A Ukrainian has lived in the USA for over 10 years but became a violator of military registration in Reserv+: how the case ended
The Ivano-Frankivsk District Administrative Court considered the case filed by a Ukrainian citizen who has been permanently residing in the United States of America since 2011, challenging the actions of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center regarding the entry of information about his violation of military registration rules into the Unified State Register of conscripts, those liable for military service, and reservists.
The plaintiff requested to recognize as unlawful the actions related to entering information about the violation of military registration rules into the Register and to oblige the removal of the corresponding information from the Register.
Case circumstances
The plaintiff stated that he permanently resides in the USA, as evidenced by documents issued by American authorities. His Ukrainian passport shows that he was deregistered from his place of residence in Ukraine back in 2011.
He also referred to a temporary military registration certificate, according to which he was removed from military registration due to moving abroad for permanent residence.
When applying for consular services in the USA, the man found a mark in the "Reserv+" application indicating a violation of military registration rules. Considering this information groundless, he appealed to the court against the actions of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center regarding the entry of this information into the Unified State Register of conscripts, those liable for military service, and reservists.
In response to a lawyer's inquiry, the Territorial Recruitment Center reported that the corresponding mark was entered into the automated information and telecommunication system "Oberig" due to the person's failure to appear upon summons for clarification of military registration data. At the same time, the recruitment center confirmed that no administrative offense protocol was drawn up against the plaintiff, no decision on administrative liability was made, and no decision to hold him accountable was adopted.
In its response to the claim, the defendant stated that the Register contains not only information about liability but also information regarding the fulfillment of military duty. According to the defendant, the plaintiff is a violator of military registration rules because he did not appear upon summons and did not undergo the military-medical commission within the timeframe established by law.
Position and conclusions of the court
The court noted that Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centers are the bodies responsible for maintaining the Unified State Register of conscripts, those liable for military service, and reservists and are obliged to ensure the entry of complete, reliable, and up-to-date information into it.
The court found that the case materials contain no evidence of sending a summons or other proper notification to the plaintiff about the call to the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center. The defendant did not provide evidence of summons delivery, evidence of sending it by mail, or evidence of proper notification of the person in accordance with the requirements of the law.
Moreover, the court noted that the plaintiff was removed from military registration, and the case documents contain contradictory information regarding his registration status. In particular, the data in the Unified State Register of conscripts, those liable for military service, and reservists did not correspond to the information in the temporary military registration certificate and other documents confirming the person's removal from military registration.
The court also established that after issuing documents about removal from military registration, the relevant information was not entered into the Register by authorized officials, which led to discrepancies in the data contained in the information system.
Evaluating the defendant's arguments about the plaintiff's violation of military registration rules, the court noted that in case of such a violation, the law provides for drawing up a protocol on an administrative offense and carrying out the corresponding procedural actions. However, there is no evidence of such actions taken against the plaintiff in this case.
The court concluded that the defendant did not prove the legality of entering information about the plaintiff's violation of military registration rules into the Unified State Register of conscripts, those liable for military service, and reservists.
As a result, in case No. 300/7057/25, the court recognized the actions of the Territorial Recruitment Center regarding the entry of information about violations of military registration rules into the Register as unlawful and obliged to remove the corresponding data from the Unified State Register of conscripts, those liable for military service, and reservists.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp pages on Facebook and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.
