Ukrposhta Postman Challenged Mobilization Despite Reservation: Why the Court Denied the Cancellation of the Draft

The Ternopil District Administrative Court considered an administrative case filed by an employee of JSC "Ukrposhta" against the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center and the military medical commission regarding the recognition of the actions related to his mobilization as unlawful, the cancellation of the military medical commission's decision, and the order for conscription into military service during mobilization.

The plaintiff claimed that at the time of conscription he had a valid reservation as an employee of a critically important enterprise and therefore was not subject to mobilization. The court examined the circumstances of the reservation issuance, the medical commission process, the issuance of the mobilization order, and provided a legal assessment of the parties' arguments.

Case Circumstances

The plaintiff stated that since January 24, 2025, he has worked as a postman at a branch of JSC "Ukrposhta" and due to his job duties was reserved from conscription during mobilization. To confirm this, he submitted an employment certificate, an electronic military registration document, and information from the "Reserve+" application, which, in his opinion, confirmed the deferment (reservation) until January 9, 2026.

The plaintiff asserted that he came to the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center solely to clarify the reasons for the entry in the register regarding a possible violation of military registration rules and to provide explanations in case an administrative offense protocol was drawn up.

However, instead of processing administrative offense materials, the center's employees informed him of the need to undergo a military medical commission due to mobilization. The plaintiff insisted that due to the valid reservation he was not subject to conscription, provided relevant supporting documents, and objected to undergoing the medical commission without the opportunity to collect medical documents characterizing his health condition.

Nevertheless, on January 6, 2026, the military-medical commission conducted a medical examination, which recognized him fit for military service and issued the corresponding decision with a certificate. On the same day, the head of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center issued an order for the plaintiff's conscription during mobilization, and on January 7, 2026, he was sent to a military unit for basic general military training.

In this regard, the plaintiff applied to the court requesting to recognize the mobilization procedure as illegal, cancel the military medical commission's decision and the conscription order, citing violations of the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization" and the Procedure for Conscription of Citizens for Military Service during Mobilization in a Special Period.

The Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center opposed the claim. The defendant stated that on January 6, 2026, the plaintiff arrived at the center as a person who violated military registration rules and was listed in the wanted database for committing an administrative offense under Article 210-1 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses. After the medical examination, the military-medical commission recognized him fit for military service. According to the defendant, at the time of conscription, the plaintiff did not have a valid deferment and was not reserved by any enterprise, institution, or organization, and therefore was subject to mobilization.

During the case review, the court twice requested documents from JSC "Ukrposhta" regarding the employee's reservation, the company's appeals to territorial recruitment centers, and documents related to granting, canceling, or denying the reservation.

Following the court's ruling, the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center provided an extract from the Unified State Register of Conscripts, Military Obliged Persons, and Reservists "Oberih", according to which as of January 6, 2026, the plaintiff's reservation was canceled at the request of the organization's head.

Furthermore, based on a letter from JSC "Ukrposhta" dated June 2, 2026, the court established that during the procedure of re-reservation after the enterprise received a new critical status, it was found that the employee was wanted, which, according to the company, made it impossible to issue a new reservation.

Court's Position and Conclusions

In providing a legal assessment of the disputed relations, the court primarily relied on the Constitution of Ukraine, the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization", the Law of Ukraine "On Military Duty and Military Service", the Regulation on Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centers, the Regulation on Military Medical Expertise in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the Procedure for Conscription of Citizens for Military Service during Mobilization in a Special Period approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Resolution No. 560, and other regulatory legal acts governing the mobilization procedure.

The court noted that the Constitution of Ukraine imposes on citizens the duty to defend the homeland, and state authorities must act exclusively on the basis and within the powers defined by law. After the introduction of martial law and the announcement of general mobilization, territorial recruitment and social support centers carry out conscription in accordance with legal requirements, and military obliged persons must comply with military registration rules, undergo medical examination, and appear upon summons by authorized bodies.

Evaluating the parties' arguments regarding reservation, the court examined the evidence provided and found that the extract from the Unified State Register "Oberih" contained information about the cancellation of the plaintiff's reservation as of January 6, 2026, at the request of the enterprise's head.

