The Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center Denied a Student a Deferment Due to Reservist Combat Reserve Status: What the Court Decided

The Lviv District Administrative Court reviewed case No. 380/24405/25 filed by a conscripted individual against the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center challenging the commission's decision to deny a deferment from military conscription during mobilization. The plaintiff requested the cancellation of the commission's decision and the obligation for the Center to reconsider his application for a deferment from conscription during mobilization based on his full-time higher education studies.

Case Circumstances

The plaintiff served compulsory military service until May 2024, after which he was discharged to the reserve and registered for military accounting at the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center. Since September 2024, he has been studying full-time at a higher education institution pursuing a bachelor's degree. The study period is set until June 2027. Relevant information was confirmed by a certificate from the Unified State Electronic Database on Education and documents from the educational institution.

In August 2025, the plaintiff submitted an application for a deferment from conscription during mobilization under paragraph 1 of part 3 of Article 23 of the Law "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization." Later, he resubmitted the application through the administrative services center, attaching a certificate of student status from the Unified State Electronic Database on Education, a military registration document, and a certificate from the educational institution.

The commission of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center denied the deferment. The grounds for refusal included failure to provide all necessary documents and information from the Unified State Register of Conscripts and Reservists indicating the applicant's belonging to the operational combat reserve, which, according to the defendant, made granting a deferment impossible without changing his status.

In court, the defendant insisted that the right to deferment under Article 23 of the Law "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization" applies exclusively to conscripted individuals, while the plaintiff is registered as a reservist. It was also noted that after discharge from compulsory service, he was assigned to the military operational reserve and did not take measures to change his status.

The plaintiff disputed these arguments, indicating that in the military registration document generated through the "Reserve+" application, he is listed specifically as a conscripted individual. Furthermore, he emphasized that he did not sign a contract to serve in the military reserve and did not consent to such service.

Court's Position and Conclusions

The court established that the plaintiff consistently pursued education: first obtaining the qualification of a skilled worker, then a junior specialist diploma, and at the time of the appeal, studying in a bachelor's program. Thus, he was obtaining a higher education level than previously acquired, thereby meeting the requirements of paragraph 1 of part 3 of Article 23 of the Law "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization."

The court noted that the fact of full-time study was confirmed by a certificate of student status from the Unified State Electronic Database on Education. According to the Procedure for conscription of citizens for military service during mobilization, approved by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 560, this document is the proper proof for deferment eligibility on the relevant grounds.

Evaluating the defendant's arguments regarding the plaintiff's status as a reservist, the court pointed out that Procedure No. 560 regulates the deferment procedure for both conscripted individuals and reservists. Moreover, the court concluded that the case materials do not confirm the plaintiff's belonging to the military operational reserve as defined by law.

The court also noted that assignment to the military operational reserve is associated with signing a contract for service in the military reserve. At the same time, the case materials contained no evidence of such a contract with the plaintiff or his consent to serve in the reserve. Additionally, the order for his discharge from compulsory military service did not include information about assignment to the operational reserve, and the military registration document generated through the "Reserve+" application listed his registration category as "conscripted individual," not "reservist."

Separately, the court agreed with the plaintiff's argument that the defendant effectively imposed negative consequences on him due to its internal procedural decisions regarding the formation of the operational reserve registry, which led to the restriction of the legally guaranteed right to deferment.

Based on the case review, the court concluded that the refusal to grant a deferment on the grounds of the need to change the status to conscripted individual is not based on legal requirements. The disputed commission decision was recognized as made not on the grounds and in the manner prescribed by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine, and without considering all circumstances relevant to the decision. Therefore, the commission's refusal to grant a deferment was deemed unlawful and canceled.

At the same time, the court emphasized that it cannot replace the authorized body responsible for deciding on deferments. Given the discretionary powers of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center commission, the proper remedy for the violated right is to oblige the defendant to reconsider the deferment application and make a decision taking into account the legal assessment provided by the court in this ruling.

The court recognized as unlawful and canceled the commission's decision of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center regarding the refusal to grant a deferment from conscription during mobilization under paragraph 1 of part 3 of Article 23 of the Law "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization."

However, the court did not independently decide on granting the deferment, as this falls within the competence of the relevant commission of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center. Instead, the court obliged the defendant to reconsider the plaintiff's application dated November 20, 2025, along with the submitted documents, and make a new decision considering the legal assessment set forth in the court ruling.

The court denied the remaining claims. Additionally, at the expense of the defendant's budget allocations, the court fee of UAH 605.60 was recovered in favor of the plaintiff.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.