The Territorial Recruitment Center mobilized a man who was declared unfit for service back in 1996: the record in the military ID was ignored
The Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Lviv District Administrative Court in the case regarding the mobilization of a man who was declared unfit for military service and removed from the military register due to health reasons back in 1996.
The court agreed with the first instance court's conclusion that the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center acted unlawfully when it sent such a citizen to the Military Medical Commission and conscripted him for military service. At the same time, the panel of judges concluded that after the actual conscription, enrollment in the military unit, and the start of service, the cancellation of the relevant orders would not restore the violated rights of the person and cannot be considered an effective means of judicial protection.
Circumstances of the case
The plaintiff stated that on February 7, 1996, the Military Medical Commission declared him unfit for military service and removed him from the military register. The corresponding record was made in his military ID.
In July 2024, he arrived at the Territorial Recruitment Center upon summons, where, according to him, he was informed that he was removed from the military register and had no obligations related to military registration.
However, in January 2025, officials of the Territorial Recruitment Center brought him to the recruitment center, sent him to undergo the Military Medical Commission, which declared him fit for service in certain support units, after which he was conscripted for military service and sent to a military unit.
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit demanding to recognize the actions regarding his conscription during mobilization as unlawful, as well as to cancel the conscription order and the order enrolling him in the personnel list of the military unit.
What the first instance court established
The Lviv District Administrative Court concluded that the Territorial Recruitment Center is responsible for verifying information about a person's military registration status. Despite the record in the military ID about the plaintiff's removal from the military register, officials organized the Military Medical Commission and made a decision on his conscription.
Under these circumstances, the court recognized the actions of the Territorial Recruitment Center regarding the plaintiff's conscription during mobilization as unlawful.
The case materials also contained a submission from the commander of the military unit, based on which it was concluded that the repeated registration of the plaintiff in the military register and his conscription were unlawful. Subsequently, one of the Territorial Recruitment Center officials was subjected to disciplinary action.
At the same time, the court refused to cancel the conscription order and the order enrolling the plaintiff in the personnel list of the military unit.
Arguments of the appeal
The plaintiff appealed this part of the decision. He insisted that recognizing the conscription actions as unlawful should entail the cancellation of all derivative decisions, including the order enrolling him in the military unit.
In his opinion, only such a method of protection would fully restore his rights.
Position of the appellate court
The Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal did not agree with these arguments.
The panel of judges noted that the first instance court's conclusion about the unlawfulness of the Territorial Recruitment Center's actions regarding the plaintiff's conscription was not subject to appellate review. The appeal review only examined the possibility of canceling the conscription order and the order enrolling the plaintiff in the military unit.
The court pointed out that the order enrolling a person in the personnel list is an individual act of one-time application. After its execution and the actual start of military service, such an act exhausts its effect.
The appellate court referred to the legal position of the Supreme Court, set out in the ruling dated February 5, 2025, in case No. 160/2592/23, according to which the conscription procedure during mobilization is irreversible, and recognizing it as unlawful does not by itself return the person to the state that existed before conscription.
After the issuance and implementation of the orders, new legal relations arise between the parties — the performance of military service. Such legal relations are regulated by the Law "On Military Duty and Military Service" and the Regulation on Military Service. These normative acts do not provide for dismissal from service by canceling the mobilization order or the order enrolling in the military unit.
Why the court refused to cancel the orders
The court concluded that the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff is ineffective.
Even if the disputed orders were canceled, this alone would not lead to termination of military service or restore the plaintiff's violated rights. Therefore, the demands for their cancellation are not subject to satisfaction.
The panel of judges emphasized that after mobilization, the plaintiff acquired the status of a serviceman and lost the status of a person liable for military service. Therefore, the issue of his dismissal from service must be resolved exclusively in the manner and on the grounds defined by Article 26 of the Law "On Military Duty and Military Service."
The court also noted that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of submitting a report for dismissal from service due to health reasons. At the same time, he is not deprived of the right to apply to the command with such a report in the manner prescribed by law.
Conclusion of the court
The appellate court in case No. 380/2007/25 dismissed the appeal and left the decision of the Lviv District Administrative Court unchanged.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua, Google News SUD.UA here, as well as our VIBER and WhatsApp pages, and follow us on Facebook and Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.
