This material is current as of 19 October 2026. Rules governing military service during martial law may change, so the current legislation and the terms of the particular contract should be checked before filing a report or taking court action.
When the stated term of a military service contract has expired but the military unit refuses to discharge the service member, this does not necessarily mean that the contract must automatically remain in force until martial law ends or demobilisation is announced.
Ukrainian law provides a specific ground for discharge in relation to certain contracts concluded during martial law. Whether that ground applies depends on several facts: when the contract was signed, its agreed term, whether that term has actually expired, whether the service member expressed a wish to continue serving, and what decision the military unit made after the expiry date.
If the unit refuses discharge, fails to decide a properly submitted report, or issues an order extending the contract, the legality of that particular decision or failure to act must be assessed on its own facts.
When expiry of a contract may give a right to discharge
Subparagraph “ж” of paragraph 3 of part five of Article 26 of the Law of Ukraine “On Military Duty and Military Service” provides a ground for discharge during mobilisation and martial law where the term of a contract concluded during martial law has expired and the service member has not expressed a wish to continue military service.
This provision must be read together with Article 23 of the same Law. Article 23 contains rules under which military service and contracts may continue beyond their original terms during martial law, but it also provides exceptions connected with the grounds listed in paragraph 3 of part five of Article 26.
For this reason, the general statement that “all military contracts automatically continue until demobilisation” is too broad to resolve an individual case.
The first questions should be much more specific: when was the contract concluded, what period did it cover, has that period ended, and does the statutory ground for discharge apply to this particular contract?
Why the date of the contract matters
The relevant ground for discharge expressly refers to a contract concluded during martial law.
Martial law in Ukraine was introduced on 24 February 2022. A contract concluded after that date therefore cannot automatically be treated in the same way as a contract signed before martial law began.
Where a contract was concluded during martial law and its fixed term has expired, it is necessary to examine whether the discharge ground under subparagraph “ж” of paragraph 3 of part five of Article 26 applies.
A contract signed before 24 February 2022 presents a different legal situation. The wording of this particular discharge ground does not simply extend to every earlier contract whose original term has subsequently expired.
This does not mean that a person who signed a contract before martial law has no possibility of discharge. Other statutory grounds may be available. It does mean, however, that relying only on the expiry date of the original contract may not be sufficient.
The analysis should therefore begin with the contract itself rather than only with an extract from a personnel order. Any amendments, additional agreements and documents changing the duration of service should also be reviewed.
Can a military unit extend the contract until demobilisation?
In practice, a service member may be informed that the contract has been extended beyond its original expiry date until demobilisation. In some cases, the extension is formalised by a separate order.
The existence of such an order does not by itself answer whether the extension was lawful in the individual circumstances.
If the original contract was concluded during martial law, its stated term has ended and the service member does not wish to continue serving, it is necessary to establish what legal basis the unit relied upon and whether the specific statutory ground for discharge was considered.
The service member’s own expression of intent can also be important.
If the military unit claims that the person agreed to continue serving, the next question is what document allegedly proves that agreement. Depending on the circumstances, this could be a new contract, an additional agreement, a report, a written statement or another document recording the person’s intention.
The original contract should also be checked for provisions requiring advance notice of whether a new contract will be concluded. If the unit relies on an alleged failure to give notice in time, the issue should not be examined in isolation. The wording of the contract, the obligations of both parties and the legislation applicable when the decision was made may all be relevant.
How to record that you do not wish to continue military service
A service member should not rely only on an oral conversation with a commander.
If the person does not intend to continue military service after the contract term expires, that position should be documented in a way that makes it possible to establish both what was requested and when the request was submitted.
Within the Ministry of Defence system, the procedure for processing service members’ reports allows reports to be submitted in paper or electronic form.
A refusal by an immediate or direct commander to approve a report should not in itself prevent the report from proceeding to the official authorised to decide the issue. A refusal must be reasoned.
The procedure also does not permit prior oral approval to be imposed as a condition for submitting a written report. A handwritten report should be accepted and registered in accordance with the applicable procedure.
For a paper report, proof of the actual submission date can be particularly important. That date may later affect both the assessment of how the report was processed and the chronology of a court dispute.
For matters that do not fall within categories requiring urgent consideration, the applicable procedure generally provides up to 14 days for consideration from the date of submission.
This procedure applies within the Ministry of Defence, the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the State Special Transport Service. A person serving in the National Guard, State Border Guard Service or another military formation should also check the applicable departmental rules. The statutory ground for discharge may be contained in general legislation, while internal document procedures may differ between formations.
Which documents should be preserved
Before a dispute reaches court, it is useful to assemble a complete documentary timeline rather than rely on a single refusal letter. In particular, the following may be important:
- the military service contract and all amendments or additional agreements;
- extracts or copies of orders concerning admission to service and changes to the contract term;
- any order extending the contract beyond its original term;
- the report requesting discharge or recording the unwillingness to continue service;
- evidence of the date on which the report was submitted and registered;
- electronic status information where an electronic reporting system was used;
- the written refusal or other official response from the military unit;
- documents showing when the service member received or became aware of the relevant order;
- subsequent reports, correspondence and other records of attempts to resolve the issue;
- any document the military unit relies on as evidence that the service member agreed to continue serving.
