The Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center refused to extend the deferral to a man caring for his disabled mother: what the court decided

The Zakarpattia District Administrative Court reviewed a case filed by a conscripted individual against the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center and the commission responsible for considering deferral requests from military service during mobilization concerning the non-extension of a previously granted deferral and refusal to grant a deferral based on paragraph 9 of part one of article 23 of the Law "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization."

The plaintiff requested to recognize the inaction regarding the non-extension of the deferral after the mobilization period was extended as unlawful, to cancel the commission's decision to refuse the deferral, and to oblige the Territorial Recruitment Center to grant the deferral and enter the relevant information into the Unified State Register of conscripts, reservists, and those liable for military service.

Essence of the case

Since May 2024, the conscripted individual had the right to a deferral from conscription during mobilization due to providing constant care for his mother, who is a person with a group II disability and, according to authorized medical bodies, requires constant external care.

After changing his actual place of residence and registering with another Territorial Recruitment Center, the conscripted individual continued to be registered for military service at his new place of residence. Case materials confirmed that his mother lives with him as an internally displaced person, has a group II disability, requires constant care, and the fact of such care was established by the relevant act.

Based on these circumstances, the commission previously granted the plaintiff a deferral for the mobilization periods from March 19 to May 8, 2025, and from May 9 to August 7, 2025.

After the mobilization period was extended by the Decree of the President of Ukraine dated July 14, 2025, No. 479/2025, the deferral was not automatically extended. After being summoned to the Territorial Recruitment Center, the plaintiff was informed about the need to submit a new application for a deferral in accordance with the Procedure approved by the Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 560.

The conscripted individual submitted an application and a package of documents confirming his right to a deferral; however, he was not properly informed about the results of the application review. Later, he submitted the application again with an updated package of documents.

Only after sending a lawyer's inquiry did it become known that the commission refused to grant the deferral. The reason for refusal was the failure to submit documents which, according to the commission, should have confirmed the impossibility of providing constant care by other able-bodied family members.

During the case review, it was also established that the commission had earlier made a separate decision to refuse the plaintiff's first application. However, the corresponding protocol did not specify the commission's composition or the reasons for refusal.

Position and conclusions of the court

The court analyzed the provisions of article 23 of the Law "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization," the Regulations on Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centers, as well as the Procedure for conscription of citizens for military service during mobilization, approved by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 560.

The court noted that paragraph 60 of Procedure No. 560 explicitly provides that a deferral granted under paragraphs 57–58-1 of this Procedure, in case of an extension of the mobilization period, is extended by the Territorial Recruitment Center without the conscripted individual resubmitting documents confirming the right to a deferral, provided there are legal grounds for its continuation.

In case No. 260/8206/25, the court found that the defendant did not provide any evidence that officials of the Territorial Recruitment Center identified the absence of legal grounds for further use of the deferral. It was also not established that the required verification of grounds for automatic deferral extension was conducted as prescribed by the Procedure.

The court concluded that the non-extension of the deferral contradicts the requirements of paragraph 60 of Procedure No. 560 and is unlawful.

The court also emphasized that the consequence of automatic deferral extension is the verification of the existence of legal grounds for its continuation based on documents previously submitted by the conscripted individual. The defendant did not carry out such verification.

When assessing the commission's decision to refuse the deferral, the court thoroughly analyzed the content of paragraph 9 of part one of article 23 of the Law "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization" and appendix 5 to Procedure No. 560.

The court stressed that for persons providing constant care for their father or mother, the law requires submission of documents proving family ties and documents confirming the person's need for constant care.

At the same time, documents regarding the impossibility of care by other able-bodied family members are required only in cases of care for the father or mother of the spouse.

Therefore, the commission's requirement to submit additional documents regarding other able-bodied family members did not comply with the regulatory framework of the disputed legal relations, as the plaintiff was caring for his own mother.

Moreover, the court noted that the commission is obliged to independently verify the necessary information using data from state registers, information systems, and databases, and, if necessary, request additional information from state authorities.

The court concluded that the decisions to refuse the deferral were made without proper clarification of all circumstances of the case, with incorrect application of the provisions of Procedure No. 560, and without sufficient legal grounds.

As a result of the case review, the court recognized the inaction of the Territorial Recruitment Center regarding the non-extension of the deferral after the mobilization period extension as unlawful, recognized the commission's refusal decisions as unlawful and canceled them, and obliged the defendant to reconsider the issue of the plaintiff's right to a deferral in accordance with the requirements of the law.

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.