The military unit was obliged to discharge a man mobilized despite the right to deferment due to caring for his mother

The Ternopil District Administrative Court considered case No. 500/738/26 filed by a serviceman against a military unit regarding the consequences of canceling the decision to refuse a deferment from mobilization and the order for conscription into military service. The court addressed the issue of the proper way to restore the violated rights of the individual after the mobilization was recognized as unlawful.

Essence of the case

The conscripted individual applied to the territorial recruitment and social support center with a request for a deferment from conscription during mobilization based on Article 23 of the Law "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization," citing that he provides constant care for his mother, who requires such care.

The commission on deferment requests denied the application, after which the territorial recruitment and social support center issued an order to conscript the man into military service during mobilization. Based on this order, he was sent to the military unit and included in the personnel lists.

Subsequently, the conscripted individual challenged the refusal of the deferment and the conscription order in court. By the decision of the Ternopil District Administrative Court dated September 10, 2025, which came into legal force on November 19, 2025, the court recognized as unlawful and canceled the commission's decision to refuse the deferment, as well as the conscription order during mobilization. The court established that the applicant submitted all necessary documents for obtaining the deferment, but the commission did not consider the provided evidence and unjustifiably denied it.

After this decision became legally binding, the serviceman filed a new lawsuit against the military unit, requesting the cancellation of the order to include him in the personnel lists and obliging the military unit to discharge him from military service by removing him from the personnel lists.

Position and conclusions of the court

The court noted that the organization of citizen conscription during mobilization, verification of grounds for deferment, and issuance of such deferments fall within the powers of territorial recruitment and social support centers. The military unit enrolls a person in the personnel lists not at its own discretion but based on documents and lists received from the territorial recruitment and social support centers.

At the same time, the court emphasized that the previous decision already established the unlawfulness of the refusal to grant a deferment and the unlawfulness of the conscription order. These circumstances do not require additional proof as they were established by a court decision that has come into legal force.

Evaluating the request to cancel the military unit's order regarding enrollment in the personnel lists, the court concluded that such an order has exhausted its effect since it was implemented by the actual enrollment of the person in the military unit. Therefore, its cancellation alone will not change the legal status of the plaintiff as a serviceman and will not ensure effective restoration of the violated right.

At the same time, the court stressed that serving in the military became a direct consequence of the conscription order during mobilization, which has already been recognized as unlawful and canceled. Although the Law "On Military Duty and Military Service" does not provide a separate basis for discharge from military service due to illegal mobilization, to ensure effective judicial protection and full restoration of violated rights, it is necessary to eliminate the consequences of such illegal conscription.

The court also referred to the principle of the rule of law, the principle of effective judicial protection, and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the need to ensure real restoration of violated rights. In particular, the court noted that state bodies should not benefit from their own mistakes or unlawful decisions, and the risk of such mistakes should be borne by the state, not by the person whose rights were violated.

As a result of the case consideration, the Ternopil District Administrative Court partially satisfied the claim and obliged the military unit to discharge the plaintiff from military service and remove him from the personnel lists. The court denied the satisfaction of other claims.

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