Court rules mobilization of Ukrsibbank employee unlawful as he already had a deferral reservation

The Sixth Appellate Administrative Court has upheld the ruling of the Chernihiv District Administrative Court, which found the mobilization of an employee of JSC Ukrsibbank to be unlawful: at the time he was actually sent to a military unit, the man already had an active reservation and a deferral from conscription.

This was reported by Sudebno-Yuridicheskaya Gazeta.

The case was heard on a lawsuit filed by a reservist against a military unit and a territorial recruitment and social support center (case No. 620/3618/25). The man worked at JSC Ukrsibbank, which on January 23, 2025, the National Bank of Ukraine designated as critically important for the functioning of the economy and ensuring the livelihoods of the population during a special period.

On February 13, 2025, the employee arrived at the territorial recruitment center to update his military registration data and underwent a military medical commission. He was found fit for military service. On the same day, the head of the territorial recruitment center issued Order No. 43 on the man’s conscription into military service during mobilization and his dispatch to the Kyiv city assembly point.

However, by February 14, 2025, when the man was actually sent to the military unit and enrolled on the personnel list by commander’s Order No. 47, he already had reserved status. This was confirmed by data from the Diia app and an extract from Rezerv+.

On March 24, 2026, the Chernihiv District Administrative Court partially granted the lawsuit: it annulled the orders of February 13 and 14, 2025, in the parts pertaining to the plaintiff, as well as the military unit commander’s order on his appointment to a position and enrollment on the personnel list. The military unit was ordered to issue an order removing the man from the personnel list and discharging him from military service.

The military unit appealed the ruling, but the Sixth Appellate Administrative Court upheld the conclusions of the first instance. The court noted that, in accordance with the law, reserved reservists enrolled in the special military register are not subject to conscription during mobilization. Reservation is carried out in electronic form, and the procedure for processing it provides for the automatic transfer of a person to the special military register within 72 hours of the relevant list being generated under certain conditions. Since the man updated his military registration data on February 13, the court found that he had lawful grounds to receive a reservation within the established timeframe.

The court also established that the territorial recruitment center had failed to properly verify whether the man had the right to a deferral on account of his reservation and had issued the order for his conscription. The key circumstance was that the man arrived at the military unit itself on February 14 — and it was on that very day, according to state information resources, that he was already registered as reserved.

Separately, the appellate court considered the question of the man’s continued military service. The court noted that the law does not explicitly define unlawful conscription by a territorial recruitment center as a standalone ground for discharging a servicemember; however, the court is obliged to apply a remedy that fully eliminates the consequences of the rights violation. Since the performance of military service was a direct consequence of the unlawful mobilization order, the court recognized the appropriate remedy to be not only the annulment of the order but also the removal of the man from the personnel list and his discharge from military service.

The military unit’s appeal was dismissed, and the ruling of the Chernihiv District Administrative Court of March 24, 2026, was left unchanged. The ruling of the Sixth Appellate Administrative Court of September 15, 2026, entered into legal force on the day it was issued.

Previously, courts considered a similar case: a territorial recruitment center revoked a postgraduate student’s mobilization deferral, claiming he had allegedly not attended classes and had not fulfilled his individual study plan, after which the man was mobilized the very next day. The court concluded that the territorial recruitment center does not have the authority to independently verify a study plan, academic performance, or class attendance, and that no evidence had been presented that the man had lost his postgraduate student status or had otherwise forfeited his right to a deferral.