The court ruled that the advocate's mobilization was unlawful and overturned the TCC's order

The order of the Uzhgorod District Territorial Center for Recruitment and Social Support to conscript an advocate, whose deferment had been revoked the day before, into military service was found to be unlawful and revoked.

This decision in case No. 260/6813/25 was made today, November 28, by the Transcarpathian District Administrative Court.

Recall that the advocate, who specialized in defending the rights of former police officers, was detained on July 21 at the district police department while reviewing the materials of official investigations at the request of the advocate. TCC employees blocked his exit, demanded military registration documents and, despite the provision of a certificate of valid deferment from mobilization, forcibly took him to the territorial center.

The advocate was held at the TCC for several hours without explanation, with officials refusing to state the grounds for his detention. He called the Ministry of Defense's government hotline and called the police, but there was no response. In the evening, he was asked to undergo a military medical examination. The advocate later learned that the TCC had issued a protocol decision to cancel the deferral on the same day.

When the advocate refused to go to the military unit without documents and explanations, his phone was taken away and he was struck several times in the back and face. On the way, an ambulance was called, which took him to the hospital. Doctors diagnosed a broken rib, chest contusion, and other injuries. The man's phone was returned only the next day, after he was officially enrolled in the military unit. After that, the advocate appealed to the UNBA for protection (more details about the circumstances of the incident can be found here).

The UNBA filed a statement with the Office of the Prosecutor General regarding the commission of criminal offenses. The document states that the actions of the police and the TCC show signs of a number of crimes: obstruction of legal practice (Article 397 of the Criminal Code), unlawful deprivation of liberty (Article 146 of the Criminal Code), unlawful detention (Article 371 of the Criminal Code), interference with electronic systems (Article 361 of the Criminal Code), and intentional infliction of moderate bodily harm (Article 122 of the Criminal Code).

The advocate, who was mobilized while providing legal assistance to a client despite having a deferral, also filed a lawsuit against the TCC and the military unit. The administrative court opened proceedings and involved the Ukrainian National Bar Association as a third party.

After requesting and examining the available materials, the court upheld the lawsuit. The actions of the TCC and the attestation commission regarding the advocate's conscription and referral for a repeat medical examination due to the cancellation of the deferral were found to be unlawful. TCC's order to draft the advocate into military service, send him to a military unit, and enlist him was also canceled. TCC's failure to grant a deferral from conscription was classified as unlawful inaction.