Odesa court takes the side of a man who cares for his mother with a disability in a dispute with the TCC

The Odesa District Administrative Court overturned the decision of the territorial center for recruitment and social support, which refused to extend the man's deferral from mobilization because of his sister.

According to the Judicial and Legal Newspaper, the court found that the sister is a citizen of Moldova and lives abroad, so she cannot actually care for their mother with a disability.

The man was registered in the military and in 2024 applied to the CCC for a deferral from mobilization. The reason was that his mother was a person with a group II disability and needed supervision.

He submitted documents confirming his mother's health, family ties and cohabitation. The TCC Commission granted him a deferral, which was effective from August 2024 and was automatically extended thereafter.

However, in September 2025, the TCC Commission refused to extend the deferral. The reason given was that there were other persons who could legally support the mother - her husband and daughter.

The plaintiff appealed this decision to the court, and the court found that the plaintiff's mother's husband, i.e. his father, was in need of constant care, which was confirmed by a medical report, and her daughter, i.e. the military man's sister, was a citizen of the Republic of Moldova and had been living abroad since 2008. Therefore, the court ruled that these persons could not be considered to be actually providing for the mother's maintenance. In addition, the court noted that during the initial granting of the deferral, the same documents had already been recognized by the TCC as sufficient and the TCC did not provide evidence that anything had changed since then.

The court also found that the MCC failed to properly verify the grounds for extending the deferral after the mobilization was extended, as provided by law. Therefore, the Odesa District Administrative Court declared the action of the MCC in failing to verify the grounds for deferral unlawful; canceled the decision of the MCC commission that denied the man's extension of the deferral and ordered the MCC to re-verify the grounds for deferral and make a new decision taking into account the court's legal assessment. In addition, the court recovered UAH 2.4 thousand in court fees from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff.

Кирило Бойко