Immediately after the traffic accident, the police took the man to the Territorial Recruitment Centre – the court refused to cancel the mobilization

The Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court refused to satisfy the claim of a conscripted person who requested the cancellation of orders for conscription into military service during mobilization and enrollment in the personnel lists of a military unit. The court concluded that there are no grounds to satisfy the claim and also referred to the legal position of the Supreme Court regarding the irreversibility of the mobilization procedure.

Circumstances of the case

A citizen applied to the Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court with a claim against the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center and a military unit, requesting the cancellation of the order of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center on conscription into military service during mobilization in a special period and the order of the commander of the military unit regarding enrollment in the personnel lists of the military unit and exclusion from those lists.

The plaintiff justified the claims by stating that on November 10, 2025, during the processing of a traffic accident, he was taken by police officers to the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center. After that, he was sent to undergo a military medical commission, where, without a proper medical examination, a conclusion on fitness was issued. The plaintiff claimed that he did not undergo the military-medical commission, and all documents were processed without his participation.

The court established that the plaintiff is a conscripted person and is registered with the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center. On November 10, 2025, the plaintiff was brought to the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center. On the same day, the plaintiff underwent a medical examination by the military-medical commission, which recognized him as fit for military service. By the order of the commander of the military unit dated November 19, 2025, No. 334, the plaintiff was enrolled in the personnel lists of the military unit.

What the court decided

The Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court in case No. 160/12265/26 decided to refuse the claim.

The court concluded that the defense of the homeland, independence, and territorial integrity of Ukraine is a constitutional duty of Ukrainian citizens. In the event of armed aggression against Ukraine, the President of Ukraine makes a decision on general or partial mobilization, the introduction of martial law in Ukraine or its certain localities. Reservists and conscripted persons who are in reserve and not reserved in the prescribed manner for the mobilization period, except for persons specified in Article 23 of the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization," are conscripted for military service during mobilization.

The court noted that conscription during mobilization is carried out by territorial recruitment and social support centers. The court indicated that the verification of documents, including military registration documents, by the National Police of Ukraine during mobilization is a lawful action.

Regarding the claims of violation of the medical examination procedure, the court stated that the decision on a person's fitness for military service is made by the military-medical commission, not by the territorial recruitment and social support center. The claims do not concern the appeal of the military-medical commission's decision.

The court referred to the legal position of the Supreme Court set out in the ruling dated February 5, 2025, in case No. 160/2592/23, according to which the procedure of conscription of a conscripted person for military service during mobilization is irreversible, i.e., it has already taken place, and recognizing the conscription procedure as unlawful does not restore the previous status of the person conscripted for military service. Similarly, the conduct of a medical examination by the military-medical commission in accordance with Regulation No. 402 will also not affect the restoration of the plaintiff's violated rights in the context of the challenged conscription procedure, which is the subject of the dispute in this case.

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.