Ukrzaliznytsia Employee Mobilized Despite Exemption: Court Ordered His Release from Military Service

The Zaporizhzhia District Administrative Court considered a dispute between a serviceman and the Military Unit of the State Specialized Transport Service regarding the legality of refusing to release him from military service after the court annulled the decision on his mobilization. The court examined whether the legal grounds for military service remained valid for a person whose conscription was recognized as unlawful and canceled by a final court decision.

The court satisfied the claim and recognized the military unit's refusal to release the plaintiff from military service as unlawful, also obliging the cancellation of the order to enroll him in the personnel lists and to exclude him from the military unit.

Case Circumstances

The plaintiff worked in a structural subdivision of JSC "Ukrzaliznytsia," which is classified as a critically important enterprise for the functioning of the economy and ensuring the livelihood of the population during a special period. Based on an order from the Ministry of Economy, he was granted a deferment from conscription for military service during mobilization until April 27, 2025.

Despite having a valid exemption and documents confirming the right to deferment, in January 2025 the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center conscripted him for military service during mobilization and sent him to the Military Unit of the State Specialized Transport Service. Based on the corresponding order from the Territorial Recruitment Center, the commander of the military unit issued an order to enroll the plaintiff in the personnel lists, assign him to a position, and provide all types of support.

Subsequently, by the decision of the Zaporizhzhia District Administrative Court, which became final after appellate review, the order for conscription and sending the plaintiff to military service was recognized as unlawful and canceled. The court established that at the time of mobilization measures, the plaintiff had a valid deferment from conscription, and therefore there were no grounds for his mobilization.

After the decision became final, the plaintiff submitted a report to the military unit command requesting release from military service. However, the report was denied on the grounds that the commander's order to enroll him in the personnel lists remained valid. This became the basis for a new court appeal.

Court's Position

In case No. 280/2638/26, the court noted that the circumstances established by the previous decision regarding the illegality of conscription are not subject to re-proving according to Article 78 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine.

The court believes that the cancellation of the conscription order results in the loss of legal grounds for military service, as this act was the basis for the emergence of the relevant legal relations. All subsequent decisions made in execution of this order, including the order to enroll in the personnel lists and appointment to a position, are derivative of the unlawful mobilization decision.

The court emphasized that although the conscription order was executed and exhausted its effect by the fact of sending the person to the military unit, this does not deprive the person of the right to challenge such an individual act in court. Recognition of the conscription act as unlawful entails the necessity to eliminate all legal consequences arising from its execution.

The court also noted that current legislation does not provide a special procedure for releasing a serviceman if the court establishes the illegality of his conscription. At the same time, unlawful actions of authorities cannot produce lawful consequences, so effective judicial protection must ensure the return of the person to the legal status that existed before the violation of their rights.

The court also rejected the defendant's reference to the Supreme Court's legal position on the irreversibility of the mobilization procedure, stating that the cited case concerned different factual circumstances and was not related to challenging individual acts of conscription and enrollment in a military unit.

Court Conclusions

The Zaporizhzhia District Administrative Court concluded that after the cancellation of the mobilization decision, there are no legal grounds for the plaintiff to continue military service. The court recognized the military unit's refusal to release the plaintiff as unlawful, ordered his release from military service, canceled the order to enroll him in the personnel lists as derivative of the unlawful conscription order, and excluded the plaintiff from the military unit's personnel lists.

Additionally, the court ordered the military unit to reimburse the plaintiff's court costs, including the court fee.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, and follow us on Facebook and Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.