Man Challenged Mobilization Due to Being Taken to the Territorial Recruitment Center Without a Summons: Court Found No Violations

The Ivano-Frankivsk District Administrative Court considered the case filed by a conscripted individual against the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center and a military unit regarding the appeal of an order for conscription into military service during mobilization. The plaintiff requested to recognize the conscription order as unlawful and to cancel it, as well as to oblige the military unit to release him from military service and remove him from the personnel lists.

Case Summary

The plaintiff stated that officers of the Ivano-Frankivsk District Police Department stopped him to check documents, including military registration documents, after which he was taken to the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center. On the same day, he was sent to undergo a military medical commission, was declared fit for military service, conscripted during mobilization, and sent to a military unit.

The plaintiff believed these actions were unlawful because the summons of citizens to the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centers during mobilization must be carried out by handing over or sending a summons. The plaintiff's representative also emphasized that current legislation requires a person to provide medical documentation regarding their health status, including an outpatient medical card, before undergoing the military medical commission. In his opinion, undergoing the medical examination immediately after being taken to the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center effectively deprives the person of the opportunity to collect and provide such documents.

At the same time, the plaintiff did not challenge the military medical commission's conclusion regarding fitness for service but questioned only the procedure of his referral for the medical examination and subsequent conscription.

The Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center opposed the claim. The defendant indicated that the plaintiff was registered as a reservist liable for military service, had no right to deferment, and was subject to conscription during mobilization. Based on the results of the military medical commission, he was recognized as fit for military service. The defendant also noted that the conscription order is an individual act that ceases to have effect after its execution, i.e., after the person is enrolled in the personnel lists of the military unit.

Court's Position and Conclusions

The court established that at the time of conscription, the plaintiff was registered as a reservist liable for military service, was recognized as fit for military service, and had no deferment or reservation.

Examining the provisions of the Law "On Military Duty and Military Service," the Law "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization," the Regulation on Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centers, as well as the Procedure for Conscription of Citizens for Military Service during Mobilization for a Special Period, approved by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 560, the court noted that conscription of reservists during mobilization is carried out regardless of their place of military registration.

The court stated that during mobilization, reservists who do not have the right to deferment or are not reserved in the prescribed manner are conscripted. Since at the date of conscription the plaintiff did not have the right to deferment and was not specially registered as reserved, he was subject to mobilization.

Assessing the arguments regarding the violation of the procedure for referral to the military medical commission, the court concluded that they do not indicate the unlawfulness of the conscription itself. The court separately noted that in this case, the procedure and circumstances under which the reservist was sent for the medical examination by the military medical commission have no legal significance.

The court also noted that current legislation does not provide legal grounds for refusal to undergo the military medical commission, and such refusal is considered a violation of defense and mobilization legislation.

According to the court, only a properly documented deferment or reservation can be grounds for postponing mobilization and deprive the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center of the right to process a person's conscription during mobilization.

The court emphasized that even if there are some procedural violations by the defendant, such circumstances alone do not prove the unlawfulness of the conscription if the reservist is fit for service and has no legal grounds for deferment.

Furthermore, the court noted that the consent of the reservist is not required for being registered for military service, updating registration data, undergoing a medical examination, or conscription during mobilization, as the fulfillment of these duties is directly provided for by law.

Regarding the demand to oblige the military unit to release the plaintiff from military service, the court indicated that this claim is derivative of the demand to cancel the conscription order. Since the main claim is denied, there are no grounds to satisfy the derivative claim. The court also noted that the plaintiff seeks to exercise a right to release from military service that is not granted to him by law.

As a result of case No. 300/1885/26, the Ivano-Frankivsk District Administrative Court fully denied the claim. The appeal is to be submitted to the Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal.

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