A vocational school employee challenged mobilization due to the right to deferment: why the court refused to cancel the draft

The Khmelnytskyi District Administrative Court considered case No. 560/17788/25 filed by a conscripted individual against a military unit, the territorial recruitment and social support center, and another defendant regarding the recognition as unlawful and cancellation of orders for conscription into military service during mobilization, as well as the order to enroll him in the personnel lists of the military unit. The plaintiff also requested the military unit to be obliged to remove him from the personnel lists.

Essence of the case

The plaintiff stated that he was registered for military service and on August 21, 2025, underwent a military-medical commission, which recognized him fit for military service during wartime.

On September 29, 2025, he was hired as a master of industrial training at Higher Vocational School No. 36, and from October 1 he began working at his main place of employment. After that, the employer informed the territorial recruitment and social support center about the change in the employee’s registration data in accordance with the requirements of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Resolution No. 1487.

The plaintiff claimed that on October 3, 2025, he personally applied to the territorial recruitment center with a request for deferment from conscription based on paragraph 2 of part three of article 23 of the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization," attaching documents confirming his full-time employment at the vocational education institution. According to him, officials of the territorial recruitment center refused to register the application, leaving him only with his own copy without a receipt of acceptance.

Additionally, the plaintiff noted that at the time of conscription he was on sick leave, which he also informed the territorial recruitment center staff about. His wife filed a complaint to the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine hotline and called the police, who, in her opinion, recorded unlawful actions by the territorial recruitment center employees.

Despite this, by order of the head of the territorial recruitment center dated October 3, 2025, the plaintiff was conscripted into military service during mobilization and sent to the military unit. On the same day, by order of the military unit commander, he was enrolled in the personnel lists.

The plaintiff asked the court to cancel both orders and oblige the military unit to remove him from the personnel lists.

The military unit opposed the claim, stating that the absence of a formal deferment is not grounds for release from military service, and the conscription procedure during mobilization is irreversible. The territorial recruitment center also indicated that in the absence of a formal deferment, the plaintiff was subject to mobilization on general grounds.

During the case review, the court repeatedly requested necessary evidence. Due to failure to fulfill procedural duties and inactivity aimed at obstructing justice, the court imposed a procedural fine on one of the defendants.

Position and conclusions of the court

The court established that according to the military registration document "Reserve+" at the time of conscription, the plaintiff was liable for military service, had passed the military-medical commission, and did not have a formal deferment.

The court confirmed the plaintiff’s employment at Higher Vocational School No. 36, as well as the receipt by the territorial recruitment center of the employer’s notification about the change in his registration data.

At the same time, the court noted that the notification of change in registration data is not proof of the employee’s reservation. The plaintiff also did not provide evidence that the educational institution arranged his reservation or challenged the actions or inactions of the territorial recruitment center regarding the consideration of the relevant notification.

The court drew attention to the fact that according to article 23 of the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization" and paragraphs 56, 58 of the Procedure for conscription of citizens into military service during mobilization, approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Resolution No. 560, deferment is granted on the condition of personal submission by the conscripted individual of an application in the prescribed form along with documents confirming the right to deferment. Such an application must be registered on the day of submission.

The court concluded that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of personal submission of the application in the form defined by appendix 4 to Procedure No. 560, together with the documents provided for in appendix 5 to this Procedure. The claim of submitting the relevant application is not supported by proper evidence, and the employer’s notification of change in registration data cannot replace the deferment procedure.

Regarding the plaintiff’s sick leave, the court noted that according to medical institution information, he was indeed undergoing treatment. At the same time, it was established that on October 3, 2025, the plaintiff personally came to the territorial recruitment center, and the case materials do not contain evidence of unlawful restriction of his freedom or other illegal actions by the defendant. Taken together with the established circumstances, this is not grounds for canceling the mobilization order.

Considering the requirements of article 77 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, the court stated that it is the plaintiff who must prove the circumstances on which his claims are based. In the court’s opinion, such evidence was not provided.

As a result, the court concluded that the plaintiff did not prove the unlawfulness of the order of the head of the territorial recruitment center on conscription into military service and sending to the military unit. Since the order of the military unit commander to enroll in the personnel lists is derivative of the conscription order, there are no grounds for its cancellation either. Accordingly, there are no grounds to satisfy the request to remove the plaintiff from the personnel lists of the military unit.

The court fully denied the administrative claim. The court also noted that due to the refusal of the claim, the paid court fee is not subject to reimbursement to the plaintiff.

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 informed about the most important events.