Additionally, the court took into account the letter from JSC "Ukrposhta", which stated that during the re-issuance of reservation after the enterprise received a new critical status, it was established that the employee was wanted, preventing the company from issuing a new reservation.

The court paid special attention to the demands to cancel the military-medical commission's decision.

The court noted that according to the Regulation on Military Medical Expertise, military medical commissions are authorized to determine citizens' fitness for military service based on health. The administrative court is not competent to assess the correctness of diagnoses or medical conclusions of doctors.

From the case materials, the court established that the military medical commission conducted a medical examination of the plaintiff, completed an examination card and a certificate, and based on the results recognized him fit for military service under Article 64-v of Schedule II of the Disease Classification.

The plaintiff argued that during the medical commission, existing diseases were not taken into account, not all necessary examinations were conducted, and required tests were not taken.

However, the court concluded that the case materials did not contain proper and admissible evidence indicating obvious bias or unreliability of the doctors' conclusions or procedural violations during the medical examination.

The court also referred to the Supreme Court's legal position stated in the ruling dated June 13, 2018, in case No. 806/526/16, according to which the administrative court should not evaluate the professional actions of doctors on the military medical commission when establishing a diagnosis or determining fitness for military service, as these issues require specialized medical knowledge.

According to the court, judicial control over military medical commission decisions is limited to verifying compliance with the procedure of their adoption, while disputes about the correctness of diagnoses or fitness degree should be resolved by appealing to the higher military medical commission.

The court found that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of an appeal to the higher military medical commission against the district commission's decision, although such a procedure is provided by Regulation No. 402. There was also no evidence of significant procedural violations during the medical examination.

After reviewing the medical examination card, the court found that the plaintiff was examined by doctors of relevant specialties, including a psychiatrist, neurologist, ophthalmologist, otolaryngologist, dermatologist venereologist, therapist, and surgeon, after which the military-medical commission made a decision on his fitness for military service.

Continuing the assessment of the claims, the court noted that the legislation clearly defines the procedure for conscription during mobilization and the powers of territorial recruitment and social support centers regarding these activities.

The court stated that territorial recruitment and social support centers are authorized to organize and carry out conscription during mobilization, as well as to clarify military registration data and send military obliged persons for medical examination in cases provided by law.

During the case review, the court established that at the time of issuing the conscription order, the Unified State Register contained information about the cancellation of the plaintiff's reservation. Additionally, the letter from JSC "Ukrposhta" confirmed that re-reservation was not issued due to the employee being wanted.

Under these circumstances, in case No. 500/483/26, the court did not find confirmation of the plaintiff's claims about having a valid reservation at the time of mobilization.

Assessing the legality of the conscription order, the court proceeded from the fact that it was issued after the medical examination, which recognized the plaintiff fit for military service, and in the absence of legally confirmed grounds for deferment.

The court also noted that the plaintiff's arguments about the illegality of mobilization were mainly based on his belief in the validity of the reservation, but such arguments were not supported by proper and admissible evidence examined during the trial.

Moreover, the court pointed out that issues related to military service after conscription are regulated by special legislation. Enlistment in the personnel lists of a military unit is carried out by the unit commander's order, and service and possible discharge are governed by the Law of Ukraine "On Military Duty and Military Service" and the Regulation on Military Service of Citizens of Ukraine in the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

The court emphasized that after conscription, a citizen acquires the status of a serviceman, and issues of service and termination are resolved according to special legislation. Challenging the mobilization order itself does not change the legal status of the person and is not an independent ground for discharge from military service.

After analyzing all the evidence submitted by the parties as a whole, the court concluded that the plaintiff did not prove the unlawfulness of the actions of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center, did not confirm the existence of a valid reservation at the time of conscription, and did not provide proper evidence of procedural violations during the military medical examination.

Therefore, the court found no grounds to recognize the mobilization procedure unlawful, or to cancel the military medical commission's decision or the conscription order during mobilization.

As a result of the case review, the Ternopil District Administrative Court denied the administrative claim in full.

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