A man sought to contest the delivery of a court summons: here's the response he received.

The Ukrainian Supreme Court emphasizes that it is impossible to challenge the summons itself in any court. A citizen who filed a lawsuit against the military enlistment office employees for serving him a summons that he deemed illegal was denied the initiation of proceedings, as the summons is merely a notification tool, reports "Judicial and Legal Newspaper".

The Supreme Court reminded that the summons itself cannot be contested in court because it is simply a document notifying an individual of their obligation to fulfill military duty. This obligation is defined not by the summons but by Law No. 2232-XII, which states that a reservist must appear upon the call of the military enlistment office.

The Supreme Court indicates that the plaintiff approached the district administrative court requesting to declare the actions of the military enlistment office employees, who handed him the summons, unlawful.

The man was denied the initiation of proceedings, and the appellate court upheld the decision. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court. In it, he noted that the summons bore a forged signature of the acting head of the military enlistment office, and the document itself was fraudulent. According to the man, there was also no order for the notification and delivery of the summons, and the document did not specify the date and purpose of the call.

According to the Supreme Court, the man insisted that the summons should be signed exclusively by the head of the military enlistment office and delivered personally or by authorized persons. The plaintiff claimed that after his refusal, no corresponding act was drawn up, and due to the military enlistment office's attempt to deliver an "illegal summons," a criminal case was initiated against him under Article 336 of the Criminal Code (evasion of military service in mobilization).

Challenging the Summons: The Supreme Court's Position

The Supreme Court explains that a judge denies the initiation of proceedings if, according to the rules of administrative court proceedings, the claim is not subject to judicial review.

"Consequently, any comments regarding the content and design of the summons are also not decisions or actions of a subject of authority in the understanding of the Administrative Court Procedure Code," the Supreme Court states.

According to the judges, the summons cannot be challenged in any court because it is merely a document for notifying the reservist. Disagreement with the military enlistment office's actions regarding the delivery of the summons and the consequences of refusing it cannot be considered and evaluated in the framework of administrative court proceedings.

The issuance and delivery of the summons to the plaintiff does not constitute a violation of the rights, freedoms, or interests of the plaintiff, the Supreme Court notes. They also add that the claims regarding the military enlistment office's violation of the summons delivery procedure and the premature accusation of the citizen in evasion from conscription can be examined within the framework of the relevant criminal proceedings.

Therefore, ultimately, the Supreme Court also did not satisfy the complaint.