The Territorial Recruitment Center mobilized a man who was removed from military registration back in 2012: what the court decided

The Volyn District Administrative Court recognized as illegal the repeated conclusion of the military-medical commission, the order of the Territorial Recruitment Center (TRC) on mobilization, and the order of the military unit on enrollment in the personnel lists regarding a man who was declared unfit for military service and removed from military registration back in 2012. The court also obliged the military unit to remove him from the personnel lists and discharge him from military service.

The key conclusion of the court was that removal from military registration means the loss of the status of a person liable for military service. Under such circumstances, as established by the court in this case, the plaintiff was not subject to repeated referral to the military-medical commission or mobilization. Furthermore, the court found significant procedural violations in conducting the military-medical commission, which became an independent ground for annulling its decision.

Circumstances of the case

The plaintiff served in civil protection bodies. In 2012, the medical-expert commission of the Ministry of Emergency Situations declared him unfit for military service and removed him from military registration due to health reasons. This decision was reflected in military registration documents and the Unified State Register of conscripts, persons liable for military service, and reservists. The documents also indicated that he was not subject to repeated medical examination.

As the plaintiff noted, in March 2026, representatives of the TRC brought him for a military-medical commission. Based on the new examination, the commission recognized him fit for service in military support units, TRC and SP, training centers, medical units, logistics, communications, operational support, and security. After this, the head of the TRC issued an order for his conscription during mobilization, and the military unit enrolled the man in the personnel lists as a driver.

Disagreeing with these decisions, the man appealed to the court demanding to cancel the military-medical commission’s decision, the mobilization order, the enrollment order, and to oblige the military unit to discharge him from military service.

Removal from military registration means loss of the status of a person liable for military service

The court emphasized that the legislation clearly distinguishes between "removal from military registration" and "exclusion from military registration." Referring to the Supreme Court’s legal position, it stated that a person excluded from military registration loses the status of a person liable for military service. Unlike those merely removed from military registration, such citizens do not retain this status.

The court noted that after the plaintiff informed about his exclusion from military registration, the TRC was obliged to verify this information and consider it during further mobilization measures. However, this was not done. Moreover, the defendants did not provide evidence that the 2012 medical-expert commission’s decision on the plaintiff’s unfitness was canceled or changed according to the law.

The court found violations in the procedure of the military-medical commission

The court separately examined the procedure of the repeated medical examination and found that it did not comply with the requirements of the Regulation on Military Medical Expertise.

In particular, the case materials did not confirm the mandatory examination of the plaintiff in specialized healthcare institutions and the issuance of electronic referrals to the Electronic Health System (EHS) for additional examinations. Furthermore, the medical examination card showed that the plaintiff did not undergo examinations by a dermatologist and a dentist, although such examinations are mandatory. Also, the case materials lacked confirmation that the plaintiff was properly acquainted with the military-medical commission’s decision.

At the same time, the court emphasized that it does not assess the medical diagnosis or fitness for military service, as this belongs to the discretionary powers of the military-medical commission. The court’s task is to verify whether the legally established procedure for making the relevant decision was followed.

What the court decided

Based on the case 140/5089/26, the court fully satisfied the claim. It recognized as unlawful and canceled the military-medical commission’s decision on the plaintiff’s fitness for military service, annulled the TRC chief’s mobilization order, as well as the military unit commander’s order on enrollment in the personnel lists and all types of support. Additionally, the court obliged the military unit to remove the plaintiff from the personnel lists and discharge him from military service.

Justifying this decision, the court stated that unlawful actions cannot produce lawful results. Therefore, the illegality of the repeated military-medical commission and the mobilization order, in the court’s opinion, entails the illegality of the derivative order on enrolling the person in the military unit. To support this approach, the court also referred to the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, which provides that decisions or consequences obtained as a result of the initial violation of the law cannot be considered lawful.

The court also drew attention to another circumstance: the military unit commander’s order on enrolling the plaintiff in the personnel lists was dated March 25, 2026, while the TRC chief’s conscription order was dated March 26, 2026.

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 updated on the most important events.