A Baptist Deacon Requested to Replace Mobilization with Alternative Non-Combatant Service: What the Court Decided

The Vinnytsia District Administrative Court considered case No. 120/14064/24 on the claim of a clergyman against the Khmilnyk District Military Administration of Vinnytsia region regarding the recognition of unlawful inaction and the obligation to review the application for replacing military service with alternative (non-military) service.

The plaintiff argued that the district military administration did not make a proper decision on his application to replace military service with alternative service due to his religious beliefs. Therefore, he asked the court to recognize such inaction as unlawful and oblige the defendant to reconsider his application taking into account the court's legal assessment.

Case circumstances

The plaintiff is registered for military service and is a clergyman (deacon) of the religious community of the Evangelical Christian-Baptist Church "Revival" in the city of Kalynivka. He stated that his religious beliefs do not allow the use of weapons, and therefore fulfilling military duty contradicts his faith.

In this regard, he applied to the Khmilnyk District Military Administration with a request to replace military service with alternative (non-military) service. The application emphasized that he is ready to fulfill his duty to the state in another form not related to military service or the use of weapons.

In response, the district military administration informed the applicant by letter that the Law of Ukraine "On Alternative (Non-Military) Service" does not provide for sending citizens to alternative service during mobilization under martial law conditions.

Considering that the defendant did not substantively review his application and did not make the decision prescribed by law, the plaintiff turned to the administrative court.

Legal conclusions of the court

After examining the case materials, the court noted that the Constitution of Ukraine guarantees freedom of worldview and religion and provides for the possibility of replacing military service with alternative (non-military) service in cases where fulfilling such duty contradicts the citizen's religious beliefs.

At the same time, the court drew attention to the fact that Ukraine is under martial law and general mobilization, declared by the relevant decrees of the President of Ukraine and laws of Ukraine.

The court analyzed the provisions of the Law of Ukraine "On Military Duty and Military Service," the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization," the Law of Ukraine "On Alternative (Non-Military) Service," as well as the Regulations on the Procedure for Undergoing Alternative (Non-Military) Service.

Based on this analysis, the court concluded that alternative service, by its legal nature, is a service introduced as a substitute specifically for compulsory military service. The legislation regulating mobilization and military service during martial law does not contain provisions regarding the replacement of military service during mobilization with alternative (non-military) service.

The court also noted that the Law of Ukraine "On Alternative (Non-Military) Service" does not define the procedure for sending and undergoing alternative service during mobilization or martial law conditions.

Evaluating the plaintiff's arguments about the violation of the right to freedom of conscience and religion, the court referred to Article 9 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. The court noted that freedom to profess religious beliefs is not absolute and may be subject to restrictions prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, protection of public order, health, morals, and the rights of others.

Referring to the ECHR practice, the court emphasized that states have the right to establish procedures for assessing the legitimacy of a person's claims based on conscience and to prevent abuse of the right to exemption from military service. At the same time, no religious beliefs can justify evasion by a Ukrainian citizen, recognized fit for military service, from fulfilling the constitutional duty to protect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the state under conditions of armed aggression.

The court concluded that the defendant did not commit unlawful inaction since the current legislation does not regulate the mechanism for replacing military service with alternative (non-military) service during martial law and mobilization. Therefore, the district military administration lawfully informed the applicant about the absence of legal grounds for referral to alternative service under such conditions.

In view of the above, the Vinnytsia District Administrative Court dismissed the claim in full.

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 updated on the most important events.