1. The subject of the dispute is criminal liability for evading conscription for military service during mobilization, where a person refers to religious beliefs that do not allow them to perform military service.<\/p>\n
2. The Joint Chamber of the Supreme Court noted that the right to freedom of conscience and religion is not absolute and may be restricted in the interests of public safety and national defense, especially under martial law; Ukrainian law clearly distinguishes between fixed-term military service and service upon conscription during mobilization, and the possibility of alternative service is provided only for fixed-term service; the impossibility of refusing military service during mobilization has a legitimate aim \u2013 protecting the state from aggression, which justifies the restriction of human rights in the face of a threat to the nation’s existence; although the ECHR recognizes the right to refuse military service on religious grounds, the situation in Ukraine, which is at war, requires different approaches; the state must take all possible measures for self-preservation, including mobilization, but at the same time must take into account the religious beliefs of those mobilized, without forcing them to actions that contradict their beliefs, in particular, wearing and using weapons. The court departed from the conclusion stated in the ruling of the panel of judges of the First Chamber of the Criminal Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court dated April 15, 2025 (case No. 573\/406\/24, proceeding No. 51-317km25).<\/p>\n
3. The court dismissed the defense counsel’s cassation appeal but amended the decisions of the previous courts regarding the form of implementation of criminal liability, releasing the convicted person from serving the sentence with a probationary period.<\/p>\n