The man claimed that he was not examined by the Military Medical Commission's doctors at all, but the court did not cancel the mobilization

The Second Administrative Court of Appeal confirmed the legality of the mobilization of a conscript who claimed that during the military medical commission (MMC) procedure he was practically not examined by doctors, was not given the opportunity to provide medical documents, and was recognized as fit for military service without proper examination. The court concluded that the orders for conscription and enrollment in the military unit are derivative of the MMC decision on fitness, and since this decision remained valid and was not canceled or declared illegal, there are no grounds to cancel the respective orders.

Circumstances of the case

The plaintiff asked the court to recognize as unlawful and cancel the order of the head of the Territorial Recruitment Center (TCC) on his conscription during mobilization, as well as the order of the military unit commander on enrollment in the personnel lists. He claimed that the MMC procedure was grossly violated. According to him, while at the clinic, he was forced to sign documents, but he did not sign any documents, did not see the doctors, and practically did not undergo a medical examination. In addition, the plaintiff stated that representatives of the TCC and MMC ignored his illness and medical documents confirming health problems.

From the case materials, it appears that in 2024 the man was treated for varicose disease of the lower extremities, underwent surgery, and was twice recognized by the MMC as needing treatment with a follow-up examination. During the follow-up examination on April 9, 2025, the MMC issued a decision recognizing him fit for military service. The next day, the TCC issued a conscription order, and the military unit issued an order enrolling him in the personnel lists.

The plaintiff also reported that he tried to appeal the MMC conclusion out of court. He contacted the regional MMC, Central MMC, Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Health, State Bureau of Investigations, the Verkhovna Rada Commissioner for Human Rights, and other authorities. According to the plaintiff, the responses to his appeals stated that he already had the status of a serviceman and therefore could not exercise the right to appeal the MMC conclusion.

The court of first instance denied the claim, after which the man filed an appeal.

What the appellate court stated

The appellate court agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance. The panel of judges noted that the Regulation on Military Medical Expertise No. 402 establishes a separate procedure for reviewing MMC decisions. If a person disagrees with the conclusion of the non-staff MMC, they have the right to apply to a higher-level MMC, which may review or cancel the decision and also send the person for a repeated or control medical examination.

The court noted that the plaintiff indeed applied to the 12th regional MMC and Central MMC with requests to review the decision regarding his fitness. At the same time, the case materials do not contain evidence that the MMC certificate dated April 9, 2025, was canceled or declared illegal. Moreover, the subject of this dispute was not the MMC certificate on fitness itself, nor the actions or decisions of higher MMC's regarding the review of this conclusion.

The panel of judges also emphasized that determining a citizen's fitness for military service falls within the competence of military medical commissions. The court is not authorized to independently assess a person's health condition or substitute the conclusions of a specialized body. This approach, the court noted, corresponds to the legal positions of the Supreme Court.

The appellate court found the plaintiff's arguments that he practically did not undergo the MMC and did not sign the relevant documents to be unfounded, as they were not supported by proper and admissible evidence. Instead, the case materials 520/20481/25 contain a valid MMC certificate recognizing him fit for military service, which was the basis for issuing the conscription order and subsequent enrollment in the personnel lists of the military unit.

The court specifically emphasized that the conscription order during mobilization and the order enrolling in the personnel lists of the military unit are derivative of the MMC's decision on fitness. Therefore, as long as such a decision remains valid, references to the presence of illnesses or possible procedural violations during the medical examination are not grounds for canceling these orders. In addition, the military unit commander's order is issued based on documents received from the TCC, not at the discretion of the military unit itself.

Court decision

The Second Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and left the decision of the Kharkiv District Administrative Court unchanged. The ruling took legal effect on the day of its adoption and is not subject to cassation appeal, except in cases provided for in paragraph 2 of part five of article 328 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine.

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