Ternopil court rules cancellation of deferment and mobilization of man caring for his mother unlawful

The Ternopil District Administrative Court has ruled unlawful a decision by a commission at the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center (TCC) to cancel the military deferment of a man who was providing constant care for his sick mother, and has ordered the military unit to discharge him from military service.

This was reported by Sudebno-Yuridicheskaya Gazeta.

The man held a valid deferment from conscription during mobilization under clause 9, part one, article 23 of the Law of Ukraine “On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization.” It had been granted due to the need to provide constant care for his mother and was valid until May 3, 2026. To obtain it, he had submitted a medical and social expert commission (MSEC) certificate establishing that his mother had a second-group disability on a permanent basis, a conclusion from a medical consultative commission on the need for constant outside care, an act establishing the fact that he was providing constant care, and a birth certificate.

On March 30, 2026, the commission at the TCC decided to cancel the previously granted deferment. Two circumstances were cited as grounds: the existence of the man’s sister and the absence of separate registration of the act establishing the fact of constant care. The very next day — March 31 — the man was sent before a military medical commission, conscripted into military service, and enrolled in the personnel roster of a military unit.

The man went to court demanding that the decision to cancel the deferment, the mobilization order, and the order enrolling him in the military unit be annulled, and that the unit be ordered to discharge him from military service.

In examining case No. 500/2828/26, the court separately reviewed each of the TCC’s arguments. On the question of the sister, the court referred to the “Procedure for Conscripting Citizens into Military Service during Mobilization,” approved by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 560. According to that document, persons subject to military service who provide constant care for their own father or mother are not required to indicate in their deferment application information about other able-bodied family members who are not obligated to provide such care. The court concluded that the mere existence of a sister could not in itself constitute a proper ground for canceling an already-granted deferment.

On the question of the act, the court found that no regulatory legal acts contain requirements for the separate registration of such a document. Accordingly, that circumstance also could not constitute a lawful ground for canceling the deferment. Additional arguments that the TCC attempted to raise during the court proceedings were not assessed by the court, as they had not been present in the original decision to cancel the deferment.

The court found that the man had submitted documents that were necessary and sufficient to obtain a deferment, and that the case contained no official information confirming that he had lost the legal grounds for it. Since the man retained valid legal grounds for a deferment at the time of his mobilization, the court also ruled the subsequent conscription into military service unlawful. The court further noted that a mobilization order may be challenged even after it has been executed and the person has acquired the status of a servicemember.

The military unit objected to the claim, arguing in particular that the man had not submitted a report requesting discharge from military service. However, the court found that his enrollment in the personnel roster was a consequence of mobilization carried out following the unlawful cancellation of his deferment, and that to effectively restore his violated rights it was insufficient merely to annul the TCC’s decision — the consequences of the unlawful mobilization also had to be eliminated.

As a result, the Ternopil District Administrative Court partially granted the claim: it annulled the TCC commission’s decision to cancel the deferment, the order conscripting the man during mobilization, and the military unit’s order enrolling him in the personnel roster. The military unit was ordered to remove the man from the personnel roster and discharge him from military service. The court did not separately order the deferment to be reinstated: the ruling states that annulling the unlawful decision to cancel it automatically restores the deferment for the period for which it was granted. The decision may be appealed to the Eighth Appellate Administrative Court.

As UNIAN previously reported, a student had submitted a deferment application to the TCC but, instead of having it reviewed, was sent before a military medical commission and subsequently mobilized. Nearly two years later, a court ruled those actions unlawful and ordered the military unit to release the man. It was also previously reported that a court had ruled unlawful a TCC decision to cancel a postgraduate student’s deferment and mobilize him: it was established that the man had continued his studies and was fulfilling his individual academic plan, and that the TCC had no authority to review his academic performance or class attendance.