The Territorial Recruitment Center mobilized a student under 25 without considering the deferment application: the court recognized the conscription as illegal

The Rivne District Administrative Court examined the dispute between a citizen and the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center regarding the legality of his conscription for military service during mobilization, the refusal to grant a deferment, and the determination of military registration status. The court investigated whether the plaintiff had the status of a military liable person, whether he was subject to mobilization before reaching the age of 25, and whether the legal requirements were met when considering his deferment application.

Case circumstances

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit demanding to recognize the inaction of the Territorial Recruitment Center regarding the failure to remove him from the military liable persons' register and failure to register him as a conscript as unlawful, to recognize the actions related to his conscription during mobilization as unlawful, and to recognize the inaction regarding the non-consideration of his deferment application as unlawful and to oblige the defendant to consider such an application.

The plaintiff stated that he came to the Territorial Recruitment Center to clarify his military registration data and informed about the grounds for deferment due to studying at a higher education institution. Despite this, he was sent to undergo a military-medical commission, which recognized him fit for military service and handed him a summons for deployment. He considered these actions illegal because, in his opinion, he should have been registered as a conscript and entitled to a deferment.

The court established that in 2021, by decision of the conscription commission, the plaintiff was exempted from conscription for compulsory military service as unfit for military service in peacetime and limitedly fit in wartime. Accordingly, he was removed from the conscript register and placed in the reserve with registration as a military liable person. This status was confirmed by a temporary military liable person certificate.

It was also established that at the time of the disputed legal relations, the plaintiff was studying full-time in a master's program at a higher education institution. On July 1, 2024, he came to the Territorial Recruitment Center to update his military registration data, after which he underwent a medical examination and was recognized fit for military service. Based on the examination, he was handed a summons for deployment to a military unit.

Court's position and conclusions

The court thoroughly analyzed the provisions of the Law "On Military Duty and Military Service" and concluded that the legislation clearly distinguishes between categories of conscripts and military liable persons. Persons exempted from compulsory military service as unfit for service in peacetime and limitedly fit in wartime, according to the legislation effective in 2021, were subject to being placed in the reserve and registered as military liable persons. The plaintiff had exactly this status.

The court noted that at the time the plaintiff was registered as a military liable person, there were no regulatory acts requiring the Territorial Recruitment Center to transfer him to the conscript category. Therefore, the claims to recognize the inaction as unlawful due to failure to remove him from the military liable persons' register and failure to register him as a conscript were deemed unfounded.

The court separately considered the issue of mobilization of persons under 25 years old. The court emphasized that during martial law, reservists and military liable persons in the reserve without exemptions or deferments are subject to mobilization. The age under 25 alone did not exclude the possibility of mobilizing persons who had already acquired the status of military liable persons and were placed in the reserve. The court concluded that at the time of the plaintiff's conscription, the legislation did not provide the right to deferment solely on the basis of being under 25 years old for this category of military liable persons.

The court also noted legislative changes that abolished the status of "limitedly fit for military service." Persons who previously had this status were subject to re-examination by the military-medical commission. If recognized fit for military service and without legal grounds for deferment, such persons were subject to mobilization.

At the same time, the court established that the plaintiff was a full-time student at a higher education institution and at the time of the disputed legal relations was entitled to a deferment from conscription according to paragraph 1 of part 3 of article 23 of the Law "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization." The court analyzed documents provided by the university and concluded that the plaintiff met the criteria for such a deferment.

Furthermore, the court emphasized that the Procedure for conscription of citizens for military service during mobilization, approved by the Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 560, establishes a clear algorithm for considering deferment applications. A military liable person has the right to submit an application with supporting documents, after which a specially created commission must consider it and decide on granting or refusing the deferment. Until such a decision is made, the person should not be sent for medical examination or conscripted.

The court found that the defendant did not ensure the consideration of the plaintiff's deferment application, did not make any decision on it, and effectively ignored the procedure prescribed by law.

Despite this, the plaintiff was sent to undergo the military-medical commission and handed a summons for deployment to a military unit. The court recognized these actions as violations of the requirements of Procedure No. 560 and the plaintiff's right to proper consideration of the deferment application.

Based on the results of case No. 460/8062/24, the court partially satisfied the claim.

The court recognized the actions of the Territorial Recruitment Center regarding the plaintiff's conscription during mobilization as unlawful, recognized the inaction regarding the non-consideration of the deferment application as unlawful, and obliged the defendant to consider the application taking into account the court's conclusions.

At the same time, the claim to transfer the plaintiff from the military liable persons' register to the conscript register was denied.

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