A man cared for his mother, but after a mistake with the certificate, he was drafted — the story of one mobilization

The Ternopil District Administrative Court reviewed the case of a conscript who was mobilized after the cancellation of a deferment granted due to caring for his mother, who requires constant external care. The court concluded that the decision to cancel the deferment was unfounded because the Territorial Recruitment Center based its conclusions on information received from a medical institution that did not issue the document that was the basis for granting the deferment.

Furthermore, the court found that the decision to cancel the deferment and the conscription order were made on the same day, and the defendants did not provide evidence of proper notification to the individual about the loss of the right to deferment. According to the court, this effectively deprived the man of the opportunity to reconfirm the grounds for deferment or exercise other rights provided by law.

As a result, the court canceled the decision of the Territorial Recruitment Center to cancel the deferment, recognized the conscription order as unlawful, and obliged the military unit to remove the plaintiff from the personnel lists and release him from military service.

Circumstances of the case

The plaintiff was registered for military service and had a deferment from mobilization through the "Reserve+" system until May 2026 based on paragraph 9 of part one of article 23 of the Law "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization" due to providing constant care for his mother, who requires such care.

To obtain the deferment, he submitted an application and a package of documents through the Administrative Service Center, including a conclusion from the medical-consultative commission about the mother's need for constant external care, a care act, and other supporting documents. After reviewing the application, the deferment was recorded in the "Reserve+" system.

However, on March 2, 2026, the Territorial Recruitment and Coordination Commission decided to cancel the deferment. The basis was information about the absence of data regarding the relevant conclusion of the medical-consultative commission in the registers and medical system. On the same day, the man was sent to the Military Medical Commission, declared fit for military service, issued a conscription order, and sent to a military unit. Later, he was included in the personnel lists.

Why the court sided with the plaintiff

The key point in the case was that the Territorial Recruitment and Coordination Commission checked information about the medical-consultative commission's conclusion through a different medical institution than the one that actually issued the document.

The court established that the conclusion about the plaintiff's mother's need for constant external care was issued by the "Skalat Medical Center." At the same time, the commission sent the verification request to the "Skalat Municipal Hospital." The response from this institution was used as the basis for concluding the absence of legal grounds for the deferment.

The court noted that the hospital contacted by the commission was not the author of the disputed conclusion and did not have information about its issuance. Therefore, the information received from it could not be a proper basis for concluding the invalidity or unreliability of the document submitted by the plaintiff. Thus, the court recognized the decision to cancel the deferment as unfounded.

The court on the principle of legal certainty and legitimate expectations

The court pointed out that the plaintiff properly exercised his right to deferment: he submitted an application, provided the necessary documents, and the deferment information was entered into the relevant registers and reflected in his electronic military registration document. Under such circumstances, he had legitimate expectations that state authorities would act according to the procedure established by law.

The decision emphasizes that after granting a deferment, a re-examination of its grounds is possible only in the manner prescribed by law. Failure to comply with such a procedure violates the principle of legal certainty and contradicts the requirements of the rule of law.

Violation of the deferment cancellation procedure

The court separately examined the issue of notifying the plaintiff about the cancellation of the deferment.

According to the Procedure for conscription during mobilization, a person must be properly notified of such a decision. The legislation also provides the possibility to personally come to the Territorial Recruitment Center to return deferment documents and, if grounds exist, reapply for deferment.

However, the case materials contained no evidence that the notification about the cancellation of the deferment was sent to the plaintiff by mail or email. Moreover, the decision to cancel the deferment and the conscription order were made on the same day. According to the court, this effectively deprived the person of the opportunity to exercise their rights under Procedure No. 560, indicating a violation of the established procedure.

Why the court canceled the conscription order

The court noted that one of the prerequisites for conscription during mobilization is the absence of a valid and properly exercised right to deferment by the conscript.

Since the decision to cancel the deferment was recognized as unlawful, the court concluded that the defendants lacked proper legal grounds to conscript the plaintiff into military service. For this reason, the Territorial Recruitment Center conscription order concerning the plaintiff was deemed unlawful and canceled.

At the same time, the court rejected arguments that after a person acquires the status of a serviceman, the consequences of mobilization are irreversible. The court emphasized that illegal cancellation of the deferment, violation of the notification procedure, and subsequent conscription cannot deprive a person of the right to effective judicial protection.

What the court decided

The Ternopil District Administrative Court partially satisfied the claim. The court recognized as unlawful and canceled the decision of the Territorial Recruitment Center to cancel the deferment, recognized as unlawful and canceled the conscription order for the plaintiff, and obliged the military unit to remove him from the personnel lists and release him from military service. At the same time, in case No. 500/1220/26, the court denied the request for separate reinstatement of the deferment, noting that its term had already expired and that canceling the commission's decision was a sufficient remedy for the violated right.

The court also recovered part of the paid court fee 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, our pages on Facebook and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.