Court orders military unit to release student mobilised following TCC review

Court ruling: illegality of conscription and obligation to release

The Zakarpattia District Administrative Court ordered the release from military service of a man who was mobilised after his student deferment was revoked. The court found the actions of the Territorial Centre for Recruitment and Conscription (TCC) and the orders of the military unit unlawful, as the TCC had no authority to independently assess how effectively the student was pursuing his education.

Case No. 260/4323/26 was notable in that the court went beyond the claims made in the lawsuit to ensure the full restoration of the individual's rights, ordering the unit's command to remove the man from the personnel lists.

Circumstances of the case: university admission and TCC review

The plaintiff was pursuing a bachelor's degree in "Audiovisual Arts and Production" on a full-time basis at the private institution "Kyiv University of Culture". According to a certificate from the Unified State Electronic Database on Education (EDES) dated 18 May 2026, his studies were scheduled to continue until 30 June 2027. Based on point 1 of part three of Article 23 of the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilisation Preparation and Mobilisation", the man was granted a deferment from conscription, as evidenced by data in the "Reserve+" application.

However, the TCC initiated a review of the legality of his use of this deferment. Centre representatives claimed that the man was not actually attending classes, was not fulfilling his individual study plan, and had enrolled with the aim of evading military service. The TCC considered such actions to contradict the essence of the student deferment, which is intended for those who are genuinely obtaining an education.

On 16 May 2026, the commission on granting deferments revoked the deferment. On the same day, the head of the TCC issued Order No. M250 on conscription during mobilisation. The commander of the military unit, by Order No. 138, enrolled the man in the personnel lists.

Parties' positions in court

The TCC contested the lawsuit, insisting that the commission had validly annulled the deferment due to the absence of actual study. The centre also considered the challenge to the conscription order ineffective, arguing that its cancellation would not restore the plaintiff's previous status. The military unit also requested that the claim be dismissed, citing that the commander was not authorised to review TCC decisions or re-examine the right to a deferment.

In contrast, the Kyiv University of Culture confirmed that at the time the deferment was revoked, the man remained a full-time student and had not been expelled. The university also certified that the plaintiff had attended classes in accordance with the educational process.

Why the court found TCC actions unlawful

The court drew attention to point 65 of the Procedure for Conscription of Citizens to Military Service During Mobilisation (Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 560). This provision allows for the cancellation of a deferment only in the event of the loss or change of the grounds on which it was granted. The court established that the TCC failed to prove the existence of legally significant circumstances indicating that the man had lost his right to a deferment.

At the time the decision was made, the plaintiff was still studying on a full-time basis. The defendant provided no evidence of his expulsion, transfer to another form of study, or loss of the right to a deferment on other legal grounds. There were also no documents from the educational institution confirming non-fulfilment of the curriculum to an extent that would result in the termination of his status as an education seeker.

The court emphasised the separation of powers: issues regarding the organisation of the educational process, a student's fulfilment of the curriculum, recording of study results, and the application of disciplinary measures for violations of academic requirements fall within the competence of the university. The TCC cannot substitute for the educational institution and draw conclusions about the loss of the right to a deferment based solely on its own assumptions about inadequate study.

Going beyond the claims and release from service

A peculiarity of the case was that the plaintiff had not filed a separate claim for the cancellation of the TCC commission's decision. However, the court noted that this decision was the basis for the conscription and enrolment in the unit. Relying on part two of Article 9 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, the court went beyond the claims, finding the commission's decision to annul the deferment unlawful and cancelling it.

Regarding release from service, the military unit referred to the legal position of the Supreme Court in Case No. 160/2592/23 (ruling of 5 February 2025), according to which the conscription procedure is irreversible. However, the Zakarpattia District Administrative Court identified significant differences: in the Supreme Court case, violations during the medical commission were challenged, whereas here the subject of the challenge was directly the TCC order to mobilise an individual who had the right to a deferment.

The court took into account that the unit commander acted on the basis of documents from the TCC and was not obliged to verify the legality of the deferment revocation. Nevertheless, the legality of the conscription was violated. Although the Law of Ukraine "On Military Duty and Military Service" does not provide for unlawful mobilisation as a separate ground for release, the court concluded that for effective protection of rights, it was necessary to cancel the enrolment order and oblige the release of the man. This follows from the principle of effective judicial protection and the practice of the ECHR: errors by state bodies should not be corrected at the expense of citizens.

Outcomes of the court ruling

As a result of the review of Case No. 260/4323/26, the court partially satisfied the claim:

1. Found unlawful and cancelled the TCC commission's decision of 16 May 2026 in the part concerning the revocation of the deferment.
2. Found unlawful and cancelled the TCC head's Order No. M250 of 16 May 2026 in the part concerning conscription.
3. Found unlawful and cancelled the military unit commander's Order No. 138 of 16 May 2026 in the part concerning enrolment in the personnel lists.
4. Obliged the military unit to remove the man from the personnel lists and release him from military service.

The court refused to satisfy the claims regarding the recognition of unlawful actions related to military registration and the entry of medical commission data, and did not oblige the TCC to immediately restore registration data, as at the time of the hearing the man was still factually a serviceman. These issues are to be resolved after his actual release. The court also ordered the recovery of 2,129.92 UAH in court fees in favour of the plaintiff from the budgetary allocations of the TCC.