Territorial Recruitment Center Will Have to Correct Errors in Oberih and Reserve+: A Review of July Court Cases

Mass appeals regarding errors in the "Oberih" registry, illegal "wanted" statuses, and procedural violations by the Territorial Recruitment Centers (TRC) are shaping a new judicial reality.

We analyze five new cases: what problems conscripts face and how court decisions change the rules of the game.

The processes of digitalizing military registration in Ukraine in 2026 have reached a peak thanks to the active work of the "Oberih" registry and the "Reserve+" application. However, the speed of technology implementation sometimes outpaced the quality of administration and legal certainty. In July 2026, courts faced an unprecedented number of lawsuits against Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centres.

Analysis of recent decisions shows a clear trend: courts require TRCs not only to maintain registries "technically" but also to strictly observe human rights, even under martial law conditions.

Protection of incapacitated persons: Appearance is not mandatory

The Lviv District Administrative Court in case No. 380/6740/26 concluded that the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center has no right to demand the personal presence of an incapacitated person for removal from military registration if their status is confirmed by a court decision and recorded in state registries.

The plaintiff was a person with a Group I disability, legally declared incapacitated by a court decision. After automatic registration of conscripts through the automatic verification system, their guardian applied to the TRC for removal from military registration, providing the court decision on incapacity and other necessary documents.

However, the TRC refused the application, citing the need for the incapacitated person to personally attend the military medical commission.

Examining the case materials, the court noted that neither the Procedure for organizing and maintaining military registration, approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Resolution No. 1487, nor the Procedure for the functioning of the Unified State Register of conscripts, reservists, and those liable for military service, approved by Resolution No. 932, contain a requirement for the mandatory personal presence of an incapacitated person to resolve their removal from military registration.

Moreover, the court found that information about the plaintiff's incapacity was already contained in the "Oberih" Registry, so the requirement to undergo the military medical commission had no legal grounds.

As a result, the court recognized the actions of the Territorial Recruitment Center as unlawful and emphasized that for persons declared incapacitated, submission of confirming documents by their legal representative is sufficient. The decision confirms that military administration bodies must consider data from state registries and cannot demand procedures not provided by law, especially concerning the most vulnerable categories of citizens.

"Violator" status in Reserve+: entering such data without protocol and ruling is illegal

The Rivne District Administrative Court issued a decision that may affect the practice of entering data into the "Oberih" registry and displaying statuses in the "Reserve+" app. The court concluded that an entry about violation of military registration rules cannot be made without proper legal grounds.

According to case No. 460/8565/26, the plaintiff found in the "Reserve+" app information that he allegedly "violated military registration rules" by failing to appear upon summons. Based on this, the TRC entered the relevant data into the "Oberih" registry and sent a request to the police to detain the citizen.

At the same time, no administrative protocol or ruling on holding the person liable under Articles 210 or 210-1 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses was drawn up regarding the plaintiff.

Examining the circumstances, the court stated that personal data entered into the registry must be based on officially established legal facts. In particular, information about administrative liability must include the details of the corresponding ruling—its number and date.

The court considered that entering information about alleged violations solely based on the TRC's conclusion, without a formal decision on liability, is unlawful.

As a result, the Rivne District Administrative Court ordered the TRC to remove the violation data from the registry and withdraw the request to the police regarding the plaintiff's detention.

Ignoring requests for updates: Fighting inactivity

The Fifth Administrative Court of Appeal issued a decision confirming that Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centers have no right to leave citizens' requests to correct data in the military registration registry unconsidered.

According to case No. 420/34480/25, the plaintiff was declared unfit for military service and removed from military registration in 2022. However, in 2025, he found in the "Reserv+" app that he had the status of "liable for military service."

Afterward, the citizen applied to the TRC to correct the information but received no response. The application was effectively ignored.

Reviewing the case, the court recognized the TRC's inactivity as unlawful. However, the court emphasized that it cannot directly oblige the body to change specific registry data, as this falls within the discretionary powers of officials.

Instead, the court ordered the TRC to consider the submitted application on its merits and make a decision according to legal requirements.

The decision confirms that TRC inactivity in response to citizens' requests for data updates in the registry is illegal. In such cases, citizens may appeal to the court and demand that the TRC fulfill its duty to properly consider applications and maintain the registry.

When a "non-liable" person wants to be registered

The Kyiv District Administrative Court issued a decision confirming citizens' right to demand correction of inaccurate information in the "Oberih" registry and the "Reserve+" app, even if the erroneous status does not formally impose additional obligations.

According to case No. 320/50203/25, the plaintiff was shown in the "Reserve+" app as "non-liable" with a mark about alleged conscription. However, the man had not served in the military and, according to the law, should have been on general military registration.

To avoid possible problems during document checks and to bring information in line with reality, the citizen applied to the TRC to update the data. However, his request was not properly considered.

Reviewing the case, the court noted that data in the Unified State Register of conscripts, liable persons, and reservists must be current, complete, and accurate. Ignoring a request to correct information was recognized as unlawful inactivity.

As a result, the court ordered the TRC to consider the plaintiff's application on the merits and make a decision according to legal requirements.

Cancelling a 25,000 UAH fine: notification defect

The Vyshhorod District Court of Kyiv region canceled the TRC's ruling imposing a 25,000 UAH fine for violating military registration rules. The court concluded that the authority failed to prove proper notification of the citizen about the summons, so there were no grounds for administrative liability.

According to case No. 363/1807/26, the head of the TRC issued a ruling imposing a 25,000 UAH fine under Part 3 of Article 210 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses. The basis was the citizen's failure to appear upon summons, which was returned by mail marked "addressee absent."

The plaintiff claimed he was unaware of the ruling and learned about the fine only after a state executor seized his bank accounts.

Examining the case, the court found that the TRC did not provide sufficient evidence that the summons was sent according to legal requirements—by registered mail with an inventory of contents. It was also not confirmed that the person was properly notified of the date, time, and place of the administrative offense hearing.

The court concluded that holding the hearing without the person's participation and proper notification violates their right to defense. Furthermore, without proof that the citizen was aware of the obligation to appear, there are no grounds to assert intent, which is a necessary element of the administrative offense.

As a result, the court canceled the ruling imposing the fine.

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