Is It Possible to Appeal Mobilization Due to an Error in Booking Registration: The Court Decided the Dispute Between a Doctor, Employer, and Territorial Recruitment Center

The issue of booking military liable employees, particularly medical workers of critically important healthcare institutions, remains one of the most debated topics in judicial practice. In practice, disputes often arise when an employee believes they have completed all necessary steps to register the booking, but due to actions or inactions of the employer, as well as peculiarities of military record keeping, the booking was not registered, after which the person was involved in mobilization measures.

In such disputes, courts must determine the limits of responsibility of the employer, the territorial recruitment center, and the military liable person themselves, as well as clarify whether failure to register the booking can be grounds for satisfying claims to protect the person's rights.

The Third Administrative Court of Appeal reviewed the decision of the court of first instance in a dispute filed by an emergency medicine doctor against the municipal non-commercial enterprise where he worked and the territorial recruitment and social support center.

The plaintiff requested to recognize as unlawful the actions and inactions of the defendants related to the registration of his booking, issuance of the military record document, entry of information about education and military occupational specialty, as well as the implementation of mobilization measures.

Essence of the Case

The plaintiff has worked as an emergency medicine doctor since February 1, 2016. Referring to the provisions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine resolutions No. 76 dated January 27, 2023, and No. 36 dated January 14, 2025, he believed that as a medical worker of a critically important healthcare institution, he is subject to booking from mobilization.

According to the plaintiff, he completed all necessary actions to register the booking. After the employer contacted the territorial recruitment center regarding the need to issue a military record document, he registered for military record, passed a military medical commission, updated military record data, and provided the employer with a military record document generated through the "Reserve+" application. The employer, in turn, on July 21, 2025, submitted a booking application for medical workers via the "Diia" portal, but as a result of its consideration, the plaintiff was not booked due to the absence of updated contact information in the Unified State Register of conscripts, military liable persons, and reservists.

The plaintiff noted that on August 6, 2025, he independently updated his contact information in the "Reserve+" system, after which the electronic military record document contained information about his residence address, phone number, and email. At the same time, in his opinion, the employer did not resubmit the booking application, although after eliminating the reasons for the previous refusal, such an opportunity existed. The plaintiff considered this inaction of the employer as the reason he effectively lost the right to booking.

Meanwhile, correspondence took place between the employer and the territorial recruitment center regarding the plaintiff's military record status. After registering him, the territorial recruitment center informed the employer that the employee had been on record only since July 17, 2025; previously, there was no information about him in the relevant register. It was also noted that the employee was not a violator of military record rules but had not fully updated his personal and contact data and therefore must personally appear to receive the military record document.

After the refusal to book, the plaintiff applied to the Health Department of the Kirovohrad Regional Military Administration requesting clarification on the reasons for refusal. In response, the Department informed that the employer had already resubmitted a query to the territorial recruitment center regarding the employee's military record status and that after updated data appeared in electronic registers, a new booking application would be formed.

On September 5, 2025, the plaintiff was served a summons with a specified date to report to the territorial recruitment center. On the same day, he applied for the issuance of a paper military record document. Later, he also filed complaints with the Health Department about the employer's inaction during the booking process and submitted applications to the territorial recruitment center requesting postponement of mobilization, a repeated military medical examination, and correction of the military occupational specialty according to his higher medical education.

The plaintiff emphasized that he holds a medical degree in "General Medicine," but in the military record documents, his military occupational specialty corresponds to a junior specialist with medical education. In his opinion, the territorial recruitment center should have entered correct education details into the military record documents and assigned a military occupational specialty corresponding to his qualification as a doctor.

Furthermore, the plaintiff considered unlawful the refusal of the territorial recruitment center to issue a paper military record document, as he believed the document should have been issued regardless of the need for personal appearance at the territorial recruitment center. He also argued that the combination of the employer's inaction and improper actions of the territorial recruitment center led to his not being booked and being involved in mobilization measures despite belonging to the category of medical workers subject to booking.

The court of first instance denied the claim and dismissed the part concerning the employer's actions. Disagreeing with this decision, the plaintiff filed an appeal, insisting that the court incompletely examined the case circumstances, incorrectly applied substantive law, and did not properly assess his arguments regarding booking registration, issuance of the military record document, and determination of the military occupational specialty.

Position and Conclusions of the Appellate Court

The panel of judges in case No. 340/6397/25 agreed with the first instance court's conclusion about the absence of unlawful inaction by the territorial recruitment and social support center regarding the issuance of the paper military record document to the plaintiff.

The court noted that according to part nine of Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine "On Military Duty and Military Service," the procedure for issuing military record documents is determined by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. This procedure was approved by the Cabinet of Ministers resolution No. 559 dated May 16, 2024.

