the factual grounds for the application of sanctions, i.e., a refusal to administer justice properly. The decision in M.S.L., TOV v. UKRAINE is important in that it raises questions about the limits of judicial review by Ukrainian courts of decisions on the application of sanctions and the possibility for courts to assess the significance of the risks that form the basis for the application of sanctions to individuals in accordance with the Ukrainian law “On Sanctions,” she said.
Lazarenko recalled that the case “M.S.L., TOV v. UKRAINE“ concerned the appeal by the company ”M.S.L.” against sanctions imposed on it by a decision of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine and enacted in 2015 by a decree of the President of Ukraine, with the subsequent extension of the sanctions by decrees in 2016 and 2017.
The applicant company complained that the imposition of sanctions, in particular the freezing of assets, constituted an interference with its rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as it was prohibited from using and disposing of its assets. The applicant company also raised an issue under Article 13 of the Convention in connection with its lack of an effective remedy for the violation of its property rights.
At the national level, the Ukrainian courts dismissed the applicant company’s claim regarding the first Presidential Decree of Ukraine, and the company withdrew its claims regarding the second and third Decrees.
“In dismissing the company’s claim, the national courts refused to assess the factual grounds for the application of sanctions, referring to the discretionary powers of the authorities that had issued the contested decisions. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court indicated that the scope and results of the president’s assessment of the significance of the risks that served as the basis for imposing sanctions on the applicant company are beyond the scope of judicial review, since the administrative court does not have the competence to make decisions on matters of national security and defense,” the lawyer explained.
She noted that, in appealing to the ECHR, the company claimed, in particular, that the national courts had failed to administer justice because they had not examined whether the state authorities had sufficient grounds for imposing sanctions and whether those grounds were supported by any evidence.
“Moreover, the restriction of the scope of judicial review was not based on any provision of national law. In the company’s opinion, the president’s discretionary powers on national security issues should not limit judicial review by national courts or exempt courts from the obligation to verify the grounds for sanctions in accordance with the sanctions law,” Lazarenko said.
The lawyer noted that the ECHR, in turn, pointed out that the decisions of the national courts lacked a substantive judicial assessment of the decision to impose sanctions on the applicant company. In particular, the Supreme Court limited its analysis to the sole question of whether the decision of the NSDC and the first presidential decree complied with the formal requirements of the sanctions law and did not address the substance of the SBU’s allegations against the applicant company.
“Due to the fact that the courts did not verify whether the first presidential decree had a solid factual basis, the ECHR concluded that such judicial review could not be considered a sufficient procedural guarantee against arbitrariness. Accordingly, the ECHR recognized the interference with the applicant company’s right to peaceful enjoyment of property as unlawful,” she said.
In addition, Lazarenko noted that the ECHR, referring to its conclusion about the lack of adequate procedural safeguards against arbitrariness during the judicial review of the decision to apply sanctions, as well as the ineffectiveness of the company’s complaints to the SBU, concluded that the applicant company did not have effective legal remedies for its complaints.
“Given the established status of ECHR practice as a source of law, we expect an appropriate response to the ECHR’s decision in M.S.L., TOV v. UKRAINE,“ from the Administrative Court of Cassation and the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, as the courts of first and appellate instance designated to review decisions on the application of sanctions,” the lawyer concluded.
Diplomatic Legal Hub, a permanent consulting and legal center for foreign diplomatic institutions, businesses, and citizens, has been presented in Kyiv. It was created on the initiative of Barristers LLC in cooperation with Ukrainian lawyers. The platform is designed to provide continuous legal support to foreigners in Ukraine and reduce the administrative burden on embassies and companies, particularly in matters related to migration, criminal, economic, tax, and martial law issues.
Oleksiy Shevchuk, partner at Barristers and spokesperson for the Ukrainian National Bar Association (UNBA), emphasized that the hub will function as a practical mechanism for providing immediate assistance.
“Today we are presenting a platform where any representative of an embassy, foreign business, or foreign citizen can report their problem online 24/7 and receive appropriate support. Our team will use, among other things, universal jurisdiction tools to protect against persecution,” he said at a press conference at the Interfax-Ukraine agency on Wednesday.
According to Shevchuk, foreign citizens often remain without adequate state protection in wartime, so the team’s task is to provide them with fast and high-quality legal support.
Elvira Lazarenko, a partner at Barristers, outlined the hub’s service model.
