Man cared for disabled brother because sister refused – court recognized the refusal of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center to grant a deferment as unlawful
The Kirovohrad District Administrative Court considered, in simplified administrative proceedings, a case filed by a conscripted person against the Commission for granting deferments from military service during mobilization for a special period at the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center, seeking to recognize the decision unlawful and to cancel it.
Case circumstances
The plaintiff requested to recognize as unlawful and cancel the commission's decision recorded in protocol No. 134 dated 6.05.2025, which refused to grant him a deferment from conscription during mobilization for a special period under paragraph 14 of part 1 of article 23 of the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization," and also to oblige the commission to reconsider his application and make a decision.
The plaintiff justified his claims by stating that he provides constant care for his biological brother, who is a person with a Group I disability (subgroup "B"), with a general illness, disability established until 1.12.2026. The brother requires external care, confirmed by a certificate attached to the medical-social expert commission's examination report. The plaintiff receives compensation for providing social care services on a non-professional basis. The brother's father is deceased. The brother's sister notarized a statement refusing to provide care and did not object to the plaintiff providing care. The plaintiff lives together with his brother.
Previously, the plaintiff was granted a deferment under paragraph 14 of part 1 of article 23 of the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization" until 1.12.2024 and until 9.05.2025. To extend the deferment, he submitted the appropriate application with the necessary documents.
The commission refused to grant the deferment, citing that the brother has a mother born in 1951, as well as sisters born in 1978, and the plaintiff did not provide documents confirming the inability of other first-degree family members to provide constant care.
Court decision
The Kirovohrad District Administrative Court satisfied the administrative claim in case No. 340/5296/25.
The court recognized as unlawful and canceled the decision of the Commission for granting deferments from military service during mobilization for a special period regarding the refusal to grant a deferment. The court obliged the commission to reconsider the plaintiff's application for a deferment in accordance with paragraph 14 of part 1 of article 23 of the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization" and to make an appropriate decision taking into account the legal assessment provided by the court.
The court awarded the plaintiff court costs for the payment of the court fee in the amount of UAH 1,211.20 at the expense of the defendant's budget allocations.
The court found that the plaintiff provided sufficient documents confirming family ties, the brother's Group I disability (subgroup "B"), the need for constant external care, the actual provision of such care by the plaintiff (including receiving compensation), and the inability of other family members to provide care (death of the father, refusal of the sister, lack of confirmation of the mother's ability to provide care). The commission's reference to the absence of documents regarding the inability of other relatives to provide care was recognized by the court as unfounded.
The court was guided by paragraph 14 of part 1 of article 23 of the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization," provisions of the Procedure for conscription of citizens for military service during mobilization for a special period, approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine resolution dated 16.05.2024 No. 560 (in particular paragraphs 56–60, appendix 5), the Regulation on Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centers, the Constitution of Ukraine, and the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine.
The court emphasized that constant care is a factual social and domestic action, and the evidence provided by the plaintiff confirms the absence of other persons capable of providing such care and the risk of leaving a person with a disability without necessary assistance in case of the plaintiff's conscription.
The court's decision may be appealed.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.
