A man was stopped, underwent an "express military medical commission" and was immediately sent to the unit: what the court decided in the mobilization case within a day

The Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court made a decision in a case where a conscript challenged the conclusion of the military medical commission (MMC) and his conscription during mobilization. The court found that the defendant did not prove that the mandatory medical examinations prescribed by the Regulation on Military Medical Expertise were conducted. As a result, the court recognized the MMC conclusion, the plaintiff’s conscription order, and the order to enroll him in the military unit as unlawful, and also obliged to exclude him from the personnel lists.

Case circumstances

The plaintiff applied to the court, claiming that after work he was stopped by employees of the Territorial Recruitment Center (TRC) and was actually conscripted into military service within one day. According to him, he was not handed a summons, was not given a referral to undergo the MMC, did not sign the referral registration log, and was deprived of the opportunity to undergo a full medical examination.

In the claim, he asked to recognize the TRC’s actions regarding the MMC as unlawful, to cancel the MMC certificate of fitness for military service, the mobilization conscription order, the military unit’s order to enroll him in the personnel lists, and to oblige the military unit to exclude him from the personnel lists and all types of support.

Representatives of the TRC and the military unit opposed the claim. They stated that the plaintiff underwent the MMC, was recognized as fit for military service, had no right to deferment, and did not provide medical documents indicating unfitness for service. In their opinion, there were no grounds to cancel the orders.

What the court established

After examining case materials 160/3760/26, the court noted that according to the Regulation on Military Medical Expertise, before deciding on the fitness of a conscript for military service, mandatory laboratory and instrumental examinations must be conducted, including complete blood count, urinalysis, serological tests, blood group and Rh factor determination, fluorography, and electrocardiography.

However, the plaintiff’s medical examination card lacked records of such examinations, and the defendants did not provide the court with evidence that these tests were actually conducted or that the plaintiff was referred for them.

Additionally, the court found that the medical examination card did not contain information about the person’s dispensary registration, lacked the plaintiff’s signature confirming the provision of health information and acquaintance with relevant data, and no documents were drawn up regarding refusal to sign, if such occurred.

According to the court, this indicates a formal medical examination and non-compliance with the mandatory procedure established by Regulation No. 402.

Limits of court review of MMC decisions

The court emphasized that the administrative court does not assess the medical conclusions of the MMC on the merits, as it is not a specialized medical institution.

Only the legality of the MMC decision-making procedure is subject to review. Therefore, the key issue in the case was compliance with the established procedure for conducting the medical examination, not the assessment of the plaintiff’s health condition.

Why the court canceled the conscription order

The court noted that undergoing a proper medical examination and establishing fitness for military service is a mandatory prerequisite for conscription during mobilization.

Since the court concluded the MMC decision was unlawful, the defendant did not prove that the plaintiff’s fitness for military service was established in compliance with legal requirements. Under these circumstances, the conscription order was also recognized as unlawful.

The court also stressed that even if the conscription order has already been executed, this does not deprive the person of the right to challenge an individual act of a public authority that directly affects their rights and legitimate interests.

Why the court obliged to exclude the serviceman from the unit lists

The court noted that the Law of Ukraine "On Military Duty and Military Service" does not directly provide for illegality of mobilization as a separate ground for dismissal from military service.

At the same time, military service is a direct consequence of the conscription order. According to the court, the mere cancellation of the MMC decision does not restore the violated right, since the conscription and enrollment orders create a continuing legal status of the person’s military service.

Therefore, the court considered the proper and effective way to protect rights was also the cancellation of the enrollment order and the obligation to exclude the plaintiff from the personnel lists.

What the court said about the Supreme Court practice

The court separately referred to the Supreme Court ruling in case No. 160/2592/23, which concerned the irreversibility of the conscription procedure after its execution. The court considered that ruling not exemplary and related to different factual circumstances.

In this case, the court concluded that the violation of the MMC procedure was fundamental, as conscription occurred without proper health examination of the conscript. Under such circumstances, recognizing only the MMC decision as unlawful would not provide effective protection of the plaintiff’s violated rights.

Court decision

The Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court partially satisfied the claim. The court recognized as unlawful and canceled the MMC certificate of the plaintiff’s fitness for military service, recognized as unlawful and canceled the TRC order regarding his conscription during mobilization, recognized as unlawful and canceled the military unit’s order enrolling the plaintiff in the personnel lists, and also obliged the military unit to exclude him from the personnel lists and all types of support.

At the same time, the court denied the claim to recognize the TRC’s actions regarding improper medical examination during the MMC as unlawful. The decision has not yet entered into legal force and may be appealed.

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