Reserved defense enterprise employee won a court case against the Territorial Recruitment Center over illegal mobilization — the deferment was simply ignored

The Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court recognized as unlawful and canceled the order of the Territorial Recruitment Center (TRC) regarding the mobilization of an employee of a defense industry enterprise who had a valid reservation and deferment from mobilization at the time of conscription.

The court concluded that the employee of a critically important enterprise was not subject to conscription because he was properly reserved until September 27, 2025. Information about the deferment was contained both in the military registration document and in the "Reserve+" application. Despite this, the TRC issued an order to call him up for military service during mobilization.

At the same time, the court disagreed with the TRC's arguments about the impossibility of canceling an already executed mobilization order. The decision states that the Supreme Court's practice regarding similar disputes should not be automatically applied in cases where a person was properly reserved before conscription, and the recruitment authority ignored the valid deferment.

Circumstances of the case

The plaintiff worked as a ventilation systems installer at one of the companies. The enterprise was recognized by the Ministry of Strategic Industries as critically important for the functioning of the economy during a special period in the defense-industrial complex.

Accordingly, the employee was granted a reservation pursuant to paragraph 1 of part 1 of article 23 of the Law "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization." The deferment was valid until September 27, 2025. Its existence was confirmed by a military registration document and reflected in the "Reserve+" app.

According to the plaintiff, after a mark about violation of military registration rules appeared in "Reserve+", he personally went to the TRC to clarify the circumstances and provided documents regarding the reservation. However, on August 9, 2025, the head of the TRC issued an order to conscript him for military service during mobilization and to send him to a military unit. After that, the man appealed to the court.

Position of the TRC

The TRC opposed the lawsuit, stating that the mobilization order is an individual act of one-time application that has already been executed. According to the defendant, new legal relations of military service arose after conscription, so canceling such an order is not an appropriate way to protect the right.

At the same time, the court did not accept the TRC's response for consideration because it was submitted after the deadline without a motion to restore the term.

What the court established

The court analyzed the legislation on mobilization and reservation of conscripts and emphasized that reserved employees of critically important enterprises are not subject to conscription during mobilization for the entire duration of the deferment.

During the case review, the court established that the company had the status of a critically important enterprise, the plaintiff was its employee, and the reservation was properly issued. The deferment was valid until September 27, 2025, and the defendant provided no evidence of its cancellation or annulment.

The court also paid special attention to the electronic reservation mechanism. The decision states that when reservation is made through the "Diia" portal, the transfer of the conscript to special military registration occurs automatically, and information about the granted deferment is displayed in the military registration document and in the "Reserve+" app. Such information is proper confirmation of a valid reservation.

According to the court, the TRC should have checked the information about the deferment before making the conscription decision. Failure to fulfill this duty led to a violation of the plaintiff's legally guaranteed right to deferment from mobilization.

Why the court allowed canceling the order after mobilization

The court noted that the Supreme Court's legal conclusions regarding the consequences of executing a mobilization order cannot be automatically applied to all categories of cases.

In this case, as the court found, the plaintiff was properly reserved before conscription and therefore was not subject to mobilization according to paragraph 1 of part 1 of article 23 of the Law "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization." The TRC's ignoring of the valid deferment was the cause of the dispute.

Moreover, the court emphasized that reservation has not only individual significance for the employee but also performs a socially important function — ensuring the continuous operation of enterprises necessary for the defense-industrial complex and the state economy during martial law. Therefore, conscripting a reserved employee contradicts the very purpose of the reservation institution.

Court decision

The Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court fully satisfied the lawsuit.

The court recognized as unlawful and canceled the TRC order dated August 9, 2025, regarding the plaintiff's conscription for military service during mobilization. Also, the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff 1,331.20 UAH in court fees.

Thus, in case No. 160/2020/26, the court concluded that a person who had a valid deferment from mobilization due to reservation at the time of conscription was not subject to conscription for military service, and the TRC order in this part is illegal.

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