Cancellation of booking and conscription on the same day – was the conscripted person able to avoid mobilization through the court

The Ternopil District Administrative Court considered an administrative case on the claim of a conscripted person against the Territorial Center of Recruitment and Social Support (TCRSS) and the Military Medical Commission (MMC) at the TCRSS regarding the recognition of actions as unlawful and the obligation to perform certain actions.

Circumstances of the case

The plaintiff challenged the procedure of his mobilization, claiming that it was carried out in violation of paragraph 1 of part 1 of article 23 of the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization" and paragraph 2 of the Procedure for conscription of citizens for military service during mobilization, in a special period. He requested to recognize as unlawful and cancel the decision of the military-medical commission dated January 6, 2026, documented by certificate No. 2026-0106-1955-5302-3, which declared him fit for military service, as well as to recognize as unlawful and cancel the order of the head of the TCRSS No. 85 dated January 6, 2026, regarding his conscription for military service during mobilization.

In the claim, the plaintiff stated that he has been working as a postman at the Joint Stock Company "Ukrposhta" since January 2025 and had a booking exemption from mobilization. To confirm this, he referred to an employment certificate, an electronic military registration document in the "Reserve+" app, and a screenshot with information about the deferral until January 9, 2026.

According to the plaintiff, he arrived at the TCRSS to clarify an issue regarding a notification about violation of military registration rules. Instead, he was offered to undergo a military-medical examination. The plaintiff informed about the booking, provided documents, and refused to undergo the examination without the possibility to collect additional medical documents. Despite this, on January 6, 2026, the military-medical commission declared him fit, and the next day he was sent to the military unit.

However, the TCRSS representative in the response to the claim noted that the plaintiff was wanted for violation of military registration rules (article 210-1 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses), was subject to conscription, and was sent for a medical examination. Based on the review of medical records in the electronic health care system, he was recognized as fit for military service under article 64v of column II of the Schedule of Diseases. Since the booking was absent, he was conscripted by order dated January 6, 2026.

The court requested evidence regarding the booking from "Ukrposhta" and the TCRSS. "Ukrposhta" did not provide a complete set of documents. From the extract of the "Obereg" Register provided by the TCRSS, it was established that the plaintiff's booking was canceled on January 6, 2026, at the request of the organization's head. A letter from "Ukrposhta" dated June 2, 2026, confirmed that during rebooking, the plaintiff's wanted status was discovered, which made booking impossible.

What the court decided

The Ternopil District Administrative Court in case No. 500/483/26 dismissed the claim in full.

The court concluded that at the time of conscription on January 6, 2026, the plaintiff did not have a valid booking issued in accordance with the established Procedure for booking. Information about the deferral in the electronic military registration document was not supported by proper evidence at the time of mobilization measures. The booking was canceled at the request of the organization's head, as confirmed by the extract from the "Obereg" Register.

Regarding the conclusion of the military-medical commission, the court noted that the authority to assess health status and fitness for military service belongs to the MMC, not the court. The court only verifies the legality of the examination procedure. There is no evidence of violation of the medical examination procedure in the case. The plaintiff did not appeal the MMC decision to the higher military-medical commission.

Regarding the conscription order, the court found it lawful since at the time of issuance there were no grounds for deferral, and the plaintiff was recognized as fit. The individual legal act of conscription exhausted its effect by the fact of the plaintiff's enrollment in the military unit.

The court emphasized that booking must be implemented in the manner prescribed by law through the Diia Portal or relevant lists. The right to deferral was not properly formalized and confirmed at the time of conscription. The plaintiff's arguments about the existence of booking were rejected as unproven.

Thus, the court recognized the actions of the TCRSS and MMC as lawful, and the grounds for recognizing them as unlawful were absent. The decision can be appealed to the Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal within thirty days.

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