Is it possible to submit a deferral application by mail without a personal visit to the Administrative Service Center: the court sided with the father of three children

The Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court concluded that the requirement to personally submit an application for deferral from mobilization means the personal expression of will by the conscripted person, not the mandatory physical presence at the Center for Administrative Services. Therefore, the refusal to consider an application sent by the applicant himself by mail was recognized by the court as unlawful inaction. At the same time, the court did not decide on the merits of granting the deferral but only obliged the authorized body to reconsider the appeal and make an appropriate decision.

Case circumstances

In January 2026, the plaintiff applied for a deferral from conscription during mobilization as a person supporting three children under 18 years old. He addressed the application to the head of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Protection Commission and sent it by mail to the CNAP, which was supposed to ensure its further consideration in the prescribed manner.

In response, the Administrative Service Center informed the applicant that submission of documents for deferral by mail was not provided for. The letter stated that to receive the service, the person must personally appear at the Administrative Service Center with documents confirming the right to a deferral. After that, the appeal was effectively not forwarded for substantive consideration.

Considering these actions illegal, the man turned to the court.

Position of the Administrative Service Center

The defendant insisted that it acted in accordance with the Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 560, which provides for the personal submission of deferral applications through the Administrative Service Center.

According to Administrative Service Center, sending the application by mail without the applicant's personal visit violated the established procedure. In addition, the defendant referred to the procedure for forming an electronic application through the Administrative Service Center administrator, which involves its verification and signing by the applicant. For this reason, the body considered further consideration of documents received by mail impossible.

Court conclusions

The court analyzed the provisions of the Law "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization" and the Procedure approved by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 560, which regulate the procedure for granting deferrals from conscription during mobilization.

The court noted that the wording about personal submission of the application primarily defines the subject of the appeal. That is, the expression of will must come directly from the conscripted person, not from his representative or another person. At the same time, these provisions do not contain a direct requirement for the mandatory physical presence of the applicant in the Administrative Service Center premises as the only possible way to submit documents.

In the court's opinion, sending the application by mail by the conscripted person himself is also a form of his personal expression of will and does not change the subject of the appeal. Therefore, the method of submitting the application itself could not be a reason for refusal to consider it.

Moreover, the court noted that the plaintiff's application is a citizen's appeal within the meaning of the Law "On Citizens' Appeals." Therefore, after receiving it, the body was obliged to consider the appeal and make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the legislation.

Why the body's actions were recognized as unlawful

The court established that after receiving the application and attached documents, the Administrative Service Center did not consider it on the merits and did not make a decision in the form provided by special legislation.

Instead, the body limited itself to a clarification letter about the necessity of the applicant's personal arrival. In fact, the appeal remained unconsidered.

In the court's opinion, such behavior indicates not the exercise of discretionary powers but the failure to fulfill the legal obligation to consider the application and make the decision provided by law. Therefore, the court recognized the defendant's inaction regarding the consideration of the deferral application as unlawful.

What the court decided

The Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court fully satisfied the claim.

The court recognized the inaction of the Department of the Center for Administrative Services of the Krynychanska Village Council regarding the consideration of the deferral application during mobilization as unlawful.

At the same time, in case No. 160/1081/26, the court emphasized that it cannot replace the Territorial Recruitment and Social Protection Commission and decide on granting a deferral instead of it. The evaluation of submitted documents and the decision to grant or refuse a deferral belong to the competence of the respective commission.

In view of this, the court obliged the Administrative Service Center to reconsider the plaintiff's application and ensure the adoption of a decision in accordance with the requirements of the legislation, taking into account the legal assessment set out in the court decision. Also, 1,064.96 UAH of court fees were recovered in favor of the plaintiff.

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.