Current as of 18 September 2026
In brief
Failing to answer a draft notice triggers three separate consequences, and they work differently. An administrative fine is a penalty. The temporary measures under Article 7.1 are not: they are securing measures designed to compel attendance, neither a sanction nor a conviction. The criminal article is a case of its own, with its own elements, and it is not triggered by a second or third missed appointment.
The distinction most often lost: Article 328 of the Criminal Code is written about conscription into military service, not about mobilisation. There is no separate offence of evading mobilisation in the code at all.
What the law says: administrative fines
The main provision is Article 21.5(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences: failure without good reason to appear at the time and place stated in the notice, or when summoned by another body maintaining military records. The fine runs from 10,000 to 30,000 roubles. There is no reduced-payment option allowing half the fine to be paid under Article 21.5.
The remaining parts of the same article penalise not non-appearance but the failure to report information:
failure to report a change of registration details – 1,000 to 5,000 roubles;
failure to report a move to a new place of residence not confirmed by registration – 10,000 to 20,000 roubles (part 2.1, introduced by Federal Law 202-FZ of 7 July 2025);
failure to report departure from Russia for more than six months, or a return – 5,000 to 15,000 roubles (part 3);
failure by a person liable for conscription to report leaving their place of residence or stay for more than three months – 10,000 to 20,000 roubles (part 4).
The obligations of those who have left the country work differently; what an emigrant must do on departure, and what awaits on return, is covered in a separate article.
A separate offence covers evasion of medical examination or assessment: Article 21.6, a warning or a fine of 15,000 to 25,000 roubles.
Paying the fine does not discharge the duty to appear. A fresh notice served in the proper manner, followed by a fresh non-appearance without good reason, may constitute a separate offence.
What the law says: the temporary measures are not a penalty
The restrictions under Article 7.1 of the law on military duty sit apart from administrative liability. No court imposes them, they do not count as a sanction, and they apply alongside any fine.
The ground arises twenty calendar days after the date given in the notice, where there is no good reason for the absence. The decision is generated in the register and takes effect once the military commissar has signed it electronically. How the dates of service and appearance are counted is set out separately.
The set itself: a bar on registering as a sole trader or self-employed person, suspension of property transactions, a driving ban, and restrictions on credit. The exit ban works differently: on the literal wording of Article 7.1(1) it applies to citizens liable for conscription, and Article 22 defines that category as men aged 18 to 30 who are not in the reserve.
The practical consequence: paying the administrative fine does not in itself lift the temporary measures. They are cancelled after the person appears, or after a valid reason for the absence is confirmed. The decision imposing the measures can be challenged through the same route as a decision of the conscription commission; how that works is covered separately.
What the law says: when criminal liability arises
Article 328(1) of the Criminal Code covers evasion of conscription where no lawful ground for exemption exists. The penalty: a fine of up to 200,000 roubles or up to eighteen months' income, up to two years of compulsory labour, up to six months' detention, or up to two years' imprisonment.
The offence falls into the category of minor gravity, for which the general limitation period is two years. The Supreme Court, however, treats evasion of conscription as a continuing offence, so the limitation period does not simply run from the date of any particular non-appearance.
Three constraints rule out most situations.
The subject is a conscript. Not any person liable for military service, and not a reservist.
The offence is not a matter of counting missed appointments. Supreme Court Plenum Resolution No. 3 of 3 April 2008 requires that an intention to evade conscription be established. Repeated failures to appear without good reason may indicate such intent; cases of changing residence or leaving in order to avoid conscription measures are treated separately.
Mobilisation is not covered by this article. Those already called up fall under different provisions, Articles 337 and 338, on absence without leave and desertion.
The referral procedure is set out in Article 28 of the law on military duty: where a citizen evades conscription, the conscription commission or the military commissariat forwards the material to the head of the Investigative Committee body for the person's place of residence.
What the law says: valid reasons
The law names them directly: illness or injury involving loss of capacity to work; the grave state of health of a close relative or attendance at their funeral; an obstacle of force majeure; and other reasons recognised as valid.
For the purposes of the law a valid reason must be documented; other circumstances may be recognised as valid by the conscription commission, the registration commission or a court. The practical conclusion is simple: the document is worth obtaining at the time of the event, not afterwards.
A valid reason is not the same thing as a ground for deferment or exemption: the first explains one missed appearance, the second changes a person's position altogether.
One further consequence of how service works: the law does not require that the person read the notice. Not knowing that an entry has appeared in the register is not in itself a valid reason.
What practice shows
Administrative fines are applied in practice, and not only for non-appearance. According to people who attended data verification appointments in Yekaterinburg in August 2026, some were fined during the visit itself, for having failed to submit information to the commissariat earlier. The figures named run from one to twenty thousand roubles. This comes from those fined, relayed through the media, and is not independently verified.
Lawyers who work with conscripts note that a lawful fine requires three things to be established in the file: a notice specifying a time and place, its service by one of the methods the law provides, and the absence of a valid reason. The weak point is usually the second – the method and date of service are what most often become the subject of dispute.
A fine can be appealed within ten days of receiving a copy of the decision. The appeal goes through the body or official that issued it, or directly to the relevant district court, a higher body or a higher official.
A further consequence arises not from the fine but from a conscription commission finding that a citizen failed to complete military service without lawful grounds. Such a person receives a certificate in place of a military ID. It is the finding itself, rather than the certificate as a document, that carries a ten-year bar on entering the state civil service and municipal service.
What could change this picture
The balance between the administrative and criminal routes is stable for now: non-appearance remains an administrative offence, and a criminal case requires separately proven intent. If a practice emerges in which criminal cases are opened on the formal fact of repetition, that will show up in sentences rather than in the text of the law.
The second point to watch is any widening of the list of temporary measures. Article 7.1 is recent, and its contents have already been revised once. What is known about the state of mobilisation as of September 2026 is set out in the overview of this topic.
Article 21.5 changed substantially between 2023 and 2025. Federal Law 202-FZ of 7 July 2025 carved out failure to report a move to an unregistered address as a separate offence, and Federal Law 488-FZ of 15 December 2025 removed from Article 21.5(4) the link between the corresponding duty of conscripts and the conscription periods.
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. How alternative civilian service works 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, 7.1, 10, 22, 28); Code of Administrative Offences (Articles 21.5, 21.6, 30.2, 30.3, 32.2); Criminal Code (Articles 78, 328, 337, 338); Supreme Court Plenum Resolution No. 3 of 3 April 2008; Federal Law 364-FZ of 29 October 2024; Federal Law 202-FZ of 7 July 2025; Federal Law 488-FZ of 15 December 2025; URA.RU, and reports from the Idite Lesom and Conscript's School projects. Some of the account of practice comes from those fined themselves, relayed through the media, and is not independently verified. This article is for information only and does not constitute legal advice.