Bill No. 15076, dated March 12, 2026, has been registered with the Verkhovna Rada; it aims to regulate the verification of military registration documents and the service of summonses. The authors propose adding a new Article 22-1 to the Law “On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization.” On paper, it all sounds logical: a clear procedure for summons to the Territorial Recruitment Center and the Special Purpose Unit, a ban on the use of force, and fixed deadlines. But does it address the real problems? Upon analyzing the text, we see more duplication than genuine changes.

Two Methods of Summons: What’s New?

The bill establishes two methods for serving a summons:

• personal delivery—as is currently the case;
• delivery by registered mail with a list of contents and a return receipt.

Seems like progress? Actually, no. Questions remain: Which address should the summons be sent to? The registered address, or the one the person provided when updating their information? In Ukraine, according to unofficial data, 12–30% of people do not live at their registered address. This means it’s possible to legally send a summons without verifying that it was received, and then declare the person wanted or even authorize their detention. This does not solve the main problem: a person subject to military service can be punished for a summons they never saw.

Prohibitions on the Use of Force: Duplicate Provisions

Part 2 of the new article merely reiterates existing regulations prohibiting the use of unreasonable force and requiring the police to respond within the bounds of the law. This is already provided for in the Law “On the National Police” and the Regulations on the Traffic Control and Patrol Units (CMU Resolution No. 154 of February 23, 2022). In other words, there is effectively nothing new here.

Key “innovations”: clarifications and deadlines

The changes begin with Part 3 of Article 22-1. If a person subject to military service is found to have violated registration rules or mobilization legislation, representatives of the Territorial Recruitment Center must:

1. explain the purpose of mobilization;
2. inform them of their rights and obligations;
3. remind them of their responsibilities;
4. deliver a summons on a date agreed upon with the individual, but no later than 3 days from the date of the violation.

This appears to be a step toward more humane communication, although in practice such an “agreed-upon date” may become merely a formality.

Refusal to accept a summons is considered an administrative offense—this is now formalized and documented with evidence. It would seem that everything is in order.

Part 5: In the event of a failure to appear or a refusal, the case is heard within 14 days, and a copy of the ruling is sent by mail.

Part 6: After the ruling is issued, the individual’s information is entered into the registry, and the police may then carry out an administrative detention and transport the individual to the TCC.

This is where the biggest contradiction lies.

Police: May issue a summons, but cannot detain

Both now and if the bill is passed, the police do not have the authority to detain conscripts “just like that.”

According to Article 24 of the Law of Ukraine “On the National Police,” law enforcement officers:

participate in efforts to notify conscripts and reservists in conjunction with representatives of the Territorial Military Commissariat and the Military Registration and Enlistment Office, and may carry out administrative detention and transport only those individuals who have committed administrative offenses, as provided for in Articles 210 and 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses.

In other words, the police do not have the right to “round up” citizens on their own. Currently, the Territorial Military Commissariat only contacts the police regarding individuals who have been placed on the wanted list.

The new bill actually worsens this logic: it allows the police to bring individuals to the TCC only after a ruling on administrative liability has been issued. But this makes no sense: the purpose of administrative detention is to ensure the case is heard, so it should not take place after the proceedings have concluded. Thus, the bill contradicts Article 260 of the Code of Administrative Offenses itself and could create a new conflict between the two laws.

How to Strengthen Defense Capabilities Without Creating New Conflicts

For mobilization measures to truly be effective, we must avoid creating questionable detention mechanisms and instead ensure the effective enforcement of existing laws. The key lies in trust. Those subject to military service must understand that the state is acting in good faith:

• summonses are guaranteed to be sent to those who can actually receive them;
• searches and detentions are carried out only in accordance with the law;
• and active-duty service members have adequate social and financial protections.

This is precisely the best “mobilization reform.” Trust in the system begins not with new provisions in the law, but with how existing ones are enforced.

Interestingly, this bill once again attempts to solve a systemic problem with piecemeal amendments. Or perhaps it would be better to start from a different angle—with an electronic address registry and a unified digital database of contacts for those subject to military service? Then “mailed draft notices” would become nothing more than a memory of the past.