A military reservist stated that he was forcibly taken from his bicycle to the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center by people in balaclavas: the court refused to cancel the mobilization

The Zaporizhzhia District Administrative Court considered an administrative case filed by a military reservist against the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center seeking to recognize as unlawful and cancel the order for conscription into military service during mobilization.

The plaintiff requested the cancellation of the conscription order, citing the illegality of his delivery to the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center, violations of the mobilization procedure, and improper conduct of the military-medical examination. The court denied the claim, concluding there were no legal grounds to cancel the contested order.

Essence of the case

The plaintiff applied to the court demanding the cancellation of the order of the head of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center dated October 22, 2025, No. 510/1, regarding the conscription of reservists and military reservists into military service during mobilization.

In support of the claim, it was stated that on October 21, 2025, at approximately 4:30 PM, unknown persons in military uniform traveling in a khaki Nissan Navara without identification marks used physical force against the plaintiff while he was riding a bicycle, forcibly placed him in the vehicle, and delivered him to the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center. According to the plaintiff, these individuals wore balaclavas or masks, did not identify themselves, and did not present service IDs or other documents confirming their authority.

The plaintiff also claimed that after delivery, he was held in a basement room, which is not a legally designated place for detaining persons.

To confirm the fact of illegal detention, the plaintiff's representative sent a lawyer's inquiry to the Main Directorate of the National Police in Zaporizhzhia region. The police responded that there were no records of an administrative detention protocol regarding the plaintiff.

At the same time, the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center responded to the lawyer's inquiry that the plaintiff was delivered by police officers for the purpose of drawing up a protocol on an administrative offense related to failure to appear upon summons. The plaintiff considered this information contradictory to the police response.

Additionally, the plaintiff noted that an administrative offense protocol was drawn up against him under part three of article 210-1 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, and a military-medical examination was conducted, which recognized him fit for military service.

The plaintiff emphasized that during the forced delivery, he did not have medical documentation with him, and the military-medical commission was conducted without proper medical examination. In his opinion, under such circumstances, the determination of fitness for military service was formal.

After passing the military-medical commission, the head of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center issued an order to conscript the plaintiff into military service during mobilization and directed him to a military unit for further service.

Believing that the mobilization order was a result of illegal actions by officials of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center, the plaintiff asked the court to recognize it as unlawful and cancel it.

The defendant opposed the claim. He stated that the plaintiff was registered for military service, was delivered by police officers to the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center for administrative processing, after which he passed the military medical commission that recognized him fit for military service.

The defendant noted that the plaintiff did not file any complaints about his health during the military medical commission, had no legal grounds for deferment or exemption from conscription, and after the order was issued, was sent to a military unit.

Furthermore, the defendant referred to the Supreme Court’s legal position, according to which the conscription procedure during mobilization is irreversible, and recognition of certain actions during conscription as unlawful does not restore the previous legal status of a person already serving in the military.

After examining the case materials, the court established that the plaintiff was registered as a military reservist, was delivered to the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center, passed the military-medical commission which recognized him fit for military service, and based on the relevant order, was conscripted during mobilization and sent to a military unit.

Court’s position and conclusions

In providing a legal assessment of the disputed relations, the court primarily relied on Article 19 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which requires state authorities and officials to act exclusively on the basis, within the powers, and in the manner defined by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine. The court also noted that according to Article 65 of the Constitution, the defense of the homeland, independence, and territorial integrity of Ukraine is a constitutional duty of citizens, and military service is carried out in the manner prescribed by law.

The court noted that Ukraine is under martial law and general mobilization, introduced by respective decrees of the President of Ukraine, and the legal framework for mobilization is defined by the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization" and the Law of Ukraine "On Military Duty and Military Service."

Analyzing these laws, the court concluded that reservists and military reservists in the reserve who do not have legal grounds for deferment or exemption are subject to conscription during mobilization.

The court separately noted that Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centers are military administration bodies authorized to maintain military records, organize notification of reservists, conduct mobilization measures, and issue conscription orders during mobilization.

Examining the case materials, the court found that the plaintiff was registered for military service, was delivered to the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center, passed the military-medical commission which recognized him fit for military service, after which he was conscripted and sent to a military unit.

Regarding the plaintiff’s claims of illegal forced detention, the court stated that these were not supported by proper and admissible evidence. The plaintiff’s assertions alone without corresponding proof cannot establish such circumstances.

Regarding objections to the legality of the military medical commission’s conclusion, the court noted that the Regulations on Military-Medical Examination in the Armed Forces of Ukraine provide a special procedure for appealing military-medical commission decisions.

The court emphasized that if a person disagrees with the district military medical commission’s conclusion, they have the right to appeal to a higher-level military-medical commission and subsequently to the Central Military-Medical Commission. Within this procedure, a control or repeated medical examination may be appointed.

The case materials confirmed that the plaintiff did not use the legally prescribed procedure to appeal the military medical commission’s decision. Moreover, he did not claim in this case to recognize the military medical commission’s decision as unlawful or cancel it, did not prove its invalidity or cancellation, and did not provide evidence of its loss of effect.

Under these circumstances, the court concluded that the claim of formality in conducting the military medical examination alone cannot indicate the illegality of the conscription order.

The court also noted that the subject of the dispute is the legality of the order of the head of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center on the plaintiff’s conscription during mobilization, not the legality of the military medical examination or other procedural actions.

The plaintiff’s references to the absence of a written referral to the military-medical commission, non-receipt of summons or other documents were deemed insufficient to conclude the unlawfulness of the contested order. The court noted that the plaintiff did not prove the absence of legal grounds for his mobilization, nor did he confirm the existence of rights to deferment, exemption, or other circumstances that would exclude his conscription under the law.

The case materials No. 280/11013/25, on the contrary, indicate that at the time of the order issuance, the plaintiff was a military reservist, registered for military service, and had a valid military-medical commission conclusion recognizing his fitness for military service.

Evaluating all evidence collectively, the court concluded that the defendant acted within the powers granted by law, based on current legislation and taking into account the valid military-medical commission decision recognizing the plaintiff fit for military service.

The court noted that the plaintiff did not prove the existence of legal grounds to recognize the conscription order unlawful and cancel it.

In view of this, the Zaporizhzhia District Administrative Court refused to satisfy the claim to recognize as unlawful and cancel the order of the head of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center on conscription during mobilization.

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