The Military Medical Commission Mobilized a Man Who Had Been Registered with a Psychiatrist for Years: The Court Found Violations During the MMC
A military conscript, who had been registered with a psychiatrist for several years and was undergoing treatment for mixed anxiety and depressive disorder, was declared fit for military service and mobilised. However, the court found that the mandatory medical examination procedure had not been followed by the Military Medical Commission (MMC). As a result, the MMC’s decision regarding fitness for military service was cancelled, and the military unit was ordered to arrange a repeat commission for the serviceman. The court emphasised that it did not assess the individual’s fitness or unfitness for military service, but solely scrutinised the legality of the MMC’s procedure.
Case Circumstances
The plaintiff, who had been registered with a psychiatrist since 2020 and had repeatedly undergone inpatient treatment for mixed anxiety and depressive disorder (F41.2), challenged the MMC’s decision of 5 January 2026, which declared him fit for military service. He was mobilised on the same day, following the MMC’s assessment.
According to the plaintiff, the doctors on the MMC did not have access to his medical records concerning his mental health condition, despite the MMC’s decision referencing this diagnosis. Furthermore, in 2025, the MMC had referred him to a psychiatrist for a specialist opinion, but he did not complete this examination. The medical institution confirmed that the individual was registered with a psychiatrist and was undergoing treatment.
Following mobilisation, the plaintiff’s lawyer contacted the military unit’s command, requesting that the serviceman be sent for a repeat MMC, but received no response. Consequently, the plaintiff petitioned the court to cancel the MMC’s decision, declare the military unit’s inaction unlawful, and compel it to organise a repeat medical examination.
Defendants' Position
The military unit requested that the claim be denied. It stated that it did not make the MMC decision, and that the lawyer’s request was improperly formatted and had not been officially received at the military unit’s address. Additionally, the defendant reported that in March 2026, the plaintiff was undergoing treatment for "mixed anxiety and depressive disorder."
A third party also opposed the claim, asserting that the mobilisation procedure was conducted in accordance with the law. It referred to the Supreme Court’s legal position that mobilisation is a completed procedure, and its individual stages cannot be cancelled in a way that automatically restores the person’s legal status prior to conscription.
Court Findings
Firstly, the court noted that the administrative court lacks the authority to verify the correctness of the MMC’s medical conclusions, determine the presence or absence of a disease, or decide on an individual’s fitness or unfitness for military service. These matters fall within the MMC’s competence and require specialised medical knowledge.
At the same time, the court examined whether the medical examination procedure had been followed and found that the requirements of the Regulation on Military Medical Expertise had not been met.
The court stated that prior to a medical examination, the MMC must obtain information from psychoneurological dispensaries and other medical institutions, as well as conduct necessary clinical studies. However, the case materials did not confirm that such information was requested or that essential diagnostic measures were carried out during the examination to establish the diagnosis and determine the degree of fitness for military service.
Moreover, the court noted that the MMC decision referred to diagnosis F41.2, but the defendants did not provide evidence of the medical documents or examinations upon which this conclusion was based. The case materials also lacked information about mandatory studies and proper documentation of their results in the medical examination card.
According to the court, the medical examination conducted was perfunctory and carried out in violation of the requirements of Regulation No. 402. The court also emphasised that current legislation does not provide for a simplified procedure for undergoing an MMC during mobilisation. The failure to follow the established procedure was the reason for deeming the MMC’s decision unfounded and cancelling it.
Why the Court Did Not Cancel Mobilisation
Referring to the Supreme Court’s legal position, the administrative court stated that mobilisation is a completed procedure, and therefore, even cancelling the MMC decision itself does not restore the person’s legal status that existed before conscription.
In view of this, the court concluded that an effective way to protect the violated right is not to cancel the mobilisation but to conduct a new medical examination in accordance with the law. Therefore, it recognised the military unit’s inaction in not considering the request for a repeat MMC as unlawful and obliged it to send the serviceman for a repeat medical examination in compliance with the Regulation on Military Medical Expertise.
Court Decision
The Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court partially upheld the claim in case 160/4909/26. The court recognised as unlawful and cancelled the MMC decision dated 5 January 2026, on the basis of which the MMC certificate of the plaintiff’s fitness for military service was issued.
The court also recognised the military unit’s inaction regarding its failure to consider the request to send the serviceman for a repeat medical examination as unlawful and obliged the military unit to send him for a repeat MMC in compliance with the requirements of Regulation No. 402.
The court denied other claims. Additionally, UAH 1,331.20 in court fees were recovered in favour of the plaintiff at the expense of the defendant’s budget allocations.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua, follow SUD.UA on Google News , and join us on VIBER, WhatsApp, Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the important events.
