In administrative proceedings, a new approach is gradually taking shape regarding the adjudication of disputes related to the actions of territorial recruitment and social support centers. Courts are increasingly moving away from a formal interpretation of the mobilization procedure—as one that cannot be reviewed after it has been carried out—and are adopting an approach focused on the actual protection of citizens’ violated rights.

This trend is clearly evident in cases No. 560/8465/24 and No. 160/6554/25, in which administrative appeals courts concluded that there is the possibility of recognizing the actions of the TCC a13> the possibility of recognizing the actions of the TCC as unlawful, the revocation of orders regarding conscription and the elimination of their legal consequences even in cases where a person was in fact conscripted and was conscripted and was conscripted and was conscripted and was conscripted and was conscripted and was conscripted and was conscripted < a31> was in fact called up and and performed military service.

In Case No. 560/8465/24, the appellate court emphasized that a draft notice issued during mobilization is an act of individual application that directly affects the scope of a specific individual’s rights and freedoms. The enforcement of such a notice does not deprive it of the characteristics of an administrative decision nor does it preclude the individual’s right to judicial protection. The court reasoned that effective protection cannot be limited to a formal finding of a violation but must be aimed at restoring the violated right, which is a key principle of administrative justice.

This approach was further developed in Case No. 160/6554/25, heard by the Third Administrative Court of Appeals. The court analyzed the circumstances of the conscription in detail and found significant violations on the part of the Territorial Conscription Center (TCC), including the failure to issue a proper summons, the forcible transport of an individual to the TCC without the authority provided by law, and the conduct of a military medical examination that deviated significantly from the requirements of the Regulations on Military Medical Examination. The appellate court specifically emphasized that territorial recruitment centers do not have the authority to administratively detain or forcibly transport citizens, and that such actions are unlawful regardless of whether a mobilization order is subsequently issued.

The court also attached significant importance to assessing the legality of the military medical commission’s proceedings. It was noted that the formal issuance of a military medical commission certificate without a full medical examination, tests, and conclusions from relevant specialists does not comply with the requirements of the law and cannot serve as a proper basis for conscripting an individual into military service.

The key point is that the appellate court, in Case No. 160/6554/25, rejected the arguments regarding the so-called “irreversibility of mobilization.” The court concluded that the execution of an unlawful order does not legalize the violations committed, and that each case must be evaluated based on the specific factual circumstances. Thus, the mere fact that a person is in military service cannot serve as grounds for denying judicial protection.

The court’s approach to selecting the remedy deserves special attention. In Case No. 160/6554/25, the appellate court did not limit itself to declaring the actions of the Territorial Military Commissariat unlawful and overturning the draft order, but also ordered the military unit to issue a decision dismissing the individual and removing him from the personnel roster. The court reasoned that military service is a direct consequence of an unlawful decision by a public authority; therefore, overturning such a decision without eliminating its consequences does not ensure the full restoration of the violated right.

‍

Thus, a comprehensive analysis of these court decisions indicates the emergence of established case law, according to which the actions of the Territorial Recruitment Commission are subject to full judicial review, and mobilization decisions are not outside the scope of the law. For legal practice, this means the possibility of effective judicial protection in cases where conscription was carried out in violation of the procedure established by law—specifically, without a proper summons, through unlawful forcible transport, or in the absence of a full medical examination.

‍

‍