“We provide support throughout the entire cycle — from crossing the border and proper documentation to resolving disputes with the migration service, customs, and in court. For at least the next two years, assistance to foreign citizens will be provided pro bono,” she said.
Yaroslav Kuts, lawyer, deputy head of the UNAA Information Policy Committee, and partner at a2kat, emphasized Ukraine’s openness to foreigners and investments and explained that the hub was created not only to provide assistance during martial law, but also with a view to post-war recovery, when business activity and migration are expected to grow. “
”Despite the war, we remain a country that is open with all our heart and soul to foreigners and foreign investment. The hub was created not only for the present — it is working with an eye toward post-war recovery, when the activity of foreign citizens and businesses will increase,” he added.
In turn, Oleksandr Oliinyk, managing partner of VIDSICH Law Firm and chairman of the Criminal Law and Procedure Committee of the Kharkiv Regional Bar Association, drew attention to the risks for companies with a foreign element.
“During the period of full-scale war, according to our data, more than 500 criminal proceedings have been opened against enterprises and individuals with a foreign component; in some cases, the indictment materials have already been sent to court. Ukraine has an institution of criminal liability for legal entities — sanctions may apply not only to officials but also to companies as a whole,” Oliynyk noted.
During the event, it was emphasized that the platform will also assist with practical issues, from opening bank accounts to contractual support, and is designed to close the “service gap,” as foreigners are currently forced to seek comprehensive assistance mainly in the private sector.
The organizers announced the creation of a hub secretariat and the availability of an online form for inquiries. Olga Tanyushkina, who initiated the approach whereby lawyers devote part of their time to providing free legal assistance to foreigners helping Ukraine, is named as the program’s ideologist.
Diplomatic Legal Hub was initiated by Barristers LLC in cooperation with Ukrainian lawyers and with the support of the Interfax-Ukraine news agency. Key areas include migration law, criminal and commercial proceedings, tax disputes, investment and financial transaction support. The platform is positioned as a legal support tool for diplomatic institutions, businesses, and citizens, available 24/7.
Source: https://interfax.com.ua/news/press-conference/1110786.html
Barristers, Diplomatic Legal Hub, Kuts, Oliynyk, UNAA, Лазаренко, ШЕВЧУК
The International Commission for the Examination of Claims of Ukraine, established as a special body under the auspices of the Council of Europe, will consider claims for damage caused since February 24, 2022, by the unlawful actions of the Russian Federation, in particular its aggression against Ukraine in violation of the UN Charter, as well as violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law.
As explained to Interfax-Ukraine by Oleksiy Shevchuk, spokesperson for the Ukrainian National Bar Association (UNBA), partner and representative of Barristers JSC, the Commission will consider claims relating to damage, loss, or injury caused by internationally unlawful actions of the Russian Federation. The commission will consider claims relating to damage, loss, or injury caused by internationally wrongful acts of the Russian Federation.
Claims may be submitted by individuals and legal entities, as well as by the state of Ukraine together with its authorities and state-owned or controlled enterprises.
The main task of the commission will be to consider, evaluate, and make decisions on claims for compensation for losses caused by internationally wrongful acts of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine or against it. At the same time, the commission should become a key instrument in the international justice system aimed at documenting and compensating for losses caused by aggression.
One of the key steps in launching the commission’s work will be the transfer of functions and materials from the Register of Losses to it, and the secretariat will be formed on the basis of the current secretariat of the Register.
It is expected that the commission will have a permanent location in one of the countries acceding to the Convention.
In addition, there are plans to establish a commission office in Ukraine to assist in the performance of its functions.
“The commission’s mandate clearly defines its main task: to review, evaluate, and decide on claims submitted, determining the amount of compensation to be paid in each specific case. The key principle of its activity is the initial position that Russia bears international legal responsibility for all losses, damages, and harm caused by its illegal actions against Ukraine,” Shevchuk noted.
He stressed that the commission will have the authority to consider all aspects related to the resolution of claims, from administrative and financial to legal and political. The commission’s verdicts and decisions, in particular those concerning the amount of compensation, are final and not subject to appeal.
Shevchuk explained that the need to establish an international commission to consider claims is based on the basic principles of international law, which obliges the offending state to fully compensate for the damage caused by its illegal actions. In the case of Ukraine, this refers to the massive losses caused by the Russian Federation’s aggression.
