A man with a conviction for a serious crime asked to be protected from mobilization — how the court case ended

A person who claims to have been removed from the military register due to a conviction for a serious or especially serious crime asked the court to temporarily prohibit the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center (TRSSC) from conscripting him during mobilization until the case is resolved. However, courts of two instances concluded that mere assumptions about possible mobilization are not sufficient grounds to grant the injunction. This decision was made by the Third Administrative Court of Appeal.

Case circumstances

The plaintiff applied to the court demanding to recognize as unlawful the refusal of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center to enter information about his removal from the military register into the Unified State Register of conscripts, those liable for military service, and reservists. He also asked to oblige the defendant to make the appropriate changes to the register.

The man justified his claims by stating that, according to him, in November 2023 he was removed from the military register based on paragraph 6 of part 6 of article 37 of the Law "On Military Duty and Military Service" as a person previously sentenced to imprisonment for a serious or especially serious crime. At the same time, in the "Reserve+" system, he found that he was still listed as liable for military service and had a mark about violating military registration rules.

Additionally, the plaintiff noted that in December 2024, when visiting the Ministry of Internal Affairs service center, it was revealed that he was wanted at the request of the TRSSC for failure to appear upon summons. Later, in response to a lawyer's inquiry, the TRSSC confirmed the plaintiff was wanted, although he was not held administratively liable for violating military registration rules.

During the consideration of the main claim, the man filed a separate application for securing the claim. He asked the court to prohibit the TRSSC and Social Protection Service from taking any actions related to his conscription during mobilization until the court decision in the case becomes final. In his opinion, there was a threat of mobilization, and in case of conscription, protecting his rights could be significantly complicated as he would acquire the status of a serviceman.

What the courts decided

The Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court denied the application for securing the claim. The plaintiff appealed this decision to the appellate court.

The Third Administrative Court of Appeal agreed with the conclusions of the first instance court and left the ruling unchanged.

The panel of judges reminded that securing a claim is an exceptional procedural mechanism. To apply it, a person must prove at least one of the grounds provided by law: that failure to take such measures may significantly complicate or make impossible the execution of a future court decision or effective protection of rights, or that there are already obvious signs of unlawfulness of actions or decisions of a public authority.

The appellate court emphasized that the applicant's arguments essentially coincide with the arguments of the main claim. At the same time, the legality of the refusal to make changes to the register of those liable for military service requires examination of evidence and can only be finally resolved during the substantive consideration of the case.

The court concluded that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of circumstances indicating the necessity of securing the claim, particularly regarding the risk of his conscription before the dispute is resolved on the merits. The panel noted that the arguments presented are mostly based on assumptions about possible future developments.

Position of the appellate court

The court specifically stressed that securing a claim cannot replace resolving the dispute on the merits. Applying a ban on conscription in this situation would effectively mean a preliminary resolution of part of the disputed issues before establishing all the circumstances of the case and evaluating the evidence.

The panel of judges noted that in case 160/15109/25, it concerns probable future consequences, not proven rights violations requiring immediate judicial intervention. The court also emphasized that taking measures to secure the claim solely based on assumptions would contradict the principle of legal certainty.

In view of this, the appellate court dismissed the appeal and left the ruling of the Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court unchanged. The decision took legal effect upon adoption and can be appealed to the Supreme Court in cassation procedure.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua, 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.