In a country that resists full-scale armed aggression, where every conscious citizen must be ready for defense, the courts — instead of protecting the right to self-defense and freedom of association — side with the outdated, Soviet model of “permission for everything.” It would seem that the war should be a moment of rethinking: the state should support the initiative, not stifle it. But in reality we see something different.
A recent example was the consideration of the case regarding the scandalous Instruction No. 622 of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The Cassation Administrative Court, composed of the Supreme Court (Valentyna Kuznetsova, Oleksandr Melnychuk, and Nataliya Blazhivska), considered the lawsuit of the head of the Civil Safety Academy training center Andriy Zvyezdilin regarding the recognition of certain provisions of Instruction No. 622 of the Ministry of Internal Affairs as unlawful. The board adopted a decision that caused a wave of indignation in the legal community and among civil society.
Unfortunately, the court demonstrated not legal impartiality, but a frank fear of changing the outdated and illegal practice of the Ministry of Internal Affairs' permit system. Moreover, instead of giving due consideration to the plaintiff's legal arguments, the panel actually repeated the position of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
Is the instruction more important than the law?
The judges have once again replaced the rule of law with the rule of order. They called the Instruction of the Ministry of Internal Affairs No. 622 – which, let us recall, is a by-law – as one that has been “brought into line” with the legislation, despite its complete loss of connection with the Constitution of Ukraine and the requirements of lawmaking. None of the legal grounds to which the Instruction itself referred are valid at the time of consideration of the case.
Former judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine Viktor Shishkin has long clearly stated: the justification of the Ministry of Internal Affairs' permit system is either professional incompetence or a deliberate disregard for the Constitution. After all, the main problem is that this instruction is still based on acts that:
- expired (Law "On Militia" of 1991),
- never came into force (CMU Resolution No. 576, not published in the manner established by the Constitution),
- is the product of usurpation of power (Presidential decrees instead of laws of the Verkhovna Rada).
Control or repression?
The CAS judges also demonstrated a lack of understanding (or unwillingness to understand) of the difference between rules of conduct and control rules. In their ruling, they justify searches, inspections, and blocking of training centers by arguing that this is “not control over economic activity” but “ensuring compliance with the rules of the licensing system.”
This distorted interpretation opens the door to further abuses, when any volunteer or training center can be paralyzed by a police officer's decision - without a court, without a proper legal mechanism.
Public interest vs bureaucratic insanity
Plaintiff Andriy Zvezdilin heads the Civil Safety Academy, a center that has trained over 40,000 Ukrainians to the handling of weapons, including volunteers and military personnel. Its centers are vital in times of war, when everyone must be ready for defense. However, instead of gratitude - searches, blocking, obstruction of work.
Instead, the court found such repressions “justified.” They said that the specifics of weapons trafficking require “special control rules.” But no new laws have been passed for this, only an instruction that should have been repealed long ago.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs and the spirit of the USSR
It is sad to admit, but the Ministry of Internal Affairs still operates in the paradigm of "only what is permitted by the authorities is permitted." Exactly as in the Constitution of the Ukrainian SSR. And the Cassation Administrative Court in this case actually legalized this model.
Judges Kuznetsova, Melnychuk, and Blazhivska, unfortunately, have become not guardians of the law, but guardians of the system. A system that does not recognize citizens as subjects of law, but only as objects of control.
Why is this case important?
This is not just a matter of instructions. This is a matter of who has power in Ukraine: law or police order, Constitution or repressive habit of control.
Today it's volunteers and instructors. Tomorrow it's anyone who dares to act without permission from above. The rule of law is not about permission, it's about protection. And if the courts don't understand that, then we need to remind them of it.
