The Military Commissariat Failed to Properly Notify the Reservist: The Court Ordered to Remove Data on Violation of Military Registration from the “Oberig” Register

The Odesa District Administrative Court considered administrative case No. 420/42974/25 on the claim of a reservist against the Territorial Center for Recruitment and Social Support regarding the challenge of entering information about his violation of military registration rules into the Unified State Register of Conscripts, Reservists, and Military Obliged Persons. The plaintiff also requested to oblige the Military Commissariat to remove the relevant data from the register and cancel the consequences of their entry.

Essence of the Case

The plaintiff indicated that the Territorial Center for Recruitment unjustifiably entered information about him as a violator of military registration rules into the “Oberig” register and initiated a request to the National Police for his search and delivery to the Military Commissariat.

He argued that he properly fulfilled the obligation to update military registration data, since on May 30, 2024, through the “Reserv+” application, he updated his actual residence address, phone number, and email. At the same time, no protocols on administrative offenses were drawn up against him, nor were any rulings issued under Articles 210 or 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses.

The court established that on August 18, 2025, the head of the Military Commissariat issued an order to ensure the plaintiff’s arrival at the Territorial Center for Recruitment on August 22, 2025. The next day, representatives of the local government compiled an act on the absence of the person at the place of registration and noted that he actually resides in Odesa.

Based on this act, on August 19, 2025, officials of the Military Commissariat entered information about the plaintiff’s violation of military registration rules into the “Oberig” register. On the same day, a request was formed to the National Police for his search and administrative detention for delivery to the Military Commissariat to draw up a protocol on the administrative offense.

At the same time, the case materials lacked evidence of the plaintiff being served a summons or properly notified about the call to the Territorial Center for Recruitment. It was also established that after updating data through “Reserv+,” the plaintiff informed the state of his current residence address in Odesa, but no summons was sent to this address.

The Military Commissariat opposed the claim, stating that the plaintiff violated military registration rules by failing to appear upon summons. The defendant insisted that entering information into the “Oberig” register is not an administrative penalty but merely reflects official information about the fulfillment of military duty. Furthermore, the Military Commissariat noted that updating data through the “Reserv+” application does not exempt a person from the obligation to appear upon summons.

Position and Conclusions of the Court

The court thoroughly analyzed the provisions of the Law "On Military Duty and Military Service," the Law "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization," the Procedure for Conscription of Citizens for Military Service during Mobilization approved by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 560, as well as the Rules for Providing Postal Services.

The court noted that the case materials lacked a copy of the summons addressed to the plaintiff, as well as evidence of its sending by postal service or delivery by another legally prescribed method.

At the same time, the court established that the plaintiff, back in May 2024, informed the state of his current residence address in Odesa through the “Reserv+” application. Despite this, the Military Commissariat did not send him a summons at the specified address but sent an order for summons to the registration address, which was no longer current.

The court concluded that the fact of proper notification of the plaintiff about the summons to the Military Commissariat by the defendant was not proven. The absence of proper confirmation of notification excludes the possibility of considering the violation of military registration rules and the presence of signs of an administrative offense as proven.

Separately, the court noted that the entry of information about the violation of military registration rules into the “Oberig” register took place on August 19, 2025, i.e., before the date of appearance set for August 22, 2025. Under such circumstances, the entry was premature, unfounded, and unlawful.

The court emphasized that in the absence of evidence of proper notification of the person about the summons to the Military Commissariat, the defendant had no legal grounds to enter information about the violation of military registration rules into the Unified State Register of Conscripts, Reservists, and Military Obliged Persons.

At the same time, the court denied the claims to oblige the Military Commissariat to withdraw the request to the police and refrain from entering similar information in the future. The court noted that the administrative court cannot interfere with the discretionary powers of the authority regarding future actions or substitute it in matters of internal interaction with other state bodies.

The court also recognized as excessive the separate claim to recognize inaction regarding the failure to correct information in the register, since the proper way to protect the violated right is precisely the recognition of the Military Commissariat’s actions as unlawful and the obligation to remove the relevant entry.

As a result of the case consideration, the court partially satisfied the claim. The Odesa District Administrative Court recognized the actions of the Territorial Center for Recruitment regarding the entry of data about the plaintiff’s violation of military registration rules into the Unified State Register of Conscripts, Reservists, and Military Obliged Persons as unlawful and obliged to remove such information from the register. The court denied the other parts of the claim.

Additionally, the court recovered a court fee of 1,211.20 UAH from the Territorial Center for Recruitment in favor of the plaintiff.

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