Man claimed his deferment was illegally canceled and he was declared wanted 26 minutes before the summons time: what the court decided

The Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Ternopil District Administrative Court, which denied interim relief to a conscript challenging his mobilization call-up.

The plaintiff claims that at the time of conscription he had a valid deferment. In his opinion, the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center (TRSSC) commission canceled it in violation of the established procedure. Therefore, he asks the court to declare unlawful and cancel the decision to cancel the deferment, recognize the actions related to his conscription during mobilization as unlawful, cancel the conscription order, and oblige the military unit to remove him from the personnel list.

What interim relief measures did the plaintiff request?

Along with the lawsuit, the plaintiff's representative filed a motion for interim relief. He asked the court to suspend the conscription order until the case is resolved on the merits, prohibit the military unit from involving the plaintiff in military service duties, and forbid his transfer to other military units.

Justifying the motion, the plaintiff noted that the decision to cancel the deferment was made with procedural violations, and the summons, on the basis of which he was allegedly declared wanted, did not contain the date of issuance and was not delivered to him. Additionally, he pointed out that he was declared wanted at 1:34 PM, although the arrival time stated in the summons was 2:00 PM on the same day, meaning the deadline for compliance had not yet arrived. The plaintiff also claimed that he voluntarily appeared at the TRSSC.

According to the plaintiff, without interim relief measures, he could be involved in combat tasks or transferred to another military unit, which, if the lawsuit is granted, could significantly complicate the execution of the future court decision.

Position of the appellate court

The panel of judges agreed with the first instance court's conclusion that there were no grounds for granting interim relief.

The court recalled that according to Articles 150–151 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, interim relief is allowed if failure to take such measures may significantly complicate or make impossible the execution of a future court decision or the effective protection of the plaintiff's rights, or if there are obvious signs of unlawfulness of the challenged decision. At the same time, it is the plaintiff who must justify the necessity of interim relief and provide evidence confirming the relevant circumstances.

The appellate court emphasized that when considering a motion for interim relief, the court does not assess the merits of the claims or decide on the legality or illegality of the defendants' actions. These circumstances can only be established during the substantive consideration of the case after examining all evidence.

The panel also noted that mere disagreement with a decision of an authority and filing a lawsuit is not sufficient grounds for granting interim relief.

Why the court refused

The court noted that the plaintiff's arguments about possible deployment to a combat zone or transfer to another military unit are based solely on assumptions and are not supported by any evidence.

According to the panel, the mere possibility of negative consequences in the future does not in itself justify granting interim relief. Judicial protection at this stage is provided only if there is a real risk of significant complication or impossibility of executing a future court decision, not merely the likelihood of rights violations in the future.

Moreover, in case 500/1498/26, the court emphasized that interim relief measures cannot, by their nature, be identical to satisfying the claims before the dispute is resolved on the merits.

In conclusion, the Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and left the decision of the Ternopil District Administrative Court unchanged. The appellate court's ruling took legal effect from the date of its issuance 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, Facebook page and Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.