A man applied to the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center for permission to travel abroad but ended up in the military — was such mobilization legal

Submitting an application for permission to travel abroad for employment is not a request for deferment from mobilization and does not prevent conscription in the absence of an official deferment. This conclusion was reached by the Seventh Administrative Court of Appeal, which upheld the decision of the court of first instance that refused to cancel the orders for conscription and enrollment of the conscript into the military unit.

The court emphasized that the procedure for granting the right to temporary travel abroad and the procedure for granting deferment from conscription are different legal procedures regulated by different normative legal acts. If a person has grounds for deferment, they must personally apply with the appropriate application and documents confirming such a right. At the same time, the right to deferment must be realized and formalized before acquiring the status of a serviceman.

Circumstances of the case

The plaintiff, who was registered for military service, applied to the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center on January 15, 2026, with an application for permission to travel abroad for employment. He stated that he had previously used the opportunity for temporary travel abroad in accordance with the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Resolution No. 992, which defines the conditions for crossing the state border by certain categories of citizens.

On January 27, 2026, the man was summoned to the center to resolve issues regarding the submitted documents, and on January 28, he was mobilized. The next day, by order of the military unit commander, he was enrolled in the personnel lists and appointed to the appropriate position.

Considering these orders illegal, the plaintiff went to court. In his opinion, the Territorial Recruitment Center had no right to mobilize him before considering the submitted application for permission to travel abroad. After the court of first instance refused to satisfy his claim, he appealed the decision.

Why the court recognized the mobilization as legal

The panel of judges agreed with the conclusion of the court of first instance that an application for permission to travel abroad is not an application for deferment from conscription.

The court noted that Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 992 regulates only the conditions for temporary travel abroad of certain categories of conscripts. In contrast, the procedure for granting deferment is defined by Article 23 of the Law "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization" and the Procedure approved by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 560, which provide a separate procedure for applying with an application and supporting documents.

The appellate court emphasized that Article 23 of the Law "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization" does not consider permission to travel abroad as grounds for deferment. Moreover, the case materials do not contain evidence that the plaintiff applied specifically for deferment or that he was mobilized before such an application was reviewed.

Under these circumstances, the court concluded that at the time of conscription, the man did not have an officially formalized deferment, and therefore the Territorial Recruitment Center in case 120/1635/26 acted within the powers granted by law.

Why the military unit order was not canceled

The court also refused to satisfy the claim to cancel the order of the military unit commander regarding the plaintiff's enrollment in the personnel lists.

The panel of judges noted that the military unit does not conduct conscription of conscripts. Its functions are to accept persons who have already been conscripted in accordance with the law. Therefore, after receiving mobilization documents, the commander was obliged to issue an order to enroll the plaintiff in the personnel of the military unit.

The court recalled the position of the Supreme Court

The appellate court drew attention to the legal position of the Supreme Court, according to which the right to deferment must be exercised by the conscript through active actions and formalized by the authorized body before acquiring the status of a serviceman. If a person had the right to deferment but did not properly formalize it before mobilization, they cannot later challenge the conscription solely on this basis.

After acquiring the status of a serviceman, new legal relations arise regarding military service. Its termination is possible only on the grounds and in the manner defined by the Law "On Military Duty and Military Service." If there are grounds provided by law, the serviceman has the right to apply to the military unit commander with a report on dismissal and provide documents confirming such a right.

In conclusion, the Seventh Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and left the decision of the Vinnytsia District Administrative Court unchanged. The ruling took legal effect from the day of its adoption and is not subject to appeal.

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