Man claimed that the Military Medical Commission was conducted only "on paper": was it possible to cancel the conclusion on fitness for service through the court

The Second Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Kharkiv District Administrative Court, which denied the claim to cancel the certificate of the Military Medical Commission regarding fitness for military service. The court emphasized that administrative courts may review the legality of Military Medical Commission decisions primarily in terms of compliance with the procedure of their adoption, but are not entitled to independently assess medical diagnoses or determine a person's fitness for military service.

The panel of judges also noted that the Regulation on Military Medical Expertise provides a special procedure for reviewing Military Medical Commission decisions through higher-level commissions and the Central Military Medical Commission. These bodies are empowered to verify the completeness of medical examinations, the correctness of established diagnoses, and the necessity of additional examinations.

Case circumstances

The plaintiff applied to the court demanding to cancel the Military Medical Commission certificate dated November 1, 2025, which recognized him as fit for military service, and also to oblige the military unit to send him for a repeated Military Medical Commission examination.

In his opinion, the medical examination was conducted with violations. The man claimed that doctors did not conduct a proper examination, did not take into account his complaints about his health condition, including persistent cough, throat and heart pain, as well as existing chronic diseases. He also indicated that the necessary tests and examinations were practically not conducted.

The Kharkiv District Administrative Court denied the claim. Disagreeing with this decision, the plaintiff filed an appeal, insisting that the court of first instance did not properly verify his arguments regarding violations of the Military Medical Commission procedure.

What the court established

During the case review, the appellate court found that the case materials contained the plaintiff's examination card and medical inspection with information about examinations by a therapist, surgeon, neurologist, ophthalmologist, otolaryngologist, and psychiatrist. The case also included results of chest fluorography, electrocardiogram, general blood and urine tests, as well as other laboratory studies.

According to the panel of judges, the available evidence confirms the plaintiff's passage through the Military Medical Commission and indicates compliance with the requirements of the Regulation on Military Medical Expertise regarding the list of doctors and necessary medical examinations. Therefore, the claims about the absence of a medical examination were not confirmed.

The court separately emphasized that the issues of establishing diagnoses, assessing health status, and determining fitness or unfitness for military service fall within the competence of Military Medical Commissions. Such matters require special medical knowledge, so the court cannot replace the Military Medical Commission and independently decide whether the commission correctly assessed the person's health condition. This approach corresponds to the established practice of the Supreme Court.

Legal position of the court

The appellate court noted that a higher-level Military Medical Commission has the right to review, cancel, or amend decisions of subordinate commissions. These bodies are authorized to verify the correctness of medical examinations, completeness of inspections, and validity of medical conclusions.

At the same time, the court stated that the plaintiff did not provide evidence that he initiated a review of the Military Medical Commission conclusion in the manner prescribed by Regulation No. 402. He also did not provide proper and admissible evidence to support his claims of violations of the Military Medical Commission procedure.

Moreover, the military unit informed the court that after enrollment in service, no reports or complaints regarding the plaintiff's health condition were received that could be grounds for referral to additional examinations or repeated Military Medical Commission.

Court conclusion

The panel of judges in case 520/33865/25 concluded that no procedural violations were found during the issuance of the Military Medical Commission certificate, and the arguments of the appeal do not refute the conclusions of the court of first instance. Considering this, the Second Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and left the decision of the Kharkiv District Administrative Court unchanged.

The ruling came into legal force on the day of its adoption and is not subject to cassation appeal.

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