Man-IDP Did Not Register After Moving: Court Recognized Violation Mark in Reserve+ as Lawful

The First Administrative Court of Appeal concluded that entering a mark about violation of military registration rules into the "Oberig" Register and displaying it in the "Reserve+" application does not require prior administrative liability under Articles 210 or 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses.

The court emphasized that the body maintaining the Register has the right to enter official data about the failure of a conscript to fulfill duties in the field of military registration. In particular, if a person, after obtaining the status of an internally displaced person, did not register for military service at the new place of residence within the legally established seven-day period, the relevant information may be entered into the Register and displayed in the "Reserve+" application.

At the same time, the mark "violator of military registration rules" itself does not indicate that the person has already been held administratively liable.

Circumstances of the case

The plaintiff applied to the court after seeing information in the "Reserve+" application about his violation of military registration rules and the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center's appeal to the National Police regarding his delivery to the territorial recruitment center.

The man considered these actions illegal. He claimed that he had timely updated his personal data, had not received summonses, and had not been held administratively liable for violating military registration rules. In his opinion, in the absence of a protocol and a ruling on an administrative offense, the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center had no right to enter information about the violation into the Register or initiate his search.

In his claim, he asked to recognize the actions of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center regarding the entry of relevant information into the Unified State Register of conscripts, conscripts liable for military service, and reservists as unlawful, and to oblige to remove this data from the Register.

What the courts established

The courts established that the plaintiff was registered for military service at one of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centers in Donetsk region. At the same time, the Register contained information about his registration as an internally displaced person in the city of Dnipro.

The case materials indicated that after obtaining IDP status, he did not register for military service at the new place of residence within seven days, as required by Article 37 of the Law "On Military Duty and Military Service." The plaintiff did not provide evidence of fulfilling this obligation.

Due to the detected violation, an electronic request was generated through the "Oberig" system to the National Police regarding the delivery of the person to the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center. Information about this was also displayed in the "Reserve+" application.

Position of the Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance and emphasized that the plaintiff actually equates two different legal concepts — violation of military registration rules and administrative liability for such a violation.

The panel of judges noted that the mark in "Reserve+" about violation of military registration rules is only a reflection of official Register data regarding the failure of a person to fulfill a duty established by law. Such information can be entered into the Register regardless of whether a protocol on an administrative offense was drawn up or a fine was imposed.

The court noted that the Law "On the Unified State Register of Conscripts, Conscripts Liable for Military Service, and Reservists" allows entering into the Register not only information about administrative liability but also official data about the citizen's fulfillment of military duty. Such data includes compliance with military registration rules.

Is a ruling on an administrative offense required

The court separately emphasized that the absence of a ruling on administrative liability does not mean the absence of the fact of violation of military registration rules.

According to the panel of judges, sufficient grounds for entering information about violation of military registration rules into the Register is the very fact of the conscript's failure to fulfill the relevant duty, regardless of whether he was subsequently held administratively liable.

The Court of Appeal also noted that delivery of a person to the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center through the National Police may be carried out to draw up a protocol on an administrative offense in cases where it is impossible to do so on the spot. Therefore, the absence of a protocol at the time of entering information into the Register does not in itself indicate the illegality of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center's actions.

Separate conclusion regarding summonses

The panel of judges rejected the plaintiff's argument that he did not receive summonses.

The court emphasized that registration for military service after changing the place of residence is an independent duty of the conscript. The law does not impose on the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center the obligation to send summonses or separately call the person to fulfill this duty. Accordingly, the absence of a summons does not exempt from the obligation to register for military service at the new place of residence within the established period.

Court conclusion

The First Administrative Court of Appeal in case 200/10416/25 concluded that the plaintiff did not prove fulfillment of the duty to register for military service at the new place of residence after obtaining IDP status.

Under these circumstances, the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center had factual and legal grounds to enter official information about violation of military registration rules into the Register. The court recognized the display of the corresponding mark in "Reserve+" as lawful and found no grounds for removing this information from the Register.

As a result, the Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and confirmed the legality of the Donetsk District Administrative Court's decision to deny the claim.

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