Mobilized despite active reservation: court sided with the critical enterprise employee

The Rivne District Administrative Court considered a case filed by a conscripted individual against the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center and a military unit challenging mobilization during the period of an active reservation. The plaintiff requested to declare unlawful the actions regarding his detention and delivery to the TRSC, to cancel the order for conscription into military service during mobilization, as well as the order to enroll him in the personnel lists of the military unit, and to oblige his removal from the list of servicemen.

Case essence

The plaintiff was registered for military service and worked at an enterprise designated as critically important for the economy's functioning and ensuring the population's livelihood during a special period. The enterprise made a reservation for him through the Unified State Web Portal of Electronic Services, and the deferment period from conscription was set until February 26, 2026.

After the employer confirmed the status of a critically important enterprise, the employee was submitted for re-reservation. However, on February 7, 2026, representatives of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center delivered him to the TRSC and subsequently sent him to a military unit to undergo military service.

On the same day, the head of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center issued an order for conscription of the conscripted individual into military service during mobilization, and the next day the commander of the military unit issued an order to enroll him in the personnel lists and appoint him as a driver-operator of an excavator in the engineering-position group of the engineer-sapper platoon of the mechanized battalion.

The plaintiff stated that at the time of mobilization he had a valid reservation and was entitled to a deferment from conscription, and therefore was not subject to mobilization.

Defendants' position

The military unit stated that the plaintiff is serving military service by conscription during mobilization and can only be released on grounds specified in Article 26 of the Law of Ukraine "On Military Duty and Military Service." The command also emphasized that no documents regarding grounds for release or corresponding reports from the serviceman were received, therefore the order to enroll him in the personnel lists is lawful.

The Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center did not submit a response to the claim.

Court conclusions

The court thoroughly analyzed the provisions of legislation on mobilization, military duty, reservation of conscripts, and the procedure for granting deferments from conscription during mobilization.

The court noted that according to Article 23 of the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization," conscripts who are reserved for the period of mobilization and wartime and are on special military registration are not subject to conscription during mobilization.

Separately, in case No. 460/5593/26, the court assessed the evidentiary value of information from the "Reserve+" application. The decision states that this service is an electronic cabinet for conscripts, reservists, and those liable for military service, through which a military registration document is formed electronically. Such a document has the same legal force as a paper military registration document, and information about the presence of reservation and deferment reflected in it can be used as evidence.

The court established that at the time of issuing the conscription order, the plaintiff's reservation period had not expired and was valid until February 26, 2026, inclusive. The case materials contained no information about cancellation or annulment of the reservation, and the defendants provided no evidence to the contrary.

Under these circumstances, the court concluded that on the date of mobilization, the plaintiff had a valid deferment from conscription during mobilization and therefore was not subject to conscription. At the same time, the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center did not take proper measures to verify his right to a deferment.

Consequently, the court recognized the actions regarding the mobilization and delivery of the plaintiff to the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center as unlawful, and also concluded the unlawfulness of the conscription order during mobilization and the necessity of its cancellation.

Considering the claims regarding the military unit's order to enroll the plaintiff in the personnel lists and to exclude him from the servicemen, the court noted that effective judicial protection must ensure the real restoration of the violated right. The court based its reasoning on the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine, the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, and the practice of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine regarding the necessity to ensure effective means of protecting individual rights when unlawfulness of decisions by authorities is established.

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 informed about the most important events.