The Territorial Recruitment Center mobilized a postgraduate student despite knowing about his studies: but the court did not cancel the draft

The fact that a conscript belongs to a category of persons eligible for a deferment from mobilization does not by itself mean that such a deferment has already been granted. To exercise this right, it is necessary to follow the procedure established by law: submit an application to the commission at the territorial recruitment and social support center along with documents confirming the grounds for deferment.

This conclusion was reached by the Third Administrative Court of Appeal, which upheld the decision of the court of first instance to deny the serviceman's claim to cancel the order of his conscription during mobilization.

Case circumstances

The plaintiff challenged the order of the territorial recruitment and social support center regarding his conscription during mobilization, as well as the order of the military unit commander to include him in the personnel lists. Additionally, he requested the military unit to remove him from the personnel lists.

He justified his claims by stating that at the time of mobilization he was studying full-time in postgraduate school and belonged to a category of persons who, according to Article 23 of the Law "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization," may receive a deferment from conscription during mobilization. The plaintiff noted that the Territorial Recruitment Center was aware of his studies, and he sent an application for deferment by mail on December 21, 2024. According to case materials, the territorial center received it on December 23, while the conscription order was issued on December 22, 2024.

The court of first instance denied the claim, after which the plaintiff appealed the decision.

What the appellate court established

The panel of judges confirmed that the plaintiff was indeed studying full-time in postgraduate school and had received a written notification from the Territorial Recruitment Center at the end of 2023 about the grounds for obtaining a deferment from mobilization.

At the same time, the court emphasized that the mere existence of legal grounds for deferment does not mean it is considered granted. To obtain it, the conscript must follow the procedure defined by the Procedure for conscription of citizens for military service during mobilization, approved by the Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 560.

Specifically, the conscript must personally submit an application in the prescribed form to the chairman of the commission at the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center along with documents confirming the right to deferment. The commission must review the application and supporting documents, verify the legal grounds, and only then make a decision to grant or deny the deferment.

The appellate court found that at the time the conscription order was issued, the plaintiff did not have a properly formalized deferment.

Why the court rejected the plaintiff's arguments

The plaintiff referred to paragraph 58 of Procedure No. 560, according to which a conscript is not subject to conscription until the commission makes a decision.

However, the court found that this provision was not applicable in this case because at the time the mobilization order was issued, the territorial center had not yet received the plaintiff's application for deferment. According to case materials 280/6130/25, the postal item was received only on December 23, 2024, while the conscription order was issued a day earlier — December 22. Therefore, the commission could not start reviewing the application before the conscription decision was made.

The panel of judges also rejected the claim that the Territorial Recruitment Center staff knew about the plaintiff's studies. The court noted that the center's awareness of the conscript's studies is not equivalent to fulfilling the procedure for obtaining a deferment as stipulated in paragraph 58 of Procedure No. 560.

Court conclusions

The appellate court agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance that the plaintiff, having legal grounds for deferment, had the opportunity to exercise this right by applying to the Territorial Recruitment Center with an application and properly formalized documents before the actual conscription.

Since the deferment was not formalized at the date of the mobilization order, the appellate court concluded that the Territorial Recruitment Center acted within its authority and in accordance with the law when issuing the conscription order. The court also noted that upon acquiring the status of a serviceman, the plaintiff lost the right to deferment from conscription.

Therefore, the panel of judges found no grounds to cancel the conscription order or the related order of the military unit commander to include the plaintiff in the personnel lists.

In conclusion, the Third Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and left the decision of the Zaporizhzhia District Administrative Court unchanged.

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