Can the right to drive a car be revoked through court due to failure to appear at the military enlistment office — judicial practice

The Second Administrative Court of Appeal clarified under what conditions the military enlistment office can temporarily restrict a conscript’s right to drive vehicles through the court. The court concluded that in this case the territorial center did not prove the fulfillment of all procedures prescribed by law, therefore there were no grounds for applying such a measure.

According to the case circumstances, the territorial enlistment and social support center filed a lawsuit to temporarily restrict the conscript’s right to drive vehicles during mobilization. According to the military enlistment office, the man, who before the legislative changes was recognized as limitedly fit for military service, failed to fulfill the obligation to independently contact the military enlistment office by June 5, 2025, to receive a referral to the military-medical commission and undergo a repeated medical examination. After that, the military enlistment office sent him a demand to fulfill the duties of a conscript, but the postal delivery was returned due to expiration of the storage period. In addition, the police reported the impossibility of locating the person and delivering him to the military enlistment office.

The court of first instance denied the claim, and the appellate court agreed with this decision.

What the appellate court decided

The panel of judges noted that Law No. 4235-IX indeed imposed on citizens who were recognized as limitedly fit for military service before its entry into force the obligation to independently contact the military enlistment office by June 5, 2025, to receive a referral to the military-medical commission and undergo a repeated medical examination. At the same time, this does not change the procedure for summoning conscripts to the territorial enlistment and social support center established by the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization" and Order No. 560.

The court emphasized that summoning a conscript to the military enlistment office, including for a medical examination and obtaining a referral to the military-medical commission, is carried out by delivering or sending a summons. It is precisely due to such a summons that the obligation arises to appear at the territorial center at the specified date and time.

The appellate court separately rejected the military enlistment office’s arguments that persons recognized as limitedly fit should have independently contacted the territorial center without any summons. The panel of judges noted that even in such a case, the procedure for summoning a conscript for a medical examination and obtaining a referral to the military-medical commission is determined by the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization" and Order No. 560 and involves delivering or sending a summons.

In case No. 950/749/26, the military enlistment office did not provide evidence that a summons was sent to the defendant to appear at the territorial center for a repeated medical examination or to obtain a referral to the military-medical commission. Instead, after the police reported the impossibility of delivering him, the territorial center immediately sent a demand to fulfill the duties of a conscript and applied to the court.

Moreover, the appellate court found that the evidence of sending the demand itself was also inadequate. The submitted copies of the postal envelope and forwarding information did not contain a description of the contents or other information that would allow establishing which document was sent to the addressee. Therefore, these materials do not confirm that the demand to fulfill the duties of a conscript was sent to the defendant.

Why this was decisive

The court emphasized that the application of a temporary restriction on the right to drive vehicles is possible only if all the circumstances defined in part eight of article 283-2 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine are proven.

Since in this case the plaintiff did not prove the proper summons of the defendant to the military enlistment office, nor confirmed with proper evidence the delivery of the demand to fulfill the duties of a conscript, the appellate court agreed with the conclusion about the absence of grounds for applying the temporary restriction on the right to drive vehicles provided for by article 283-2 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine.

As a result, the Second Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed the military enlistment office’s appeal and left the decision of the Lebedyn District Court of Sumy region unchanged.

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