Court canceled the search in Reserve+: the conscript was entered into the register without a protocol and ruling

The Fifth Administrative Court of Appeal canceled the decision of the court of first instance and obliged the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center to exclude from the Unified State Register of conscripts, conscripts liable for military service, and reservists the information about the violation of military registration rules and the announcement of the conscript as wanted.

The court concluded that in this particular case, entering information about the violation of military registration rules into the Unified State Register of conscripts, conscripts liable for military service, and reservists was unfounded, since the person was not held administratively liable, and a protocol and ruling under Articles 210 or 210-1 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses were absent.

Circumstances of the case

The plaintiff applied to the court after information about the violation of military registration rules and being wanted appeared in his electronic military registration document in the "Reserve+" application. The reason for the search was indicated as failure to update military registration data.

After sending a lawyer's inquiry, the TRSSC reported that the citizen was registered for military service and was considered to have violated the requirements of the mobilization preparation legislation. According to the defendant, the plaintiff was recognized as limitedly fit for military service back in 2014 and, according to legislative changes, had to undergo a repeated medical examination by June 5, 2025. Since he did not undergo such an examination, the corresponding information was entered into the Register.

The conscript disagreed with these actions and went to court. He stated that he was not held administratively liable, no protocol on an administrative offense was drawn up, and no ruling under Articles 210 or 210-1 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses was issued. In his opinion, under such circumstances, the information about the violation of military registration rules was entered into the Register without proper legal grounds.

Position of the TRSSC

The defendant insisted that the information about the violation of military registration rules was entered due to the plaintiff's failure to fulfill the legally established obligation to undergo a repeated medical examination.

The TRSSC noted that displaying such information in the Register is not holding the person administratively liable but only records legally significant circumstances within the functioning of the state military registration system. The defendant also indicated that entering the information and subsequent interaction with the National Police authorities were carried out in accordance with the requirements of the legislation on military registration and mobilization preparation.

Decision of the court of first instance

The Mykolaiv District Administrative Court denied the claim.

The court of first instance reasoned that the information about the violation of military registration reflected in the Register is informational in nature and does not by itself indicate administrative liability. According to the court, such a mark only reflects the fact of the citizen's failure to fulfill duties defined by the military registration legislation.

Conclusions of the appellate court

The panel of judges disagreed with these conclusions.

The appellate court analyzed the provisions of the Law "On the Unified State Register of Conscripts, Conscripts Liable for Military Service, and Reservists" and noted that the Register includes, among other things, information about holding a person administratively liable under Articles 210 and 210-1 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, indicating the date, number, and content of the protocol or ruling.

At the same time, the case materials confirmed that no protocol on an administrative offense was drawn up against the plaintiff, no ruling on administrative liability was issued, and the defendant did not provide evidence to the contrary.

Under these circumstances, the appellate court concluded that in this case, the information about the plaintiff's violation of military registration rules was entered into the Register without proper legal grounds.

At the same time, the panel of judges emphasized that it did not assess the presence or absence of an administrative offense in the plaintiff's actions. The court only checked the legality of the TRSSC's actions regarding entering the relevant information into the Register, since it is within the TRSSC's authority to decide on holding a person liable for violating military registration rules and issuing the corresponding ruling.

Decision of the appellate instance

The Fifth Administrative Court of Appeal satisfied the conscript's appeal, canceled the decision of the Mykolaiv District Administrative Court, and adopted a new decision to satisfy the claim.

The court recognized the TRSSC's actions regarding entering information about the plaintiff's violation of military registration rules and announcing him wanted into the Unified State Register of conscripts, conscripts liable for military service, and reservists as unlawful. The appellate court also obliged to exclude this information from the Register and awarded the plaintiff 2,424 UAH in court fees.

Thus, in case 400/11579/25, the appellate court concluded that in the absence of a protocol and ruling on holding the plaintiff administratively liable, the information about his violation of military registration rules was entered into the Register without proper legal grounds.

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.