A court dispute is rarely determined by one document alone. The sequence of events may be equally important: when the contract expired, when the service member communicated the decision not to continue, what the command did afterwards, and which legal basis was used for the disputed decision.
What the 2026 court cases show
Ukrainian administrative courts are already considering disputes of this type. At the same time, it would be premature to describe the issue as governed by a single settled Supreme Court position.
The outcome may depend on the date of the contract, its individual provisions, the wording and timing of the report, and the particular decision taken by the military unit.
In case No. 520/4905/26, the Kharkiv District Administrative Court considered the position of a National Guard service member who had entered into a three-year contract on 6 March 2022.
After the contractual term expired, the military unit issued an order extending the contract until demobilisation and later refused discharge. On 8 September 2026, the court found the refusal unlawful, set aside the relevant part of the extension order and ordered the discharge of the service member.
The judgment was subsequently appealed. It should therefore not be presented as a final appellate or Supreme Court position on the issue.
Case No. 520/1238/26 concerned a State Border Guard Service contract concluded on 28 December 2022. The service member challenged the continuation of the contract beyond the agreed term. The Kharkiv District Administrative Court partially upheld the claim and required the matter to be reconsidered in light of the circumstances established by the court.
A different practical issue arose in case No. 520/28036/25. The contract had been entered into on 26 September 2024 for one year, while the military unit relied on the argument that the service member had not given the contractual advance notice within the required period.
The court examined not only the timing of the service member’s notice but also the wording of the contract and the obligations imposed on both parties. This is important because a contractual notice clause should not necessarily be assessed solely from the perspective of the service member’s conduct.
Case No. 300/1407/26 illustrates the significance of the date on which the contract was signed. The contract in that dispute had been concluded on 7 February 2022, before martial law was introduced. The court proceeded on the basis that the specific statutory ground concerned contracts concluded during martial law.
Taken together, these cases show why the original expiry date alone does not provide a universal answer. The legal position must be built around the actual contract and the facts of the individual case.
What to do after receiving a refusal
Once a military unit has refused discharge, the first task is to identify precisely what decision, action or failure to act is being challenged.
The legal problem may arise from a written refusal, an order extending the contract, a refusal to process or approve a report, failure to decide a properly submitted report, or another form of inaction.
That distinction affects the remedy that may be sought before an administrative court.
In one case, the appropriate claim may involve asking the court to declare a decision unlawful and set it aside. In another, it may be necessary to challenge unlawful inaction and seek an order requiring the authority to reconsider the report.
Depending on the circumstances and the scope of the authority’s discretion, a claimant may in some situations seek an order requiring a specific decision to be taken.
The remedy should therefore be selected only after examining the powers of the relevant authority and the available evidence. Even where the court identifies a legal violation, an incorrectly formulated claim may fail to resolve the practical issue that brought the service member to court.
How long do you have to bring an administrative claim?
Disputes concerning the performance and termination of military service fall within administrative court jurisdiction.
For disputes concerning appointment to public service, performance of public service and dismissal from public service, the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine establishes a one-month time limit for bringing a claim.
The starting point must still be determined in each case.
Depending on the circumstances, relevant dates may include receipt of a written refusal, the date on which the service member became aware of an extension order, or the point at which the person knew or should have known of unlawful inaction affecting their rights.
For this reason, a refusal or disputed order should not be left for later review. The applicable court deadline, the proper defendant and the appropriate form of relief should be assessed promptly.
What not to do after the contract term expires
The expiry of the date written in the contract does not in itself mean that the service member can independently stop performing military duties, leave the military unit or disregard orders.
Until discharge has been formally completed in accordance with the applicable procedure, unilateral action may create separate disciplinary or criminal-law risks.
It is also risky to rely solely on an oral assurance that the person will “be discharged later” if the contract has already expired and the service member does not intend to continue serving.
For any subsequent legal protection, a properly submitted report, evidence of its submission and the official response will usually be far more useful than an undocumented conversation.
Particular care should also be taken before signing a new contract, additional agreement, statement or other document relating to continued service. A written expression of consent may materially change the factual and legal position in any later dispute.
If the military unit refuses discharge after the contract expires
Disputes concerning discharge from military service depend on the specific contract, the date on which it was concluded, the wording of the submitted report, the orders issued by the command and compliance with procedural time limits. A short formal response from the military unit is rarely enough to assess the case without reviewing the underlying documents.
If your discharge has been refused, your contract has been extended despite the absence of your consent, your report is not being considered, or court proceedings are required to protect your rights, the lawyers of Grandliga can review the documents, assess the available remedy, prepare the procedural position and represent your interests in administrative law disputes.
