Clergyman believed he had the right to a deferment but ended up in the military: court recognized the mobilization as lawful

The right to a deferment by itself does not protect against mobilization if the conscripted person has not exercised it in the manner prescribed by law. This conclusion was reached by the Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal, which upheld the decision to deny the claim of a clergyman who challenged his conscription during mobilization. The court emphasized that even if a person belongs to a category eligible for a deferment, they must timely exercise this right by submitting the necessary documents. If this is not done, the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center (TRSSC) has the right to conscript the person for military service.

Case circumstances

The plaintiff applied to the court after being conscripted for military service during mobilization in November 2025. He requested to recognize the actions of the TRSSC regarding his conscription as unlawful, to cancel the order of the military unit commander enrolling him in the personnel lists, to oblige the removal of his name from the military unit lists, and to restore his previous status as a conscripted reservist in the Unified State Register of conscripts, reservists, and liable persons instead of the status of a serviceman.

The plaintiff claimed that he was mobilized without undergoing a military medical commission, that he had the right to a deferment as a clergyman, and therefore the mobilization itself was illegal, as was his subsequent military service.

The court established that since September 2025, the plaintiff worked as a clergyman in a religious community and was an ordained pastor. At the same time, at the time of conscription, he was registered as liable for military service. On November 11, 2025, he underwent a military medical commission, was declared fit for military service, and was mobilized the same day.

Court decision

The appellate court agreed with the conclusions of the first-instance court and left the decision unchanged.

The medical examination was conducted

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments that he did not undergo a military medical commission.

The case materials included a medical examination card, a certificate from the military medical commission, and the plaintiff's own signature acknowledging the commission's conclusion. According to the court, these documents confirm that the medical examination was properly conducted, and the claims of its absence do not correspond to the case materials.

The status of a clergyman does not automatically grant a deferment

The key issue in the dispute was the plaintiff's right to a deferment from conscription.

The court noted that the legislation provides for the possibility of reserving certain clergymen in the prescribed manner, after which they are granted a deferment from conscription during mobilization.

However, such a deferment does not arise automatically. To exercise this right, it is necessary to complete the procedure for reserving and obtaining a deferment as established by law. In this case, the court found that the plaintiff did not do this and therefore did not have a formalized deferment at the time of mobilization.

The mere existence of grounds for deferment is insufficient

The appellate court emphasized separately that the right to a deferment is not an unconditional privilege that operates automatically. The existence of substantive legal grounds is only a prerequisite for obtaining it.

To exercise this right, the liable person must apply to the relevant TRSSC with an application and documents confirming the grounds for deferment. If this is not done before conscription, the territorial recruitment center is not obliged to independently establish the presence of grounds for deferment.

The court stressed that the TRSSC acts exclusively within its powers and based on documents and information contained in the personal file of the liable person. Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, the absence of a properly formalized deferment meant that the defendants acted lawfully during the plaintiff's mobilization.

Cancelling the mobilization order does not terminate military service

The court also denied the claims to cancel the order enrolling the plaintiff in the military unit.

The panel of judges noted that after mobilization, new legal relations arise between the person and the Armed Forces of Ukraine regarding military service.

The law does not provide for dismissal from military service by canceling the conscription order. Since such an order has already been executed and the person has acquired the status of a serviceman, its cancellation alone does not restore the previous legal status.

The court pointed out that termination of military service is carried out exclusively on the grounds defined by Article 26 of the Law "On Military Duty and Military Service," following the established procedure, including by submitting the appropriate report by the serviceman. There was no evidence in case materials 460/2793/26 of such a report being submitted.

Additionally, the appellate court referred to the legal conclusion of the Supreme Court set out in the ruling dated February 5, 2025, in case No. 160/2592/23, according to which the procedure for conscripting a liable person during mobilization is irreversible (already occurred). Recognizing the conscription procedure as unlawful does not itself restore the previous status of the person conscripted for military service.

Court conclusion

The Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and left the decision of the Rivne District Administrative Court unchanged.

The court concluded that the plaintiff underwent the military medical commission, did not exercise the right to a deferment in the manner prescribed by law by formalizing the reservation and submitting the necessary documents, and therefore his mobilization was lawful. The court also confirmed that after acquiring the status of a serviceman, canceling the conscription order is not a legally provided method of terminating military service.

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