The appellate court pointed out that Procedure No. 559 provides for issuing military record documents both electronically and in paper form. At the same time, receiving the paper document is done in a specified manner: the military liable person must personally submit a written application to the territorial recruitment and social support center at their place of military record, provide a photo, and the finished document is issued exclusively against personal signature. Exceptions are only for persons with limited mobility or incapacitated persons whose interests are represented by caregivers or guardians.

The court found that the plaintiff indeed applied for the paper military record document. At the same time, the territorial recruitment center stated that the document was prepared and could have been issued after the plaintiff's personal appearance. Case materials confirm that the plaintiff did not appear to receive it, so the document was not issued to him.

The appellate court also agreed with the first instance court that indicating the date of issuance of the military record document in the record card was premature, as the issuance date must coincide with the actual date the military liable person receives it against personal signature. At the same time, making such an entry itself does not indicate unlawful inaction by the defendant.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments that the territorial recruitment center should have organized another way to issue the document due to his health condition. The panel noted that the concept of "limited mobility," referred to by the plaintiff, is not identical to the concept of "limited mobility" used in Procedure No. 559. The case materials contain no evidence that the plaintiff belongs to the category of persons with limited mobility as defined by this procedure, so exceptions to the general procedure do not apply to him.

Separately, the court emphasized that according to part two of Article 19 of the Constitution of Ukraine, state authorities must act exclusively on the basis, within the powers, and in the manner prescribed by law. Since Procedure No. 559 does not provide for another way of issuing the paper military record document, the territorial recruitment center had no legal grounds to deviate from the established procedure. Therefore, the court found the plaintiff's claims about excessive formalism of the defendant's actions unfounded.

Under these circumstances, the panel concluded that the plaintiff's failure to receive the paper military record document was due to his failure to appear at the territorial recruitment center to receive the document against personal signature, and therefore there are no grounds to satisfy the claim recognizing the refusal to issue it as unlawful.

Considering the claim to oblige the territorial recruitment and social support center to enter correct information about the plaintiff's higher medical education into the military record documents and assign a military occupational specialty according to his doctor qualification, the appellate court also agreed with the first instance court's conclusions about the absence of legal grounds for satisfaction.

The panel established that the plaintiff was assigned military occupational specialty 879, which corresponds to the List of military occupational specialties for enlisted, sergeant, and senior ranks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, approved by the Ministry of Defense order No. 317 dated September 7, 2020. This list provides separate military occupational specialties for junior specialists with medical education.

At the same time, the plaintiff insisted that he holds a diploma of full higher medical education in "General Medicine" and therefore should be assigned an officer military occupational specialty according to the List of military occupational specialties for officers, approved by the Ministry of Defense order No. 444 dated August 1, 2023.

The court noted that case materials confirm the plaintiff obtained full higher education in 2014 at the National Medical University named after O.O. Bogomolets in the specialty "General Medicine" and was assigned the qualification of a doctor. At the same time, this information was already entered into his record card, so claims about its absence were not confirmed.

Analyzing Article 11 of the Law of Ukraine "On Military Duty and Military Service" as in force at the time the plaintiff graduated, the panel noted that obtaining a medical diploma alone did not grant the right to be assigned an initial reserve officer rank. Such a right arose only upon obtaining higher education, completing a full military training course under the reserve officer training program, passing relevant exams, and certification to the officer corps.

The court found that the plaintiff's diploma does not contain information about completing military training under the reserve officer training program. Therefore, there are no legal grounds to consider that he acquired reserve officer status or has the right to be assigned a military occupational specialty under List No. 444 solely based on having medical education.

The panel also analyzed the plaintiff's arguments regarding the application of amendments to Article 11 of the Law of Ukraine "On Military Duty and Military Service" introduced by Law No. 4538-IX dated July 16, 2025. The plaintiff argued that after these amendments came into force, military training became mandatory for persons obtaining medical education, and therefore this version of the law should apply to his legal relations.

The appellate court disagreed with these arguments. The court noted that the amendments regulate the procedure for military training for persons obtaining medical or pharmaceutical education after the amendments' entry into force and do not apply to legal relations that arose before their adoption. The plaintiff graduated in 2014, so his legal status is determined by the legislation in force at that time.

In view of the above, the panel concluded there are no grounds to oblige the territorial recruitment center to change the military occupational specialty assigned to the plaintiff or assign him an officer military occupational specialty solely based on holding a medical diploma.

The appellate court also noted that claims to cancel the summons cannot be considered at the appellate level since they were not examined by the court of first instance. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Kirovohrad District Administrative Court remained unchanged.

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