Mobilized despite a 12-month deferment: court ruled the draft unlawful

Vinnytsia Administrative Court of Appeal sided with the mobilization-reserved individual who was mobilized despite a current deferral. The court found that the deferral document was issued a few days before conscription and was not canceled, but the officials of the Territorial Center for Recruitment did not take it into account.

Vinnytsia Administrative Court of Appeal considered case No. 120/13095/25 concerning the legality of mobilization of an employee of a production unit on the wagon section of the Khmelnytskyi station. The man challenged the actions of the TCC after he was drafted into military service and sent to a military unit, despite having a valid deferral.

As the court established, 3 September 2025 year the man was issued a certificate No. 97, which granted him a deferral from conscription during mobilization for a period of 12 months.

On 5 September he arrived at the TCC to clarify military accounting data in connection with the reserve. The man presented the deferral certificate, but the TCC officials did not take this document into account and sent him to the pre-mobilization gathering point.

Later, the TCC issued an order to draft the man into military service during mobilization and direct him to a military unit.

Meanwhile, the mobilization-reserved employee’s employer sent the deferral certificate to the TCC on the same day. The court also established that information about the reservation of this employee had been coming to the TCC earlier.

Court: deferral remained valid

During the proceedings, the court noted that at the time of mobilization the man’s deferral had not been canceled either administratively or by court order.

According to the law, those reserved for mobilization and wartime are not subject to conscription if there are valid grounds.

The court emphasized that it is the TCC’s duty to verify the presence of the mobilization-reserved person’s right to deferral and to properly document it.

At the same time, a person should not bear responsibility for improper reflection of deferral information in the register or for the fact that the relevant data were not properly taken into account by TCC officials.

Since the defendants did not provide evidence of cancellation of the deferral, the court concluded that it remained in effect at the time of conscription.

What the court decided regarding the military unit

Separately, the court considered the legality of crediting the man to the personnel lists of the military unit.

The court noted that the military unit receives mobilized persons after their selection and conscription by the TCC. Therefore, at the moment of enrollment, the unit acted on the basis of documents received from the territorial recruitment center.

At the same time, the order of enrollment was derived from the mobilization decision. Since the conscription itself was found to be unlawful, this became a basis to cancel the corresponding order of the military unit.

As a result, the court canceled the TCC order regarding the man’s conscription into military service, canceled the commander’s order on his enrollment in the unit’s personnel lists, and obliged the authorities to discharge him from military service and remove him from the personnel lists.

In another part of the claim, the court denied the claim.

The decision shows that having a valid deferral at the time of mobilization can be a ground to challenge the draft if the TCC did not verify or ignored the relevant documents.

Earlier StopCor reported that the Odesa Administrative Court partially granted the man’s suit against the TCC, canceling a fine of 17 thousand hryvnias and recognizing certain decisions on his military accounting as unlawful. In addition, the court ordered payment to the plaintiff of 5 thousand hryvnias in moral damages, but the decision has not yet entered into force and may be appealed.