A man with progressive psoriasis asked the court to protect him from mobilization — what the appeal court decided
The Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal confirmed that mere assumptions about possible mobilization are insufficient grounds for granting interim relief. If a person challenges the inaction of the Central Military Medical Commission regarding the failure to review medical documents and make a decision on fitness for military service, the court will not impose a measure such as prohibiting the TRC from carrying out mobilization activities unless the plaintiff proves the existence of legally prescribed grounds. Moreover, the proposed interim relief must correspond to the subject matter of the dispute.
The court also emphasized that when deciding on interim relief, it does not establish medical diagnoses or determine a person's fitness for military service. Its task is to verify whether there are grounds defined by the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine for applying interim measures before the case is decided.
Case circumstances
A citizen filed a lawsuit against the Central Military Medical Commission of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. He asked to recognize the CMMC's inaction as unlawful for failing to respond to his application within the legally established period and for not making a decision based on the submitted medical documents, as well as to oblige the commission to review these documents and determine his fitness for military service considering all diagnoses and medical materials.
During the case, the plaintiff filed a motion for interim relief. He requested to temporarily oblige the TRC and the recruitment authorities to refrain from taking any actions regarding his conscription during mobilization until the court's decision becomes final, and to prohibit the Central Military Medical Commission and its subordinate military medical commissions from making decisions about his fitness without considering the current medical documents.
The plaintiff justified the motion by stating that due to the CMMC's inaction, there is no official decision on his fitness for military service, which creates a risk of his illegal mobilization before the court proceedings conclude.
Additionally, he referred to previous actions taken against him by the TRC and the police. In particular, according to him, in 2025 the TRC contacted the National Police regarding his search due to incomplete medical examination by the military medical commission, after which he received the status "Wanted" in the "Oberig" ("Reserve+") system. He also stated that police officers and TRC personnel stopped his car and tried to forcibly take him for the medical examination. Separately, the plaintiff noted that he has progressive psoriasis, which, in his opinion, poses health risks.
Why the courts refused
The Kyiv District Administrative Court denied the motion for interim relief. The court noted that the plaintiff did not provide evidence that at the time of filing the motion any specific mobilization measures were being taken against him or that there was a real threat of conscription.
The court of first instance also pointed out that the subject of case 320/59356/25 is the inaction of the Central Military Medical Commission regarding the failure to review medical documents and make a decision, not actions or decisions related to mobilization or undergoing the medical examination. Therefore, the proposed interim relief exceeded the subject matter of the dispute.
Position of the appellate court
The Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal agreed with these conclusions.
The panel of judges reminded that interim relief is allowed only if there are grounds defined by law. In particular, when failure to take such measures may significantly complicate or make impossible the execution of a future court decision or the effective protection of the plaintiff's rights, or when there are obvious signs of illegality of a decision, action, or inaction of a public authority.
According to the court, arguments about possible future mobilization are based only on assumptions. The administrative court protects rights that have been actually violated, not those that may be violated in the future. The mere possibility of negative consequences, even if the person considers them probable, is not sufficient grounds for interim relief. The appellate court referred to the legal position of the Supreme Court set out in the ruling dated September 6, 2019, in case No. 826/13306/18.
The court also noted that the plaintiff's psoriasis itself is not an unconditional ground for interim relief. The question of how the health condition affects fitness for military service should be resolved during the substantive consideration of the dispute, not at the stage of deciding on interim relief.
At the same time, the panel emphasized that the court does not establish medical diagnoses or determine fitness for military service. It verifies whether the military medical commission complied with legal requirements and procedures. If violations are found during the case, the court may annul an unlawful decision of the military medical commission and oblige a repeated medical examination considering the available medical documents.
Court decision
The Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and left the Kyiv District Administrative Court's ruling denying interim relief unchanged. The ruling took legal effect on the day it was made and may be appealed in cassation in cases and within terms defined by 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, our pages on Facebook and Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.
