After mobilization, a tumor was found in a man: the court explained why it did not cancel the draft

Disputes related to challenging draft decisions during mobilization often arise in judicial practice. In particular, after passing the military medical commission, conscripts claim improper conduct of the medical examination or diseases that, in their opinion, should have been detected and considered when determining fitness for military service.

The Lviv District Administrative Court considered one such case filed by a conscript against the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center and a unit of the National Police regarding the recognition of unlawful actions during the organization and conduct of the military medical commission, cancellation of the draft decision during mobilization, and the obligation to conduct a repeated medical check-up.

The court examined whether such claims could be satisfied in the absence of a canceled conclusion of the military-medical commission and without following the procedure established by law for its appeal.

Case circumstances

The plaintiff applied to the court demanding to recognize as unlawful the actions of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center regarding the organization and conduct of the military medical commission without proper medical examination, to cancel the decision on his draft for military service during mobilization, and to oblige a repeated medical examination at the Western Regional Military Medical Clinical Center with subsequent issuance of a resolution taking into account the court's conclusions.

To substantiate the claim, the plaintiff stated that after being brought to the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center, he was forcibly involved in passing the military medical commission and processing documents regarding the draft during mobilization. After the medical examination, a decision was made to draft him for military service.

The plaintiff believed that the military medical commission was conducted without a full medical check-up and without considering his actual health condition. He referred to the fact that only after the draft, on March 1, 2026, based on the results of a multislice computed tomography of the abdominal and pelvic organs with contrast enhancement, a tumor formation of the right kidney was detected. The plaintiff considered that such a disease existed at the time of the military medical commission but was not identified or considered when determining his fitness for military service.

The defendant opposed the claim, noting that on November 14, 2025, the district off-staff permanent military medical commission conducted a medical check-up of the plaintiff, which diagnosed "Z00. General examination and investigation of persons without complaints or established diagnosis. Healthy." According to the military-medical commission certificate, the plaintiff was recognized as fit for military service, and by order of the head of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center, he was drafted for military service during mobilization and sent to a military unit.

The defendant also emphasized that the plaintiff did not appeal the military medical commission's resolution in the manner prescribed by law, thus agreeing with its conclusion. Moreover, during the medical examination, he did not report any health complaints, and the claims about the detection of a malignant neoplasm were not supported by proper medical evidence submitted with the claim.

During the case consideration, the court established that on November 14, 2025, the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center issued the plaintiff a referral to determine fitness for military service. The medical examination was conducted at the healthcare institution specified in the referral. Based on this examination, the military-medical commission recognized the plaintiff as fit for military service, after which an order was issued for his draft during mobilization.

The court also found that only after applying to the court did the plaintiff's representative send a complaint to the regional military-medical commission regarding the military-medical commission's resolution dated November 14, 2025, but the case materials contained no information about the results of its consideration.

What the court decided

The court noted that according to the Constitution of Ukraine, the Law "On Military Duty and Military Service," the Law "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization," the Regulation on Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centers, the Procedure for Drafting Citizens for Military Service during Mobilization approved by the Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 560, as well as the Regulation on Military Medical Expertise in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, military medical expertise is carried out in the manner prescribed by law, and its results are formalized by the resolution of the military medical commission.

The court established that the plaintiff's referral for passing the military medical commission was issued in accordance with legal requirements. The plaintiff did not provide specific circumstances indicating unlawful actions by the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center during the organization of the medical examination, and the court found no violations in issuing the referral or organizing the military-medical commission.

The court noted that the military medical commission's resolution recognizing the plaintiff as fit for military service remained valid. There was no evidence in the case materials of its cancellation or review in the manner prescribed by law. Filing a complaint to the regional military medical commission alone does not indicate the illegality of the resolution, and the results of its consideration were not submitted to the court.

The court thoroughly analyzed Regulation No. 402 and noted that only regular military medical commissions, including the regional military medical commission and the Central Military Medical Commission, have the authority to verify the legality of resolutions of off-staff military medical commissions, review them, cancel them, or decide on conducting repeated or control medical examinations. Off-staff military medical commissions or the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center do not have such powers.

The court emphasized that in case of disagreement with the conclusion of the off-staff military medical commission, a person must first use the special administrative appeal procedure to the higher-level military medical commission. Only after the corresponding decision is made does the possibility of judicial review arise.

Regarding the arguments about the detection of a tumor formation of the right kidney after passing the military medical commission, the court stated that the administrative court is not entitled to assess the correctness of the professional actions of the doctors-members of the military medical commission in establishing diagnoses, examining medical documentation, and applying the Disease Classification, as such matters require specialized medical knowledge.

At the same time, the court took into account the legal position of the Supreme Court set out in the resolution dated June 13, 2018, in case No. 806/526/16, according to which the administrative court cannot substitute medical specialists and evaluate the professional decisions of military medical commission doctors.

Additionally, the court applied the conclusion of the Supreme Court set out in the resolution dated February 26, 2025, in case No. 600/3273/22-а, according to which checking whether the off-staff military medical commission complied with the requirements of Regulation No. 402 during the medical check-up falls within the competence of the regional military medical commission or the Central Military Medical Commission. Failure by a person to follow the procedure for appealing the results of the medical check-up is an independent ground for refusing to satisfy the administrative claim.

Given that the military medical commission's decision regarding the plaintiff's fitness for military service remained valid, and the case materials did not contain a final decision of the regional military medical commission or the Central Military Medical Commission that could be subject to judicial appeal, the court concluded that the claims to recognize unlawful actions regarding the organization and conduct of the military medical commission, cancel the draft decision, and oblige a repeated medical check-up are unfounded.

Based on the results of case No. 380/3112/26, the Lviv District Administrative Court denied the administrative claim in full. The court also noted that there are no grounds for allocating court costs since the claim was fully denied.

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