“Reparation is not only a legal obligation but also a moral necessity: victims must receive justice and the opportunity to overcome the consequences of their experiences. The 2022 UN General Assembly resolution on legal remedies and reparations for aggression against Ukraine clearly stated that Russia must be held accountable for all violations of international law in Ukraine or against it. This responsibility includes compensation for the damage caused by unlawful actions,” he said.
The concept was developed by the Council of Europe, which assumed the authority to develop a mechanism for compensation for damages. It was confirmed in the 2023 Reykjavik Summit Declaration and provides for three consecutive elements: the already established Register of Losses for Ukraine, which has received more than 60,000 applications; the future work of the International Claims Review Commission as a compensation body; and the establishment of a special compensation fund, which will serve as the financial basis for compensation.
Bill No. 13673, which proposes to increase liability for illegal border crossing, does not yet have real enforcement mechanisms, according to Sergey Derevyanko, a lawyer with the Barristers law firm.
“The bill is incomplete, in particular because it is unclear how, for example, those who have left the temporarily occupied territories outside Ukraine and cannot return to their country for various reasons, such as serious illness or caring for a close relative with a disability, should act. According to the bill, such persons must return to Ukraine before the law comes into force or within three months after that, otherwise they will be held criminally liable, which, of course, violates the rights of such persons,” he told Interfax-Ukraine.
Derevyanko also noted that “it is unclear what to do with those people who, possibly without the relevant documents, left Ukraine at the beginning of the war for certain reasons and subsequently did not and do not have the opportunity to return to Ukraine in the near future.”
“This raises a number of questions, in particular, how and to whom these people, while abroad, should report their circumstances, given that changes to the Criminal Code regarding illegal crossing of the state border provide for exemption from criminal liability only on condition that persons who have been outside the country for three months from the moment of crossing the state border have returned to the territory of Ukraine and, before being notified of their suspicion of committing this criminal offense, have voluntarily reported what happened to the law enforcement agency,”
The lawyer also noted that the bill proposes to abolish criminal liability for violating the procedure for moving goods to or from the area of the anti-terrorist operation, “which is logical, since martial law has been introduced in Ukraine and, accordingly, the anti-terrorist operation is not yet being conducted.”
In addition, the bill provides for liability for obstructing the development of border infrastructure (obstructing the construction, development, or destruction/damage of engineering and technical or fortification structures, fences, border signs, border clearings, checkpoints across the state border of Ukraine, etc.).
Derevianko also drew attention to the bill’s provision on liability for conscripts, persons liable for military service, or reservists who violate the period of stay outside Ukraine established by law.
In addition, the bill proposes to increase liability for the illegal transfer of persons across the state border of Ukraine in conditions of martial law or a state of emergency.
“The purpose of the bill is to prevent evasion of conscription for military service through mobilization by ‘fleeing’ abroad, and to provide conscripts with the opportunity to return to Ukraine. If the bill is adopted, after three months, persons of draft age who illegally crossed the state border during martial law and did not return from abroad will be held criminally liable,” he said.
Commenting on what is meant by the “period of stay outside Ukraine under martial law established by law” specified in the bill, Derevyanko explained that “the current legislation does not provide a clear definition, but the terms of stay outside Ukraine for certain categories of citizens during martial law and a state of emergency are defined by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 57 of January 27, 1995.”
“As an example, according to the aforementioned resolution, athletes included in the national teams of Ukraine may stay abroad continuously for no more than 30 calendar days from the date of crossing the state border, but not less than the duration of the event specified in the Unified Calendar Plan of Physical Culture, Health, Sports Events, and Sports Competitions of Ukraine for the corresponding year,” he said.
“It turns out that, as of today, there are no mechanisms for implementing the bill,” the lawyer concluded.
As reported, the Cabinet of Ministers submitted bill No. 13673 to the Verkhovna Rada, which proposes to increase the liability for illegal crossing of the state border.
It is noted that while in 2021 border guards recorded just over 3,000 illegal crossings of the state border of Ukraine, in 2022 such offenses more than doubled, in 2023 there were almost 10,000, in 2024, there will be more than 20,000, and in the first quarter of this year, almost 4,678 persons liable for military service were detained, which is 10% more than in the same period last year (4,539 persons).
The bill proposes introducing a penalty in the form of a fine ranging from 119,000 to 170,000 hryvnia or imprisonment for up to three years. For conscripts, persons liable for military service, or reservists who have exceeded the permitted period of stay abroad during martial law, a fine of 34,000 to 51,000 hryvnia or imprisonment for a term of three to five years is provided.
