Postponement of Mobilization Due to Religious Beliefs: Legal Reality in Ukraine

The issue of postponing mobilization due to religious beliefs is one of the most sensitive in Ukraine's legal field. Many citizens seek to exercise their right to freedom of conscience, arguing that participation in armed conflict contradicts their beliefs. But does Ukrainian legislation allow for this? What is the stance of the courts? What mechanism exists for clergy? The legal company “The Case Lviv” offers an in-depth analysis.

What does the law say?
The key provision is Article 35 of the Constitution of Ukraine. It guarantees the right to freedom of religion and provides for the possibility of replacing compulsory military service with alternative (non-military) service if it contradicts religious beliefs. However, this provision can only be implemented in peacetime and solely within the framework of conscription, not mobilization.

Ukraine’s Law “On Alternative (Non-Military) Service” applies only to citizens of conscription age (18–27 years) who are called for mandatory service. Mobilization during martial law is governed by a different law — “On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization.” It does not provide for alternative service.

Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 560, which outlines the list of grounds for deferment, does not mention religious beliefs. Theoretically, there is a possibility under the general category of “other circumstances,” but this is vague and lacks a defined implementation mechanism.

Court Practice: Supreme Court Decisions

Case No. 344/12021/22
This case was among the first in which the attempt to exercise the right to refuse mobilization on grounds of conscience was considered by the Supreme Court. The convicted person cited religious beliefs that, according to him, prohibited participation in armed conflicts.

The lawyer referred to:

• Article 35 of the Constitution of Ukraine;

• Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights;

• Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

However, the court emphasized that in times of war, the state has the right to impose restrictions necessary to protect its sovereignty. If a person is not a member of a religious organization with a clear anti-war position and does not provide convincing evidence of the sincerity of their beliefs, such refusal cannot be considered justified. In this case, it was established that the defendant had previously completed military service, contradicting his declared refusal to bear arms. The conviction was upheld.

Case No. 601/2491/22
In this case, a local court acquitted the man, but the appellate court overturned the verdict, and the Supreme Court upheld the decision: 3 years of imprisonment for evading mobilization. The defendant also cited religious beliefs and claimed the right to alternative service. However, the Supreme Court once again stressed that mobilization is not conscription and cannot be replaced under current legislation.

The ruling also referenced European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) practice: the right to refuse military service is not absolute. The state may verify the sincerity of convictions to prevent abuse. Therefore, merely being religious does not automatically entitle one to exemption from service.

Venice Commission: International Perspective
On March 18, 2025, the Venice Commission issued an opinion on the right to refuse military service based on personal beliefs. This document was a response to a request from Ukraine’s Constitutional Court and outlined several key points:

• The right to refusal is protected by Articles 9 of the ECHR and 18 of the ICCPR — but it is not absolute.

• The state must establish a transparent, fair, and non-discriminatory mechanism for alternative service — independent of the military and non-punitive.

• Even in wartime, no one should be forced to take up arms — no circumstances justify compelling someone to act against their beliefs.

• Restrictions are allowed only if they are legally prescribed, necessary, and proportionate to the aim pursued.

The Venice Commission essentially recommends that Ukraine develop a clear legal framework for alternative service during mobilization.

Clergy Exemption Mechanism
The only group that is practically protected are clergy members.

In December 2024, the government amended Resolution No. 76 to allow for the exemption (booking) of all conscription-eligible clergy. For this, the position must be listed in the registry approved by the State Service for Ethnic Policy and Freedom of Conscience.

Key features:

• No limitation on the number of booked employees;

• No requirement for a salary of UAH 20,000;

• Religious organizations are not included in the list of critically important entities;

• If the person leaves the position, the booking is canceled.

This provides a practical protection mechanism for clergy, currently unavailable to regular citizens.

Legal Position of “The Case Lviv”
Our team closely monitors developments in case law, legislative changes, and international recommendations. We understand that freedom of conscience is a fundamental human right that must be upheld within the legal framework — even under martial law. However, current reality shows that any attempt to avoid mobilization without clear legal grounds is unlikely to succeed in court.

We recommend:

• Do not act independently without legal support;

• Contact us for legal assistance — in case of prosecution, court proceedings, or if you wish to assert your beliefs legally;

• Seek consultation on the possibility of legal exemption (if you are a clergy member or represent a religious organization).

Despite formal guarantees of religious freedom, Ukraine currently lacks a mechanism for implementing the right to alternative service during mobilization. The courts have taken a conservative stance, prioritizing state security interests. International law recognizes the right to refusal but emphasizes that states may verify the sincerity of the motive.

The only working protection mechanism is the exemption of clergy. However, for most religious citizens, the path to refusal based on beliefs is currently legally blocked. At “The Case Lviv,” we believe that this situation will eventually change — under the influence of international law, court practice, and growing public demand for respect for freedom of conscience.