Is It Possible to Block Mobilization Through the Court During the Consideration of a Case Against the Territorial Recruitment Center — Appeal Conclusion

The Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal confirmed that the mere fact of filing a lawsuit against the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center does not suspend the contested decisions and is not grounds for the automatic blocking of mobilization measures. The court dismissed the appeal of a citizen who requested to prohibit the Territorial Recruitment Center and its units from conscripting, sending to a training center, or military unit during the consideration of the case.

The panel of judges emphasized that securing a claim is an exceptional procedural mechanism. To apply it, the applicant must prove the existence of a real threat to their rights or show that without such measures, the enforcement of a future court decision or restoration of their rights would be significantly complicated or impossible. No such evidence was provided in this case.

Circumstances of the Case

A citizen filed a lawsuit with the Kyiv District Administrative Court against the Territorial Recruitment Center, challenging the defendant's decisions and actions related to the conclusion about his violation of military registration rules. The plaintiff claimed to be registered for military service but had not received summons to the Territorial Recruitment Center.

After filing the lawsuit, he submitted a motion to secure the claim. In it, he requested to prohibit the Territorial Recruitment Center, its departments, and commissions from taking any actions regarding his relocation, conscription, or sending to a training center or military unit for military service until the court's decision in the case comes into legal force.

The applicant justified the need for such a measure by the necessity to balance the public interest of the state in conducting mobilization during martial law and his private interests.

Why the Court of First Instance Denied

The Kyiv District Administrative Court denied the motion to secure the claim. The court concluded that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient arguments or evidence indicating the necessity of such a measure.

In particular, the court did not find confirmation that the absence of securing measures could significantly complicate the protection or restoration of the plaintiff's rights or the enforcement of a future court decision. The applicant also failed to prove the existence of other grounds provided by law for temporary judicial intervention.

Position of the Appellate Court

Reviewing the case, the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal recalled that according to Articles 150–151 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, securing a claim is allowed only in exceptional cases. Specifically, when the absence of such measures may significantly complicate or make impossible the enforcement of a future court decision or effective protection of a person's rights, or when there are obvious signs of illegality of decisions or actions of a public authority.

The panel noted that when deciding on securing a claim, the court must assess the reasonableness and proportionality of the proposed measure, its connection to the subject matter of the dispute, as well as the consequences of such intervention for all interested parties.

The court also referred to the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which the application of securing measures is possible only if there is a sufficiently substantiated assumption that without them, the protection of a person's rights or enforcement of a future court decision will be significantly complicated or impossible.

According to the appellate court, the plaintiff did not provide proper and admissible evidence that at the time of filing the motion there was an obvious danger of harm to his rights or that without prohibiting mobilization measures, the restoration of his rights in the future would be impossible.

At the same time, the panel emphasized that this proceeding did not resolve the issue of the legality or illegality of the Territorial Recruitment Center's actions. The subject of consideration was exclusively the presence of grounds for securing the claim before the substantive decision in the case.

The court also noted that the plaintiff is not deprived of the right to re-submit a motion to secure the claim during the further consideration of the case if other grounds arise or new evidence is provided.

Court Decision

The Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and left the decision of the Kyiv District Administrative Court unchanged. Thus, at this stage of the case, the court found no grounds for temporarily prohibiting the Territorial Recruitment Center from carrying out mobilization measures against the plaintiff until the dispute is resolved on the merits.

The ruling in case 320/52890/25 came into legal force on the day of its adoption and, according to Article 328 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, is not subject to cassation appeal.