A man received permission to leave the country, but due to legislative changes could not be removed from military registration – what the court decided

The Kyiv District Administrative Court considered, in simplified proceedings without notifying the parties, administrative case No. 320/4161/25 on the claim of a Ukrainian citizen against the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center and the Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine regarding the recognition of decisions as unlawful and the obligation to take actions.

Circumstances of case No. 320/4161/25

The plaintiff applied to the court with demands to:

• recognize as unlawful the decision of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center refusing to grant a deferment from conscription for military service during mobilization;
• recognize as unlawful the decision of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine refusing to grant permission to cross the state border of Ukraine on humanitarian grounds for family reunification;
• oblige the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center to grant a deferment from conscription to enable departure abroad;
• in case of refusal to grant a deferment – oblige the State Border Guard Service to grant permission to cross the state border to leave for permanent residence.

The plaintiff justified the claims by stating that the refusal to cross the border deprives him of the right to fulfill parental duties, maintain family ties, and reunite with his family. The plaintiff's wife and minor son have been living abroad since February 8, 2023. The plaintiff received permission from the State Migration Service of Ukraine to leave the country for permanent residence abroad, but due to legislative changes, he was unable to be removed from military registration. Applications to the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center for a deferment according to Article 23 of the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization" and to the State Border Guard Service for permission to leave on humanitarian grounds were rejected.

The Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center did not submit a response to the claim. The Administration of the State Border Guard Service stated in its response that the refusal to grant permission to cross the border complies with the Rules for Crossing the State Border and legislation under martial law conditions.

What the court decided

The court fully denied the administrative claim.

The court established that the grounds for granting a deferment from conscription during mobilization, as defined in Article 23 of the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization" (including family circumstances), do not include a conscious decision of a person to leave the country for permanent residence abroad for family reunification or the presence of permission from the State Migration Service to leave. The decision of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center to refuse the deferment complies with the requirements of the Procedure for Conscription of Citizens for Military Service during Mobilization, approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Resolution No. 560.

Regarding the refusal of the State Border Guard Service to grant permission to cross the state border, the court noted that under martial law, the constitutional right to free movement may be restricted in accordance with Article 64 of the Constitution of Ukraine, the Law of Ukraine "On the Legal Regime of Martial Law," and the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization." At the time of the dispute, the plaintiff did not belong to categories of persons exempt from conscription, removed from military registration, or granted deferment, so there were no grounds to grant permission to leave.

The court referred to the practice of the Supreme Court, including rulings in cases No. 380/572/23, No. 600/2520/22-a, No. 380/7792/22, and others, which confirmed the legality of restricting the right to leave the country during wartime to ensure national security. The restrictions were recognized as proportionate, pursuing a legitimate aim, and not arbitrary.

The court's decision takes legal effect after the expiration of the appeal period. An appeal may be filed with the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal within thirty days from the date the full text of the decision is drawn up.

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