PhD Candidate Mobilized to a Sapper Unit — Why the Court Did Not Establish the Right to a Deferral

The Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal reviewed in written proceedings the appeal against the decision of the Rivne District Administrative Court in case No. 460/7583/25 concerning the challenge of decisions by the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center (TRSSC) and the military unit regarding conscription for military service during mobilization, enrollment in the personnel lists, and related personnel orders.

The dispute arose in connection with the assessment of the legality of mobilization procedures, compliance with the procedure for exercising the right to a deferral, and the powers of authorized bodies during conscription.

Case Circumstances

The plaintiff applied to the court of first instance demanding to recognize as unlawful and cancel the order of the head of the territorial recruitment and social support center in part concerning his conscription for military service during mobilization, as well as the order of the military unit commander on his enrollment in the personnel lists with appointment to the position of sapper in the engineering-sapper unit. Additionally, the plaintiff requested to oblige the military unit to exclude him from the personnel lists.

Justifying the claim, the plaintiff stated that he is a researcher with a PhD in history, works full-time at the V.I. Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine, and, in his opinion, had the right to a deferral from conscription for military service during mobilization.

He claimed that his actual detention and subsequent referral for a military-medical commission examination occurred without proper legal grounds and violated the established procedure, and that the military-medical commission's conclusion on his fitness for military service was issued without a full medical examination. The plaintiff also emphasized that he submitted documents regarding the grounds for a deferral, but was denied its formalization.

The court of first instance fully denied the claim.

Disagreeing with this decision, the plaintiff filed an appeal, reiterating the arguments of the claim and additionally referring to violations of mobilization legislation provisions, stating that the territorial recruitment center had no authority to detain and forcibly deliver him. He also insisted that the right to a deferral stemmed from his professional status and academic degree.

Positions and Conclusions of the Appellate Court

The appellate court established that at the time of issuing the contested conscription order, the plaintiff did not have a deferral properly formalized in accordance with the law, nor did he provide evidence of submitting a proper application to the competent commission of the territorial recruitment center before his conscription.

The panel of judges reasoned that exercising the right to a deferral is procedurally formalized and is carried out exclusively by the conscript submitting an appropriate application and supporting documents to the authorized commission, after which a decision is made to grant or deny the deferral. Until such a decision is formalized, the deferral does not legally arise and therefore cannot be grounds for recognizing the conscription as unlawful.

The court also noted that the case materials contain no evidence of the plaintiff having a valid deferral or reservation at the time of conscription, and therefore the territorial recruitment center had no legal obstacles to decide on his conscription for military service during mobilization.

Separately, the appellate court agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance regarding the lawfulness of the military unit's actions, since the plaintiff's enrollment in the personnel lists and appointment to the position were made based on a duly formalized conscription order and in accordance with the requirements of current legislation regulating military service procedures.

The appellant's arguments about the illegality of his delivery for the military-medical commission examination and improper medical examination were recognized by the court as not affecting the legality of the contested orders, as they were not supported by proper evidence and did not refute the established circumstances regarding the absence of a formalized deferral.

The appellate court concluded that the authorities acted within their competence and in a manner defined by the Constitution of Ukraine, the Law of Ukraine "On Military Duty and Military Service," the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization," as well as subordinate normative legal acts regulating conscription and military registration procedures.

Considering the established circumstances, the appellate court found that the decision of the court of first instance was made with a full and comprehensive examination of the evidence, with correct application of substantive and procedural law, and the arguments of the appeal contain no grounds for its cancellation.

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Rivne District Administrative Court was left unchanged.

As the "Judicial and Legal Newpaper" wrote, the Reserve+ application expanded the list of citizens who can apply for a deferral from mobilization fully online — now the service is available for scientific workers of higher education institutions and research institutions.

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 updated on the most important events.