Can a disabled person of group 2 be mobilized?

Today, the topic of disability and mobilisation is quite controversial. And the question arises: can a disabled person of group 2 be mobilised?

There is no clear answer to this question. Let's take a closer look in this article. 

What does the law say?

Almost every citizen has already read the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilisation Preparation and Mobilisation", which contains a list of grounds for deferring mobilisation.

And the question arises: if you are on this list and are entitled to a deferral, what to do next.

Therefore, this list does contain a ground for deferral that applies to disabled persons. Namely, disabled persons of all groups, regardless of whether they are in the first, second or even third group, are currently entitled to a deferral.

However, if a person does not want to exercise his or her right to be exempt from mobilisation, he or she may agree to voluntary mobilisation, and thus be mobilised. 

If you have a disability and still do not want to be subject to mobilisation, the main task for you is to inform the military commissariat of the existence of such a circumstance and request to exercise your right to be exempted from mobilisation.

It's worth remembering the following?

However, it should be understood that if a person has been mobilised, he or she will not be able to be dismissed on the grounds of disability. Since even disabled persons of group 2 can perform certain functions as limitedly fit, they can serve in rear units or perform work that does not contradict their health condition.

One of the decisions of the Poltava District Administrative Court № 440/11102/22 concerning the illegal mobilisation of a disabled person of group 2 dismissed the claim. 

The case was about a citizen with a second disability group who decided to voluntarily agree to mobilisation due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and a year later, filed a lawsuit claiming that he had been drafted in violation of the draft procedure during mobilisation, without undergoing a military qualification examination and had no right to be drafted at all. 

A few months later, the serviceman underwent a military medical examination and was found to be of limited fitness and thought he was going to be dismissed. 

Therefore, the court concluded that the claims for recognition of the Poltava District MCC's unlawful inaction and cancellation of the mobilisation order were unfounded and should not be satisfied.