How to appeal a military commissariat's decision

Current as of 18 September 2026

In brief

Three different things can be challenged, and the routes do not coincide: a decision of the conscription commission, a decision imposing temporary measures under Article 7.1, and an administrative fine. Confusing them is costly, because the deadlines and the addressees differ.

But the decisive distinction runs inside the first of those routes. Enforcement is suspended automatically when the decision of a regional conscription commission is challenged in court, that is, after the complaint has been through the pre-court stage. Going straight to court against the original decision of a district commission does not in itself suspend its enforcement. In 2026 a court expressly declined to apply that provision to a municipal commission's decision.

What the law says: the pre-court route

The pre-court route is not compulsory: Article 35.1 allows the relevant decision to be challenged either before the regional conscription commission or directly in court. The consequences of the two routes differ, above all on the question of automatic suspension.

Section V.1 of the law on military duty, introduced by Federal Law 127-FZ of 14 April 2023, established a separate procedure. The complaint goes to the regional conscription commission, addressed to its chair, who by law is the region's most senior official.

It can be filed through the Gosuslugi state services portal or through a multifunctional service centre. The centre must forward the complaint to the commission no later than the next working day.

The time limit for consideration is five working days from the moment the complaint reaches the commission, or seven working days from receipt at the centre if filed there. Where a medical examination or assessment is required, consideration may be extended by no more than ten working days.

The law sets no separate deadline for filing the pre-court complaint itself. That is no reason to delay: under Article 28 a conscription decision is enforceable for one year from the date it was taken, and conscription in 2026 runs all year, organised by presidential decree No. 998 from 1 January to 31 December.

What the law says: temporary measures go through the same route

Decisions imposing temporary measures are expressly included in the list of decisions open to pre-court challenge, in Article 35.2(4)(a). How and when those measures arise is covered in a separate article.

If the regional commission cancels such a decision in whole or in part, the information, with a copy of the decision, is sent to the federal body that enforces the restriction in question. The law provides no separate appeal against each individual restriction.

The practical significance: a person whose transactions and licences are blocked does not need to approach the banks, the traffic police and the property registry one by one, because it is the underlying decision that is challenged. How quickly a restriction actually disappears from any given system may nonetheless vary. For those outside Russia these restrictions follow their own logic.

What the law says: the court route

A regional commission's decision on a complaint may be challenged in court. Article 29(4) then provides for suspension: the conscription commission's decision is not enforced until the court judgment enters into legal force.

The form of application is an administrative claim to a district court seeking a declaration that the decision was unlawful. Under Article 219 of the Code of Administrative Procedure the deadline is three months from the day the citizen learned of the violation of their rights.

A refusal to substitute alternative civilian service for military service has a provision of its own: Article 15 of Federal Law 113-FZ separately suspends enforcement of such a decision when it is challenged in court. How alternative service works is covered separately.

An administrative fine follows a third route, with the tightest deadline of all: ten days from service or receipt of a copy of the decision. The appeal is filed through the body or official that issued it, or directly with the district court, a higher body or a higher official.

What practice shows

In medical disputes the outcome is often settled by documents before it is settled by arguments: discharge summaries, examination results and entries in the medical record that existed at the time of the assessment. The same applies to documents establishing grounds for deferment or exemption.

Filing a challenge is not evasion. The fear is common and it is unfounded. Failure to appear on a properly served notice without good reason may give rise to administrative liability; criminal evasion of conscription requires separately established intent. Lodging a complaint is neither.

Human rights defenders record that conscription measures are sometimes continued while a challenge is pending. This is where the distinction from the opening applies: suspension attaches to a court challenge against a regional commission's decision, not to any complaint filed.

A separate track is the review medical examination. The regional commission arranges it for those granted a deferment or exemption on health grounds, and for those who have contested a fitness category finding. In medical disputes its result may prove decisive for the commission's decision.

What could change this picture

In March 2026 a bill, No. 1170412-8, was introduced in the State Duma proposing to abolish the automatic suspension. Most of its authors subsequently withdrew their signatures; as of 18 September the bill has not been passed. The existing rule on automatic suspension of a regional commission's decision remains in force.

The second point is year-round conscription. The old tactic of waiting out the conscription campaign does not work in 2026: the call-up runs all year, and a conscription decision once taken is valid for a year.

The third is practice on the temporary measures. The mechanism for lifting them through pre-court challenge is written into the law, but it has been in use only recently, and no settled timeframe for the restrictions actually being removed has yet emerged. What is known about the state of mobilisation as of September 2026 is set out in the overview of this topic.

Where to turn

This article is part of Way Out, a legal project by FACTUM.PRESS: we set out what the law permits and what happens in practice. We do not give individual legal advice and we do not take on cases. What to do in the first days after a notice arrives is covered separately.

For personal assistance, approach the organisations that provide it: Idite Lesom, Pervy Otdel (First Department), the Conscript's School and the Movement of Conscientious Objectors.

Sources: Federal Law on Military Duty and Military Service (Articles 7.1, 28, 29, and Section V.1, Articles 35.1, 35.2, 35.5); Federal Law on Alternative Civilian Service (Article 15); Code of Administrative Procedure (Article 219); Code of Administrative Offences (Articles 30.2, 30.3); Federal Law 127-FZ of 14 April 2023; presidential decree No. 998; bill No. 1170412-8; materials from the Movement of Conscientious Objectors and the Conscript's School. This article is for information only and does not constitute legal advice.