Recognition of mobilization as illegal

The protection of the rights of conscripts remains one of the most popular issues at the moment, especially when it comes to illegal mobilization. Specialists of the law firm Prikhodko and partners note that recognizing mobilization as illegal in court requires not only in-depth knowledge of the relevant legislation, but also strict adherence to procedural deadlines, which are short for this category of cases.

Grounds for canceling draft orders

To successfully resolve a dispute in court, it is not enough to simply declare disagreement with the actions of the CCC and the SP. Legally significant grounds must be based on a violation of substantive law. When applying to court, claims most often concern the following aspects:

Time limit for appealing a mobilization order

The issue of time limits is critical in cases against government entities (TCK and SP, military units). The most common mistake of plaintiffs is the belief that such disputes are subject to the general limitation period (3 years) or the general time limit for appealing to an administrative court (6 months).

Recently, the key conclusion was confirmed by the Supreme Court, which is that military service is a type of public service. This is determined by clause 17, part 1, article 4 of the Civil Service Code of Ukraine.

• Special term: In accordance with part 5, article 122 of the Civil Service Code of Ukraine, a shortened term of one month is established for disputes regarding admission to public service, its completion or dismissal.
• Why not six months? Although part 2, article 122 of the Civil Service Code of Ukraine provides for a general six-month term, the special norm (regarding public service) always takes priority. Attempts to distinguish “mobilization” and “contract service” as different legal entities for calculating terms are legally unpromising. The court clearly states: the form of engagement in service (call-up or contract) does not change its status as public.

The most controversial point is the moment from which this month begins to count. Case law operates in two categories:

1. Subjective ("learned"): The day when the person was actually handed a copy of the order or familiarized with it for signature.
2. Objective ("should have learned"): This is a presumption of awareness. If a person was actually enrolled in the unit's lists, arrived at the place of service, received a weapon, uniform, or (as in the case above) received entries in the military ID card - it is considered that he had the opportunity to learn about the violation of his rights.

Important: The lack of a paper copy of the order in the plaintiff's hands does not stop the running of the term if a mobilization entry has already been made in his military ID card. The date of the entry in the card often becomes a "point of no return" for the court.

Cancellation of mobilization through the court

Cancellation of the mobilization order (or the order for enrollment in the lists of personnel) is one of the most complex types of administrative disputes.

The subject of the appeal is most often:

• The decision of the Military Commissariat of Defense (regarding fitness for service).
• The order of the head of the Central Military District on conscription (Mobilization of reserved persons whose reservations have not been canceled, or those who have a deferment).
• The order of the commander of the military unit on enrollment in the lists.

Key points:

• Consequences of missing the deadline: If the claim is filed later than a month after mobilization without good reason, the court will not even consider the case on the merits, but will simply return the claim.
• Relevance of evidence: The plaintiff must prove not just the fact of "unwillingness to serve", but a gross violation of the procedure. For example: The presence of the right to a deferral, which was ignored; Violation of the medical examination procedure (VLK); Calling up a person who is not subject to mobilization by law, etc.
• Effectiveness of the method of protection: Courts often note that the cancellation of a mobilization order that has already been executed does not always lead to automatic dismissal from service.

Situations related to illegal conscription or violation of the mobilization procedure require not just a reaction, but immediate legal intervention. As evidenced by the analysis of judicial practice and real cases encountered by the law firm Prikhodko and Partners, time is the most scarce resource for a conscript and his family.

The main trap that thousands of citizens fall into is the illusion that they can appeal the actions of the CCC and the SP "sometime later", when there is free time or opportunity.

If your rights or the rights of your relatives were violated during mobilization measures, you need to act "here and now". Remember that the effectiveness of protection directly depends on your active participation and the correctly chosen strategy.

Don't let the system ignore your legal rights. Request a consultation now.