19 May 2026
(PHOTO: Judiciary)
The Odesa District Administrative Court partially satisfied the claim of a person liable for military service who, after being discharged from service, failed to get his application for a deferment considered and his data updated in the Oberig register.
The court ordered the territorial center for recruitment and social support to consider the plaintiff's application and update the information in the Oberig register in accordance with the circumstances set out in his appeal, the Judicial Gazette reported.
The plaintiff was discharged from service in 2022 for family reasons and was sent to the military registration and enlistment office. However, his status remained irrelevant in the Reserve+ system: he was listed in the register as a person not liable for military service on the grounds of "military servant". The man stated that he was entitled to a deferment because his father was a person with a Group II disability and needed constant outside care.
In September 2025, the plaintiff sent an application for deferment to the CCC along with supporting documents, including documents on discharge from service, a certificate from the medical and sanitary expert commission, a medical report on the need for constant care, and military registration documents. He received no response to his application.
After that, the plaintiff's representative repeatedly addressed the TCC with legal inquiries regarding the results of the application. In response, the TCC reported that the lawyer's order was allegedly improperly executed and did not actually provide a response on the merits of the application.
In December 2025, the plaintiff reapplied for a delay and for the entry of up-to-date data into the Oberig register. No response was received to these requests either. So the man went to court.
The representative of the TCC asked to dismiss the claim and noted that after the amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers' Resolution No. 560, which came into force on November 1, 2025, the deferral can only be issued through the Reserve+ application or in person through the ASC. The defendant also insisted that after his discharge from service, the plaintiff had to personally come to the CMC to be registered for military service.
The court noted that at the time of the plaintiff's initial application in September 2025, the amendments to Procedure No. 560 regarding the registration of deferment through the ASC were not yet in force. The court noted that in accordance with Procedure No. 560, the TCC commission, upon receipt of the application and documents, is obliged to consider the application within the established time limit and decide to grant or refuse to grant a deferral.
At the same time, Procedure No. 560 does not provide for the possibility of leaving the application without consideration or not making any decision at all. The court emphasized that an authority cannot refuse to make a decision if it is within its competence. In addition, the court concluded that the TCC failed to prove the legitimacy of its inaction in failing to consider the applications and not updating the information in the register.
Кирило Бойко