Won the appeal, but was not released from service: the court put an end to the case of a serviceman caring for his grandfather
The Lviv District Administrative Court considered the case of a serviceman who sought to be released from service to care for his grandfather — a person with a Group II disability. Although the serviceman’s right to release had already been confirmed by the appellate court’s ruling, the authorized military unit refused to process his release, re-evaluating circumstances that had already been assessed by the court. The court emphasized that state authorities are obliged to comply with court decisions that have entered into legal force and to take into account the preclusive circumstances established by them.
The claim was fully satisfied. The court recognized the refusal to release as unlawful and obliged the military unit, whose commander has the relevant personnel authority, to release the serviceman based on subparagraph "g" of paragraph 2 of part 4 of Article 26 of the Law of Ukraine "On Military Duty and Military Service."
Circumstances of the case
The serviceman turned to the court after his repeated application for release due to family circumstances was effectively left unimplemented.
The premise of the new dispute was that on December 30, 2025, the Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal recognized the previous refusal to release as unlawful and obliged the military unit to release the plaintiff from service due to the need for constant care for his grandfather — a person with a Group II disability. The appellate court then established that the serviceman’s mother, who is the daughter of the grandfather, has been permanently residing in Spain since 2018, has no intention of returning to Ukraine, and practically cannot provide care for her father. For this reason, the court recognized that the serviceman has the right to be released on the corresponding family grounds.
After this ruling entered into legal force, the serviceman submitted a new application for release along with a copy of the appellate court’s decision and other documents. The commander of the unit where he served approved the application and sent it to the military unit whose commander had the authority to make decisions on the release of officers.
However, the higher military unit returned the documents without implementation. It stated that the grandfather has a daughter and another grandson who allegedly can provide care, declared the absence of a family status verification act approved by the head of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center, questioned the possibility of actual care due to military service, and also expressed doubts about the sufficiency of medical documents confirming the need for constant external care. In addition, the military unit noted that the previous appellate court ruling does not impose direct obligations on it.
What the court decided
The Lviv District Administrative Court did not agree with this position.
The court noted that the circumstances with preclusive significance for this dispute were already established by the ruling of the Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal. In particular, in case 380/8249/26, it was established that the serviceman has the right to be released due to the need for constant care for his grandfather and the impossibility of such care by his mother, who permanently resides abroad.
According to part four of Article 78 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, circumstances established by a court decision that has entered into legal force are not subject to re-proof. Therefore, the military unit had no legal grounds to question these circumstances again or to provide a different assessment of evidence that had already been subject to judicial examination.
The court also rejected arguments that the care could be provided by the grandfather’s daughter, since this issue was already resolved by the appellate court’s ruling. The court also did not accept arguments about the existence of another grandson, as the defendant did not provide any evidence confirming this circumstance.
Separately, the court emphasized that court decisions that have entered into legal force are mandatory for execution by all state authorities and their officials. The obligation to execute them is part of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine, the Code of Administrative Procedure, the Law "On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges," and Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The key in the case was the application of the principle of preclusion: circumstances established by a court decision that has entered into legal force are not subject to re-proof and must be taken into account by state authorities when resolving related issues.
In conclusion, the court recognized the actions of the two military units regarding the refusal to release the serviceman as unlawful and obliged the military unit, whose commander has the relevant personnel authority, to release him from military service based on subparagraph "g" of paragraph 2 of part 4 of Article 26 of the Law of Ukraine "On Military Duty and Military Service" due to the need for constant care for his grandfather — a person with a Group II disability. The court also ordered the refund of the mistakenly paid court fee to the plaintiff, having concluded that the serviceman was exempt from its payment according to the Law of Ukraine "On Court Fees."
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua, Google News SUD.UA here, as well as our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram account to stay updated on the most important events.
