A man claimed he was forcibly taken to the military enlistment office despite being removed from military registration: The Supreme Court resumed consideration of the case

The Supreme Court annulled the decisions of lower courts that had closed the proceedings on the lawsuit of a man who claimed illegal detention by the military enlistment office staff and forced delivery for a military-medical commission. The court concluded that the lower courts' findings about the non-applicability of administrative jurisdiction to this dispute were premature, and the stated claims require consideration under administrative proceedings.

The Cassation Administrative Court within the Supreme Court emphasized that the actions of territorial recruitment and social support centers related to the exercise of powers in the field of military registration and mobilization may be subject to judicial review. If a person claims they were taken to the military enlistment office and sent to a military-medical commission despite not being subject to military obligation, such circumstances require examination by the court and legal evaluation.

Circumstances of case No. 420/9610/25

In April 2025, a citizen filed a lawsuit against the territorial recruitment and social support center.

The plaintiff claimed that on March 31, 2025, employees of the military enlistment office forcibly put him into a car and took him to the recruitment center premises. According to him, this happened despite the fact that he had been removed from military registration due to health reasons back in 2008 and had corresponding supporting documents.

Initially, the plaintiff requested to recognize the actions regarding his detention as unlawful, to cancel the decision to summon him for clarification of military registration data, and to hold the official of the military enlistment office accountable. Later, after correcting deficiencies in the claim, he specified his demands, including recognizing the detention as unlawful and actions that, in his opinion, obstructed the legal activities of his representative.

Why lower courts closed the case

The Odesa District Administrative Court and later the Fifth Administrative Court of Appeal closed the proceedings.

The courts reasoned that the plaintiff was essentially challenging the actions of the military enlistment office employees regarding detention and obstruction of legal activities, which, in their view, were not performed during the exercise of official administrative functions. Therefore, they concluded that the dispute did not fall under administrative jurisdiction.

Moreover, for these reasons, the courts of first and appeal instances believed that the described actions might contain signs of criminal or administrative offenses, and such circumstances should be evaluated by law enforcement agencies.

The Supreme Court's position

The Supreme Court disagreed with these conclusions.

The court noted that the subject of the dispute is not the challenge of the summons as an individual act nor the issue of holding officials accountable, but the legality of the military enlistment office's actions regarding delivering the person to the recruitment center and sending him to the military-medical commission.

The panel of judges reminded that territorial recruitment and social support centers are military administration bodies that ensure the implementation of legislation on military duty, military service, and mobilization, i.e., they exercise official administrative functions.

The Supreme Court pointed out that the plaintiff claims to have been removed from military registration in 2008 due to health reasons and has relevant documents. At the same time, the lower courts did not assess these circumstances and did not properly establish the content of the stated claims.

The court emphasized that the plaintiff's claims about his detention and referral to the military-medical commission within the exercise of the military enlistment office's powers in military registration and mobilization should be examined by the court and legally evaluated. Under such circumstances, the conclusion that the dispute is not public-law was premature.

What the Supreme Court decided

The Cassation Administrative Court satisfied the cassation appeal of the plaintiff's representative, annulled the ruling of the Odesa District Administrative Court and the decision of the Fifth Administrative Court of Appeal.

The case was sent back to the Odesa District Administrative Court for further consideration.

At the same time, the Supreme Court did not assess the legality or illegality of the military enlistment office employees' actions on the merits and did not establish the fact of unlawful detention of the plaintiff. The subject of the cassation review was exclusively the issue of the grounds for closing the proceedings. The court concluded that the stated claims should be considered on the merits in administrative proceedings.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua, Google News SUD.UA Google News SUD.UA, as well as our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook Facebook and Instagram Instagram pages to stay informed about the most important events.