court held that only female military personnel were entitled to three years' parental leave and that the applicant was entitled to three months' leave, of which he had made use. Moreover, the applicant had failed to prove that he was the sole carer for his children and that they lacked maternal care.
13. In his statement of appeal the applicant complained, in particular, that the refusal to grant him three years' parental leave violated the principle of equality between men and women guaranteed by the Constitution.
14. On 27 April 2006 the Military Court of the Leningradskiy Command upheld the judgment. It endorsed the reasoning of the first-instance court and added that the applicant's "reflections on equality between men and women... cannot serve as a basis for quashing the first-instance judgment, which is correct in substance".
15. On 18 July 2006 the applicant was for a second time disciplined for being absent from his place of work.
16. By order of 24 October 2006 the head of military unit No. 41480 granted parental leave to the applicant until 30 September 2008, the third birthday of his youngest son. On 25 October 2006 the applicant received financial aid in the amount of 200,000 Russian roubles (RUB), equivalent to approximately 5,900 euros (EUR). By letter of 9 November 2006 the head of military unit No. 41480 informed the applicant that the financial aid was granted to him "in view of [his] difficult family situation, the necessity of taking care of three minor children and the absence of other sources of income".
17. On 8 December 2006 the Military Court of the Pushkin Garrison issued a decision ("частное определение") in which it criticised the head of military unit No. 41480 for granting the applicant three years' parental leave, and thereby disregarding the judgment of 27 April 2006 in which it had been found that the applicant was not entitled to such leave. The court drew the attention of the head of the military unit to the unlawfulness of his order.
18. On 11 August 2008 the applicant applied to the Constitutional Court, claiming that the provisions of the Military Service Act concerning the three-year parental leave were incompatible with the equality clause in the Constitution.
19. On 15 January 2009 the Constitutional Court rejected his application. It held as follows:
"2.1 ...military service is a special type of public service which ensures the defence of the country and the security of the State, it is therefore performed in the public interest. Persons engaged in military service exercise constitutionally important functions and therefore possess a special legal status which is based on the necessity for a citizen of the Russian Federation to perform his duty and obligation in order to protect the Fatherland.
When establishing a special legal status for military personnel, the federal legislature is entitled, within its discretionary powers, to set up limitations on their civil rights and freedoms and to assign special duties...
...by signing a military service contract a citizen... voluntarily chooses a professional activity which entails, firstly, limitations on his civil rights and freedoms inherent in this type of public service, and, secondly, performance of duties to ensure the defence of the country and the security of the State. Accordingly, military personnel undertake to abide by the statutory requirements limiting their rights and freedoms and imposing on them special public obligations.
...by voluntarily choosing this type of service citizens agree to the conditions and limitations related to the acquired legal status. Therefore, the imposition by the federal legislature of limitations on the rights and freedoms of such citizens is not in itself incompatible with [the Constitution] and is in accordance with ILO Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Co
> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
