The Territorial Recruitment Center refused a man a deferral: it believes that the father with a disability can be supported by his retired wife

The Kirovohrad District Administrative Court recognized as unlawful and canceled the decision of the commission at the territorial recruitment center, which refused a conscript a deferral from mobilization due to caring for a father with a Group II disability. The court concluded that the commission applied the substantive law formally, without proper assessment of the factual circumstances regarding the presence of other persons obligated to support the plaintiff's father.

Case circumstances

The plaintiff applied to the court demanding the cancellation of the commission's decision, recorded in the protocol dated February 19, 2026, and to oblige the commission to reconsider his application for a deferral according to paragraph 13 of part one of article 23 of the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization."

The basis for the appeal was the refusal of the deferral despite the plaintiff submitting documents confirming the father's Group II disability, family ties, and the father's statement designating his son as the person who will support him.

The commission justified the refusal by stating that the plaintiff's father has a wife who, according to the law, is obliged to support him, and that no documents were submitted confirming the impossibility of fulfilling this obligation.

The plaintiff objected to these conclusions, indicating that the father's wife is a retiree by age and therefore an incapacitated person within the meaning of article 75 of the Family Code of Ukraine, and cannot be considered capable of providing support to her husband.

Positions of the parties and evaluation of evidence

The court established that the plaintiff's father has a Group II disability and is in a registered marriage with a person of retirement age. These circumstances are confirmed by the case materials and were not disputed by the parties.

The defendant insisted that the presence of a wife excludes the right to a deferral if no documents are provided confirming her inability to fulfill the support obligation.

The court noted that the spouses' right to mutual support according to article 75 of the Family Code of Ukraine is related not only to formal marital status but also to actual incapacity and the need for material assistance. Therefore, retirement age is a circumstance significant for assessing a person's ability to fulfill the support obligation.

Court's reasoning

The court proceeded from the fact that the right to a deferral under paragraph 13 of part one of article 23 of the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization" arises when a set of conditions exist, including the disability of one parent and the absence of other persons who are legally obliged and actually able to support him.

The court emphasized that the mere existence of a formal obligation on the wife is not sufficient grounds for refusal of a deferral without verifying the real possibility of fulfilling it. The commission limited itself to a formal approach and did not properly assess circumstances related to the retirement status of the plaintiff's father's wife.

At the same time, the court noted that the case materials contain no information about other persons who could provide support to the disabled person, except for the plaintiff as an adult child who has the corresponding obligation under family law.

Court conclusion

The court concluded that the commission, when making the decision, did not ensure a full and objective investigation of all circumstances of the case, which led to the incorrect application of substantive law norms.

The commission's decision to refuse the deferral was recognized as unlawful and canceled.

In case 340/1102/26, the court obliged the commission to reconsider the plaintiff's application taking into account the conclusions set out in the court decision.

Separately, the court resolved the issue of court costs and recovered part of the paid court fee in favor of the plaintiff at the expense of the defendant's budget allocations.

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