Violates the Constitution: Zelensky turned the law on relations with people in the Russian Federation that is known

MPs proposed to dismiss the citizens if they did not report the actions of relatives in the occupation. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy considers it anti -constitutional. In Ukraine, it was not possible to put into effect a law that added new grounds for dismissal of the employee. President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky has not signed the Verkhovna Rada's bill on Ukrainian citizens who have relatives in the occupied territory or in the Russian Federation.

The decision of the head of state is evidenced by the card of the bill published on the portal of Parliament. Bill No. 7731 "On additional grounds for termination of the employment contract" was signed by the President on April 30, 2024, the data of the portal testify. After 15 days, the bill returned to the profile committee on social policy and protection of veterans' rights. It is stated that the regulatory document has returned with proposals to be considered by MPs.

The Parliament portal also indicates the Presidential position, which explains why the law rejected. First of all, according to the head of the state, the law violates the Constitution, since the grounds for release are not unambiguous and clear. After that, there is an explanation that it is fuzzy and ambiguous. For example, it is not clear what they mean by "connections" with people in the occupied territories.

It is also not considered that people just may not know what their family is doing there. The initiator of amendments to the rules of dismissal of the employee was a group of people's deputies, among them - the chairman of the Committee on Social Policy Galina Tretyakov. On her Facebook page there is no comment on the presidential resolution.

It should be noted that the text of the bill, which was called the "Collaboration Law" in the media was analyzed on the portal "Forensic Newspaper", among other things, they noted that the employee could be released after a service for failure to comply with the requirement of the rules of conduct at a strategic enterprise. It is emphasized that the law does not mention the concept of "service", so it is not clear how the employer should act.