Protecting sons during funeral arrangements (Case No. 136420948)
Circumstances of the case: The defendant, along with her sons, arrived at a funeral agency in Lviv to arrange her mother's funeral. Hearing shouts in the street, she ran outside and saw TCC staff and police bending her sons' arms behind their backs. In an emotionally stressed state, the woman approached a police officer and kicked him in the shin.
Quote from the verdict: In the court session, the defendant explained that she "heard screams and ran out into the street. Seeing TCC staff and a police officer bending her sons' arms behind their backs, being in an emotionally stressed state, she approached the police officer... and kicked him in the leg."
Outcome: 2 years of imprisonment, released with 1 year of probation (Art. 75 CC).
Case No. 136420948 →Bribe for the arrest and mobilization of an ex-husband (Case No. 130257686)
Circumstances of the case: A police prevention sector chief in Dnipro offered a woman a scheme: for $500, judges would sentence her ex-husband (accused in domestic conflicts) to 15 days of administrative arrest, after which he would be immediately mobilized via the TCC. The police officer demanded an additional UAH 10,000 for his services.
Quote from the verdict: The police officer told the ex-wife "that in order to create corresponding problems with negative consequences for her ex-husband, it was necessary to 'bring money to the judges,' who in turn would put her ex-husband in jail for 15 days, and after that the TCC would step in."
Outcome: 3 years of imprisonment with disqualification from holding law enforcement posts for 2 years (Part 2 of Art. 369-2 CC — abuse of influence).
Case No. 130257686 →Forced detention on the way to field work (Case No. 112733390)
Circumstances of the case: A conscript on his way to field work in Zakarpattia was seized by men in military uniforms. They forced him into a car and took him to the Berehove TCC, where he passed the VLK board and was handed a mobilization summons for the next day on the spot. The man failed to show up at the TCC out of fear.
Quote from the verdict: The defendant explained in court that "while walking along the road to perform field work in the village of Muzhiievo, Berehove district, he was grabbed by people in military uniforms, who forced him by car [to the TCC]... On the same day, he was handed a summons to report the next day... However, he did not report... because he feared for his life and the lives of his minor children whom he supports."
Outcome: 3 years of imprisonment, released with 2 years of probation (Art. 75 CC).
Case No. 112733390 →Spontaneous protest outside a district TCC (Case No. 125119811)
Circumstances of the case: About 100 citizens gathered outside the Kovel district TCC building in Volyn region to protest mobilization actions and the detention of local residents. They demanded the release of those detained and blocked vehicles from exiting the facility.
Quote from the verdict: The defendant, "together with other citizens in a crowd of about 100 people whose activities were aimed at a gross violation of public order... pursuing the goal of halting the operations of the district TCC and SP, thereby preventing the recruitment of other citizens by the staff, actively participated in committing group actions."
Outcome: Convicted under Art. 293 CC (group violation of public order) to a fine of UAH 17,000.
Case No. 125119811 →Convicted for refusing a summons despite holding a deferment (Case No. 130402531)
Circumstances of the case: A man refused to accept a mobilization summons, stating that he provided constant care for his sister, who has a Group I disability. By the time of the trial, the man had officially received a mobilization deferment from the TCC on this ground. However, the court still convicted him for the prior refusal.
Quote from the verdict: The defendant "refused to receive the summons... justifying the refusal by caring for his sister, who has a Group I disability, and requested to take into account that at the time of the court hearing he held a deferment based on clause 14 of part 1 of Art. 23 of the Law of Ukraine 'On Mobilization Preparation'."
Outcome: Convicted under Art. 336 CC with the application of Art. 69 CC to 2 years of probation supervision.
Case No. 130402531 →Caring for a father before official disability status was granted (Case No. 111092005)
Circumstances of the case: A conscript refused mobilization, citing family circumstances—the need to support and care for his ill father. By the time of the trial, the father was officially granted Group I disability. However, the court viewed his testimony critically, noting that on the day of the refusal to report for duty, the official documents regarding the father's disability had not yet been processed.
Quote from the verdict: The defendant "refused to depart for the military unit... due to family circumstances, namely the illness of his father... He does not consider himself guilty, since at the time of the trial he has a father with a Group I disability dependent on him. He also informed the court that the father was granted disability in April 2023."
