Does Order No. 423 really change the rules for handling military-liable individuals at TCCs

In October 2026, a discussion arose in society regarding a document that media and social media users unofficially called the "Drapatyi Order". This refers to Order No. 423 of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine dated 6 October, which is attributed with new rules for handling military-liable individuals during their stay at Territorial Centres for Recruitment and Social Support (TCCs). Specifically, it concerns rules regarding phones, guarantees of access to a defender, and requirements for video control.

Document status and official confirmation

Despite active discussion, during the fact-checking process, no official confirmation of the full text of the order could be found. Without an authentic document, it is impossible to accurately establish its wording, effective date, and scope of application. Therefore, any claims about new restrictions or rights should be treated cautiously, relying on current legislation.

Who has the right to detain: the role of police and TCCs

One of the key aspects subject to interpretation is the question of detention powers. According to Article 262 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offences, administrative detention for violations of military registration rules and mobilisation legislation is carried out exclusively by police representatives. TCC employees do not independently have such powers.

Thus, the common claim about a ban on detention requires clarification: it relates to the lack of authority for recruitment centre officials to independently detain individuals, rather than a general ban on lawful detention, which may be carried out by the police in the established procedure.

Phones and personal belongings: what the law allows

The handling of smartphones has become a separate subject of discussion. Being present at a TCC in itself is not grounds for the automatic confiscation of a gadget. The legislator provides for separate procedures for the seizure of items, which are carried out by authorised persons.

It is important to distinguish between the seizure of a device, the review of its contents, and the restriction of the right to record. The legality of each of these actions depends on specific circumstances and compliance with procedural requirements, rather than the mere fact of a person's presence in a TCC premises.

Guarantees of legal aid

The right to defence and lawyer assistance existed before information about the new order appeared. The State system of free legal aid emphasises that every detained person has the right to defence, as well as to confidential communication with a lawyer.

Video surveillance and body cameras

Regarding video control, officially published rules already exist. The Ministry of Defence reported that from 1 September 2025, TCC representatives are obliged to use chest-mounted video cameras (body cameras) in notification groups. Recording must be continuous, except in cases specified by the regulations.

The storage period for video materials on the VSP server is 30 days, with the possibility of extension if necessary. It is important to note that these requirements concern the personal equipment of employees and do not automatically confirm the installation of fixed video surveillance cameras in all TCC premises.

Conclusions

Reports on the implementation of a new mobilisation procedure should be assessed in the context of current laws. An internal order cannot independently create additional grounds for restricting citizens' personal freedom or seizing their property.

Recall that earlier, information appeared about a document regulating the procedure for delivering military-liable individuals to TCCs and interaction with the police. The materials explained that the formalisation of delivery does not mean an automatic decision on mobilisation. It is also known that in Ivano-Frankivsk region, a court fined a TCC officer for violating video recording and storage requirements for body camera recordings, as the inspection revealed the absence of a significant part of video materials and improper storage of files.