A fine of between 17,000 and 85,000 hryvnia or restriction or deprivation of liberty for up to three years is also provided for the deliberate damage of border infrastructure.
At the same time, the bill contains a provision exempting citizens from liability if they return to their homeland within a certain period and voluntarily report to law enforcement agencies with a statement about the criminal offense they have committed.
The Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs noted on its Telegram channel on Friday that the draft law had been prepared by the ministry.
“Today, unfortunately, we are seeing mass attempts to evade mobilization by illegally leaving the country. As practice shows, administrative fines do not deter violators,” the statement said.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs explains that the draft proposes transferring the consideration of administrative cases of illegal border crossing to border guards, because it is faster and more effective.
As clarified to Interfax-Ukraine by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, cases of this category are currently handled by courts, and decisions are often delayed.
Prisoners in frontline territories often only have remote access to lawyers and remain the most vulnerable in wartime, according to Barristers partners Oleksiy Shevchuk and Oleksandr Shadrin.
“Prisoners remain the most vulnerable people in this regard. They cannot leave the premises during an alarm and go to a shelter. Sometimes, being located near the front line or military facilities becomes critical, or, as in the case of the Kyiv SIZO, which is located near the Lukyanivska metro station,” the lawyers told the Interfax-Ukraine news agency.
According to the Ministry of Justice, following the tragic incident at the Bilenky correctional colony, the evacuation of the following penitentiary institutions has begun: the Zaporizhzhia pre-trial detention center, the Vilnianska correctional facility (No. 11), and the Kamyanska correctional colony (No. 101)..
“This information is partially confirmed by rumors among prisoners. In particular, one of Shadrin’s clients, who is being held in the Zaporizhzhia pre-trial detention center, reported plans to evacuate them to the Dniprovskyi pre-trial detention center,” the lawyers said.
According to their information, no transfers to the court of appeal are currently being carried out from the Zaporizhzhia pretrial detention center.
“In the best case scenario, there will be a video conference, if there is electricity and communication. If only the prisoner is relocated and the court remains in the same region as before, the question of ensuring/not ensuring personal participation in the court hearing (at least in the first instance) will inevitably arise,” the agency’s interlocutors noted.
Shevchuk and Shadrin pointed out that prisoners in frontline areas often only have remote access to lawyers.
“Many lawyers have been mobilized or have left for safer regions. Of course, this situation can lead to problems with the right to a fair (adversarial) trial, which includes the possibility of confidential communication with a lawyer without witnesses from the police or the Security Service of Ukraine,” the lawyers said.
In addition, they drew attention to the fact that with the start of the large-scale invasion, a number of correctional colonies and pre-trial detention centers were occupied along with prisoners and staff, who were subsequently accused of treason or collaboration.
“For example, a dog handler at one of the penitentiary institutions in Kherson received such a charge: 12 years’ imprisonment with the right to hold relevant positions for 10 years (the relevant entry was made in the Register of Court Decisions – IF-U). Often, after the occupation, prisoners are encouraged to join the armed forces of the aggressor country, and if they refuse, they are thrown grenades into their cells or shot,” the lawyers said.
In addition, Shevchuk and Shadrin reported that penitentiary institutions remain significantly underfunded and conditions of detention are largely inhumane, as confirmed by numerous ECHR rulings, in particular due to overcrowding.
“After the repeal of the ‘Savchenko law’ (adopted in 2015, the law provided that one day of pre-trial detention in a detention center before sentencing was counted as two days of imprisonment in a correctional colony), the problem of overcrowding in detention centers and correctional colonies arose again. This is facilitated by the criminalization of theft and other property crimes, which have become serious due to the new “under martial law” designation, which is applied automatically. This phenomenon is also facilitated by the growing number of military personnel and suspects of high treason – categories for which the legislature has allowed detention without alternative,“ the lawyers note.
”These circumstances are expected to be the subject of review by the ECHR again,” Shevchuk and Shadrin predict.
According to media reports, in 2014, control was lost over 28 penal institutions in the occupied territories of Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea, where about 20,000 prisoners are being held. In 2022, another 12 institutions with more than 3,000 people came under the control of the occupiers.
According to the Ministry of Justice, since the start of the full-scale invasion, 10 penal institutions have been evacuated from the combat zones and 12 evacuation operations have been carried out, although the list of specific institutions has not been made public.
Source: https://interfax.com.ua/news/general/1098389.html
