Father died and brother disappeared, but the Territorial Recruitment Center refused a deferral to the man caring for his disabled mother: the court made the final decision

The man remained the sole actual caregiver of his mother with a Group II disability but was refused a deferral by the Territorial Recruitment Center — the decision was overturned in court. Follow the latest news on SUD.UA social networks The Zakarpattia District Administrative Court sided with the conscripted man who was denied a deferral from conscription due to the alleged presence of other persons who could support his disabled mother. The court ruled that the mere presence of a relative does not prove the ability to actually provide care for a person in need. The man appealed to the court after the commission at the territorial recruitment center refused him a deferral for family reasons. He argued that his mother has a Group II disability, his father died, and the other son of the mother disappeared after the start of hostilities, with his whereabouts unknown. The court recognized the commission's decision as unlawful and ordered a reconsideration of the deferral application. Case circumstances In April 2025, the man applied to the territorial recruitment center for a deferral from conscription during mobilization based on paragraph 13 of part one of article 23 of the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization." He stated that his mother has a Group II disability due to a general illness, established indefinitely, and that he lives with her and actually provides care. The man attached documents confirming his mother's disability, family ties, and the fact of his constant care. Additionally, the mother submitted a statement in the form prescribed by the Procedure for conscription during mobilization, indicating that she chooses her son to provide her maintenance and care. It was also established that the man's father died, and the other son of the mother disappeared after the start of hostilities, with his whereabouts currently unknown. The commission reviewing deferral requests denied the application. The reason for refusal was that the man did not prove the absence of other persons who are not conscripted and who, according to the law, may be obliged to support his mother. Disagreeing with this decision, the man appealed to the administrative court. Court's position The court noted that according to paragraph 13 of part one of article 23 of the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization," conscripts who have a parent with a Group I or II disability may be exempt from conscription during mobilization if there are no other persons who are not conscripted and who are legally obliged to support them. At the same time, the court emphasized that when considering a deferral, it is necessary to assess not only the formal presence of relatives but also the real ability of such persons to provide care. The court found that the man provided documents about his mother's disability, confirmed cohabitation and constant care. An act from the executive committee of the Khust City Council dated March 18, 2025, was also provided, confirming his constant care for his mother. The court rejected the commission's argument that the presence of another son alone indicates no right to a deferral. The decision stated that the whereabouts of this son are unknown, so he cannot actually provide the necessary care. The court also noted in case No. 260/3766/25 that military service objectively prevents the free fulfillment of constant care duties, as a serviceman cannot independently determine his location and time. Additionally, the court took into account that the defendant did not submit a response to the claim or provide evidence confirming the possibility of care by other persons. Court decision The Zakarpattia District Administrative Court satisfied the man's claim. The court: recognized as unlawful and canceled the commission's decision to refuse a deferral from conscription during mobilization; obliged the territorial recruitment center to reconsider the man's deferral application taking into account the court's conclusions; recovered court costs of 1211.20 UAH from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff. The decision may be appealed to the Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal. Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, pages on Facebook, on Instagram and on X to stay informed about the most important events.