College student lost court case against the Territorial Recruitment Center: why the right to deferment from mobilization did not work

The Third Administrative Court of Appeal considered a dispute regarding the legality of the mobilization of a college student and his enrollment in a military unit. The plaintiff requested the cancellation of the orders for conscription and military service, citing the right to deferment as a student and violations during the military-medical commission. The appellate court reviewed the legality of the first instance court's decision, which denied the claim.

Circumstances of the case

The plaintiff was registered for military service and from September 1, 2025, was enrolled in the Sloviansk Energy Construction College in full-time education to obtain an education.

On September 18, 2025, while in Kamianske, he was taken to the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center for verification of military registration data and to undergo a military-medical commission. On the same day, the commission recognized him fit for military service.

After that, by order of the head of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center, he was conscripted for military service during mobilization and sent to a military unit. By a separate order of the military unit commander, he was enrolled in the personnel list as a cadet of the training unit.

Considering these decisions illegal, the citizen appealed to the court. He argued that he had the right to deferment from conscription as a full-time student and that the corresponding application was submitted to the military registration authority. He also referred to violations during the military-medical commission.

The Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court denied the claim. Disagreeing with this decision, the plaintiff filed an appeal.

Position and conclusions of the court

The appellate court noted that according to Article 65 of the Constitution of Ukraine, the defense of the Fatherland, independence, and territorial integrity of the state is a constitutional duty of citizens. The court also took into account that martial law and general mobilization continue to be in effect in Ukraine.

The panel of judges emphasized that Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centers are authorized to conscript those liable for military service regardless of their place of military registration.

The court established that at the time of the disputed legal relations, the law indeed provided the right to deferment from mobilization for students of professional, vocational pre-higher, and higher education studying full-time or dual forms and obtaining a higher education level. Thus, the plaintiff, as a person obtaining the relevant education level for the first time, belonged to the category of citizens entitled to deferment.

At the same time, the court drew attention to the established practice of the Supreme Court, according to which the right to deferment does not arise automatically. To exercise this right, the person liable for military service must take active steps and properly formalize this right through the authorized body. Moreover, this right can only be exercised before acquiring the status of a serviceman.

The appellate court noted that the case materials do not contain evidence that at the time of mobilization measures, the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center had documented information confirming the plaintiff's right to deferment. His military registration documents also did not contain information about the deferment being formalized.

The appellant's claim that the application with the necessary documents was sent by mail to the military registration authority was recognized by the court as insufficient evidence. According to the panel of judges, the provided postal documents do not reliably establish that the relevant materials were submitted by the plaintiff himself and before the mobilization procedures, rather than after the conscription order was issued.

The court also emphasized that the law imposes an obligation on those liable for military service to personally notify the military registration authorities about changes in circumstances, including education, within the time frame established by law. The plaintiff did not provide evidence of fulfilling this obligation.

Regarding the arguments about violations in the procedure of the military-medical commission, the appellate court stated that the case materials do not contain evidence of appealing the relevant decisions or actions of the commission, so these circumstances cannot affect the dispute resolution.

The court also rejected references to the entry of information into the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations based on another person's statement, emphasizing that the mere fact of registering a criminal proceeding does not confirm the commission of a criminal offense.

In conclusion, the panel of judges in case No. 160/33721/25 agreed with the conclusions of the first instance court about the absence of legal grounds to satisfy the claim. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court remained unchanged.

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