What the status "searched by TRC" really means in Reserve+: the court distinguished between notification and search

The Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which denied the claim of a conscripted person to cancel information about violations of military registration rules in the Unified State Register of conscripts, conscripted persons, and reservists.

The court concluded that the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center had legal grounds to enter information about violations of military registration rules into the Register and to apply to the National Police for administrative detention and delivery of the person to the TRC, since the conscripted person did not update his personal data within the period established by law after the entry into force of Law No. 3633-IX.

At the same time, the appellate court emphasized that the mark "Violation of military registration rules" or the message "Searched by Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center" in the "Reserve+" application by itself does not mean that the person has already been held administratively liable or that a decision imposing an administrative penalty has been issued against him.

Circumstances of the case

The plaintiff applied to the court after discovering information about his violation of military registration rules and about his search while forming a military registration document in the "Reserve+" application.

He claimed that he did not violate the military registration legislation, did not receive summons, and therefore considered the entry of such information into the Register illegal. In his claim, the man asked to recognize the actions of the TRC regarding the entry of information about violations of military registration rules as unlawful, to oblige the removal of the relevant information from the Register, and to notify the National Police about the absence of grounds for his administrative detention and delivery.

Materials of the case show that the plaintiff's representative contacted the TRC with a lawyer's request and an application to remove the relevant information from the Register.

In response, the TRC informed that the citizen did not update his military registration data within the legally established period — until July 2024. For this reason, he was classified as a person who violated military registration rules, and a request was sent to the National Police regarding his delivery to the TRC.

At the same time, data in the "Reserve+" application showed that the plaintiff actually updated his information only on April 28, 2025.

The Lviv District Administrative Court denied the claim. Disagreeing with this decision, the plaintiff filed an appeal.

Position of the plaintiff

In the appeal, the plaintiff stated that he was not held administratively liable for violating military registration rules.

According to him, no protocol on administrative offense was drawn up against him and no decision imposing an administrative penalty was issued, so the claim about his violation of military registration rules is unfounded.

He also insisted that the police could not deliver him to the TRC in the absence of relevant procedural documents in the administrative offense case.

Conclusions of the appellate court

The panel of judges recalled that after the entry into force of Law No. 3633-IX, citizens registered for military service were obliged within 60 days to update their personal data through the TRC, Administrative Service Centre, or the electronic cabinet of the conscripted person.

The court found that the plaintiff fulfilled this obligation only in April 2025, although the law required this to be done by mid-July 2024.

Since the plaintiff did not provide any evidence that the personal data were updated within the legally established period, the appellate court agreed with the first instance court's conclusion that the TRC had grounds to enter the relevant information into the Register.

At the same time, the court emphasized that the presence of the "Violation of military registration rules" mark in the "Reserve+" application does not mean the establishment of an administrative offense and does not indicate the person's guilt in committing an offense under Article 210 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of Ukraine.

The panel of judges noted that such a mark indicates a violation by the person of the deadline for updating personal data and the automatic formation, through electronic informational interaction, of a corresponding request to the police regarding the delivery of the person to the TCC due to a possible administrative offense. The question of the presence or absence of an administrative offense must be resolved within the procedure of holding the person administratively liable.

The court also noted that the protocol on administrative offense and the decision in the case regarding the plaintiff were not drawn up not because of the TCC's inaction, but because he did not appear at the recruitment center. For this reason, the TCC applied to the National Police for administrative detention and delivery of the person to the TCC.

What the court said about the "Searched by TRC and SP" mark

The panel of judges separately analyzed the display of the message "Searched by Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center" in the application.

The court noted that the Law "On Military Duty and Military Service," the Law "On the Unified State Register of Conscripts, Conscripted Persons, and Reservists," the Code of Administrative Offenses of Ukraine, and the Procedure for Organizing and Maintaining Military Registration do not contain the concept of "search for a conscript, conscripted person, or reservist." Therefore, the TRC lacks a legislatively defined mechanism for declaring such persons wanted.

According to the court, the entry "Searched by Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center" has a purely informational character and is used as a way to notify the person of the need to come to the TRC to update or clarify data and resolve military registration issues. Such an entry is not equivalent to the concept of search in the procedural sense and does not indicate the existence of a separate procedure for searching a conscripted person.

Court decision

The Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal concluded that the TRC acted within the powers granted by law, and the plaintiff did not prove the illegality of entering the information into the Register.

As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Lviv District Administrative Court remained unchanged.

The ruling in case No. 380/15294/25 came into legal force on the day of its adoption and, as a general rule, is not subject to cassation appeal, except in cases provided for by the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine.

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.