Ukrainian Court Upholds Mobilization After Deferral Revoked Same Day

The Ternopil Regional Administrative Court has dismissed a lawsuit from a Ukrainian conscript who challenged his mobilization, ruling that the procedures were lawfully conducted. The plaintiff, a postal worker with Ukrposhta, argued that his conscription violated legal procedures as he possessed a deferment until January 9, 2026. However, the court found that his reservation from mobilization was revoked on the same day as his call-up, and no proper deferment documentation existed at the time of conscription.

The case centered on the actions of the Territorial Recruitment Center (TCC) and the Military Medical Commission (MMC). The plaintiff sought to annul an MMC decision from January 6, 2026, which declared him fit for service, and to overturn the TCC's mobilization order issued the same day. He claimed he had been granted a deferment due to his employment and that his mobilization was conducted without proper adherence to Article 23 of the Law on Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization.

During the proceedings, the plaintiff stated that he voluntarily appeared at the TCC to address a notification about violating military registration rules but was then asked to undergo a medical examination. He refused, citing his reservation and requesting time to gather further medical documents. Despite his objections, the MMC assessed his health using electronic records and declared him fit under disease schedule Article 64в, column II. The following day, he was dispatched to a military unit.

The TCC's representative countered that the plaintiff was listed as wanted for a military registration violation under Article 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses and therefore subject to conscription. Evidence from the Oberih register showed that the plaintiff's reservation was canceled on January 6, 2026, at the request of his employer's supervisor. A letter from Ukrposhta dated June 2, 2026, confirmed that a renewal of the reservation was impossible because the plaintiff was registered as wanted.

The court concluded that at the time of the January 6 mobilization order, the plaintiff held no valid reservation, as the cancellation had already taken effect. The deferral listed in his electronic military document was not supported by proper evidence at that critical moment. Regarding the medical decision, the court noted that it does not evaluate health assessments but only reviews procedural legality, finding no procedure violations. The judge also noted that the plaintiff had not appealed the MMC decision to a higher medical commission.

Ultimately, the Ternopil Regional Administrative Court denied the lawsuit in its entirety, affirming that the mobilization order was lawful and that the plaintiff's individual legal act of conscription had been exhausted upon his assignment to a unit. The court emphasized that reservations must be properly processed through official channels such as the Diia portal or relevant lists, and mere claims of deferment without formal approval are insufficient.