{"id":636724,"date":"2026-11-14T11:51:54","date_gmt":"2026-11-14T09:51:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/korabelov.info\/2026\/11\/636724\/the-court-overturned-the-mobilization-of-a-50-year-old-student-with-a-valid-deferment\/"},"modified":"2026-11-14T11:57:10","modified_gmt":"2026-11-14T09:57:10","slug":"the-court-overturned-the-mobilization-of-a-50-year-old-student-with-a-valid-deferment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/korabelov.info\/en\/2026\/11\/636724\/the-court-overturned-the-mobilization-of-a-50-year-old-student-with-a-valid-deferment\/","title":{"rendered":"The court overturned the mobilization of a 50-year-old student with a valid deferment"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Transcarpathian District Administrative Court<\/strong> fully upheld the claim of a 50-year-old<\/strong> man who was called up for military service despite having an approved deferment for full-time studies. The court ruled that his mobilization was unlawful. The circumstances and findings are set out in case file No. 260\/5321\/26<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The claimant, born in 1976<\/strong>, was studying Tourism and Recreation<\/strong> at the Svaliava Technical Vocational College of the National University of Food Technologies<\/strong>. His electronic military registration document in the Reserve+<\/strong> app showed a study-based deferment valid until August 1, 2026<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

However, on July 18, 2026<\/strong>, police officers stopped the man in Mukachevo<\/strong> and took him to the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center \u2014 the TRC<\/strong>. That same day, the center\u2019s head issued an order calling him up for military service during general mobilization. After undergoing a military medical examination, the man was found fit for service.<\/p>\n

On July 24, 2026<\/strong>, he was added to the personnel roster of a military unit. He was assigned as an air-defense gunner in the air-defense missile platoon of an assault battalion.<\/p>\n

Representatives of the TRC<\/strong> said their actions were prompted by doubts about the lawfulness of the deferment. They claimed that, during questioning, the man was allegedly unable to answer questions about the curriculum, specialized subjects, the organization of the educational process, and exam sessions. The center believed this might indicate that he was not actually studying and that the documents he had submitted were insufficient to confirm his entitlement to a deferment.<\/p>\n

The claimant maintained otherwise: he was still enrolled as a full-time student, had not been expelled from the college, and his deferment remained valid when he was called up.<\/p>\n

The court confirmed that the deferment had been granted and found no evidence that it had been lawfully terminated. The TRC<\/strong> submitted neither documents showing that the man had been expelled or had ceased studying, nor a decision by the relevant commission revoking the deferment.<\/p>\n

The court emphasized that entitlement to a deferment cannot be assessed solely on the basis of a student\u2019s answers to questions about their studies. Attendance and compliance with the curriculum are matters between the student and the educational institution. If educational requirements are not met, the college itself must make the relevant decisions. The TRC<\/strong>, meanwhile, is not authorized to revoke a deferment on its own without a reasoned and substantiated decision by the relevant commission.<\/p>\n

After considering the claim, the court:<\/p>\n