Outcome: 3 years of imprisonment, released with 1 year of probation (Art. 75 CC).
Case No. 111092005 →Summon refusal due to caring for a cancer-stricken father (Case No. 105812353)
Circumstances of the case: The man was declared fit for service, but refused to depart for the military unit under a summons because he was caring for his cancer-stricken father. The court rejected this defense, pointing out that the father was not entirely bedridden and could self-care, although physical loads were contraindicated, and during attacks, he needed his son's help. The court also noted that the defendant did not inform the TCC of his father's illness during the VLK exam.
Quote from the verdict: The defendant explained that "he has a cancer-stricken father for whom he provides care, and therefore he did not report to the military enlistment office under the summons. The father is not bedridden and can self-care, but physical exertion is contraindicated for him, and he occasionally has attacks during which the defendant administers medicine."
Outcome: 3 years of imprisonment, released with 1 year of probation (Art. 75 CC).
Case No. 105812353 →Prison sentence for a man with oligophrenia (Case No. 127935856)
Circumstances of the case: The defendant suffers from mild intellectual disability (oligophrenia in the degree of mild debility), but a forensic psychiatric evaluation declared him sane. Having a prior suspended sentence for petty theft, he received a mobilization summons. On the day of recruitment, his uncle passed away. After the funeral, the man drank alcohol, overslept the collection hour, and failed to report to the TCC.
Quote from the verdict: "According to the forensic psychiatric expert's conclusion No. 315 dated 08.08.2024, PERSON_4, during the commission of the crime imputed to him, suffered from mild mental retardation (oligophrenia in the degree of mild debility), ICD-10 F 70.0... the court sees no grounds for applying Articles 69, 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine to him."
Outcome: Convicted under Art. 336 CC to 3 years of imprisonment. Since the offense was committed during a probation period, the court revoked the suspended sentence and handed down a final punishment of 5 years and 3 months of actual imprisonment.
Case No. 127935856 →Prison sentence for a Baptist believer (Case No. 121714311)
Circumstances of the case: The defendant approached the TCC with a request for alternative non-military service due to religious beliefs that forbid him from holding weapons, expressing readiness to construct fortifications. The court noted that alternative service is legally provided only as a substitute for regular conscription, and does not apply to mobilization recruitment. The believer was sent to prison.
Quote from the verdict: "The defense's contention that the defendant evaded recruitment due to his religion and wishes to perform alternative service is not accepted by the court... the Law does not provide for the possibility of replacing military service under mobilization with alternative service during a special period."
Outcome: 1 year of imprisonment (actual prison term with the application of Art. 69 CC).
Case No. 121714311 →Suspended sentence revoked for a caregiver of a cancer-ill mother (Case No. 132319127)
Circumstances of the case: For a defendant accused of obstructing the AFU (Art. 114-1 CC), the court of first instance suspended his sentence with a probation period. The court considered his family circumstances: he had no prior convictions, was married with a young child, and cared for his mother who suffered from a severe oncological disease. The prosecutor appealed this decision in the appellate court, demanding actual prison time.
Quote from the verdict: "...the mother suffers from an oncological disease... however, the application of Art. 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine by the court of first instance actually creates an impression in other persons of the possibility of evading actual punishment... which under the conditions of armed aggression... is unacceptable."
Outcome: The Kharkiv Court of Appeal revoked the suspended sentence and sentenced the man to 5 years of actual imprisonment.
Case No. 132319127 →Caring for a common-law partner sick with tuberculosis (Case No. 109165670)
Circumstances of the case: The defendant did not report to the TCC for departure. In court, he explained his absence by stating that his common-law wife (cohabitant) suffered from tuberculosis and needed care, and also that he feared participating in combat. The court found him guilty, as a common-law marriage does not grant a legal right to a deferment.
Quote from the verdict: The defendant testified that he "received a summons to report... did not report for military service departure because his cohabitant is sick with tuberculosis, so he is caring for her. In addition, he is afraid of participating in military actions."
Outcome: 3 years of imprisonment, released with 1 year of probation (Art. 75 CC).
