The Territorial Recruitment Center refused a deferral to a man whose wife has a Group III disability: what the court decided

The Mykolaiv District Administrative Court considered administrative case No. 400/2517/26 on the claim of a conscripted man against the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center regarding the recognition of the refusal to grant a deferral from conscription during mobilization as unlawful and the obligation to reconsider the application for its provision. The dispute arose due to the refusal of the Territorial Recruitment Center commission to issue a deferral based on paragraph 12 of part 1 of article 23 of the Law "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization".

Essence of the case

The plaintiff applied through the administrative services center with a request to issue a certificate of deferral from conscription during mobilization in accordance with Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 560. The basis for obtaining the deferral was the presence of a wife with a Group III disability established due to cancer, as provided for in paragraph 12 of part 1 of article 23 of the Law "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization." Electronic copies of documents confirming the right to a deferral were attached to the application, including a marriage certificate, a certificate regarding the wife’s diagnosis, and a certificate to the MSEC act establishing the Group III disability indefinitely.

The commission of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center refused to grant the deferral, formalizing the decision by protocol dated February 4, 2026, No. 105. The reason for refusal was the absence of a conclusion on the need for constant external care in the form approved by the Ministry of Health. Disagreeing with this refusal, the plaintiff turned to the court demanding to recognize it as unlawful and to cancel the commission’s decision. At the same time, he requested to oblige the defendant to issue a deferral certificate. During the case consideration, the court ensured the claim by prohibiting the Territorial Recruitment Center from taking actions to conscript the plaintiff until the decision comes into legal force.

Position and conclusions of the court

The court noted that the subject of the dispute is the determination of the conditions and grounds for granting a deferral from conscription during mobilization to a person whose wife has a Group III disability established due to cancer.

After analyzing paragraph 12 of part 1 of article 23 of the Law "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization," the court concluded that this provision does not require the applicant to submit additional documents proving that he is a provider of social services, nor decisions of social protection authorities regarding the provision of permanent care services by him to his wife. The law defines as an independent ground for deferral the fact of having a wife with a Group III disability established due to cancer.

The court found that along with the application, the plaintiff submitted a package of documents confirming the grounds for obtaining a deferral. Under these circumstances, the refusal of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center to consider the application and grant the deferral is unlawful. At the time of the application, the plaintiff, according to paragraph 12 of part 1 of article 23 of Law No. 3543-XII, was not subject to conscription and had the right to receive a deferral.

Moreover, the court emphasized that according to article 77 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, the burden of proving the legality of its decision, action, or inaction lies with the authority. The defendant failed to prove the legality of the refusal to grant the deferral, which was the basis for satisfying the claim.

As a result, the court fully satisfied the claim, recognized the refusal of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center, formalized by protocol dated February 4, 2026, No. 105, as unlawful, and obliged the defendant to reconsider the application for a deferral from conscription during mobilization taking into account the court’s conclusions. The court also awarded the plaintiff court costs in the amount of UAH 1863.68 at the expense of the defendant’s budget allocations.

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.