Case No. 109165670 →Strict "same-day" report summons and an ill mother (Case No. 108633308)
Circumstances of the case: TCC employees handed the man a summons at 1:15 PM requiring him to report for departure at 5:00 PM on the very same day. The man failed to report because he did not have time to pack, had to finish work, and was caring for his mother who had suffered a stroke. He packed his things by 7:00 PM but decided it was too late to report. The court handed down a strict sentence.
Quote from the verdict: The defendant explained that "he was handed a summons to report to the specified department on the same day at 5:00 PM... He did not report under the specified summons... because he did not have time to get ready, having to finish some work, and also had an ill mother who suffered a stroke... he got ready only around 7:00 PM, but did not arrive at the enlistment office, thinking it was already too late."
Outcome: 4 years of imprisonment, released with 2 years of probation (Art. 75 CC).
Case No. 108633308 →Draft evasion due to perfectionism (Case No. 111269551)
Circumstances of the case: A conscript was stopped on the street by TCC employees and asked to go to the enlistment office. After passing the VLK medical exam, he was declared fit, but wrote a statement refusing service. In court, the man stated that he had no diagnosed mental illness, but knew himself to be unfit for service due to his perfectionism, which makes him constantly return home and be late.
Quote from the verdict: The defendant explained that "no one diagnosed him with a psychiatric disease, and he did not consult doctors; he knows himself that he is unfit for service because he is a perfectionist, always runs late, returning several times before leaving for anywhere, so he feared letting the military down and considers himself useless for military service."
Outcome: 3 years of imprisonment, released with 1 year and 6 months of probation (Art. 75 CC).
Case No. 111269551 →Requesting to delay execution of the sentence due to personal matters (Case No. 104351558)
Circumstances of the case: An internally displaced man from Zhytomyr region, while in Zakarpattia, was declared fit after a VLK exam, but refused to receive a mobilization summons. In court, the man stated that he holds pacifist views and does not wish to carry weapons. He refused to show remorse, saying it would contradict his views, and asked the court to delay the execution of the sentence by one year.
Quote from the verdict: The defendant explained that he "evaded recruitment... due to the fact that he holds pacifist views and does not wish to take up arms. He does not repent for his actions, as this would contradict his views. At the same time, he requests not to be punished severely and to delay the execution of the verdict by one year, as he has things to do."
Outcome: 4 years of imprisonment, released with 3 years of probation (Art. 75 CC).
Case No. 104351558 →Biting a police officer during an attempt to force-deliver to a TCC (Case No. 136957666)
Circumstances of the case: Patrol police officers responded to a fight call in a courtyard in Poltava and checked the identity of one participant. It turned out the man was listed as wanted following a request from the TCC. When asked to step into the patrol car to be delivered to the TCC, he attempted to escape and resisted. During arrest, the intoxicated man bit the police officer on the forearm.
Quote from the verdict: The defendant, "being in a state of alcohol intoxication, acting intentionally, bit a senior police lieutenant... on the forearm of the right hand, resulting in a bodily injury in the form of a hematoma... and a bite abrasion, which are qualified as light bodily injury... in connection with the performance of his official duties by this law enforcement officer."
Outcome: 2 years of restriction of liberty, released with 2 years of probation (Art. 75 CC).
Case No. 136957666 →Riding a bicycle to parents instead of waiting for a TCC car (Case No. 121376209)
Circumstances of the case: A conscript was handed a combat mobilization summons after passing his VLK. He agreed to be picked up by a TCC employee who drives through his village to work. While waiting for the car, the man learned that his mother was undergoing urgent surgery. He attempted to call the TCC to warn them, but could not get through. Since the car never arrived, he rode his bicycle to his parents' village to help with the household.
Quote from the verdict: The defendant explained that "the summons was issued to him... one of the TCC employees was supposed to pick him up by car... Since no one came for him, he went by bicycle to the village... to his parents' house to help around the house, because his father does not have enough strength... Subsequently, he did not report to the TCC, as no more summonses were handed to him."
Outcome: Convicted under Art. 336 CC to 3 years and 6 months of actual imprisonment.
Case No. 121376209 →