A man excluded from military registration back in 2020 saw himself as liable for military service in Reserve+: the court sided with him

The First Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which recognized the unlawful inaction of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center regarding the failure to consider the citizen's application to amend the Unified State Register of conscripts, those liable for military service, and reservists. The court also obliged the center to enter into the register the information about his exclusion from military registration as a person recognized unfit for military service.

Circumstances of the case

The plaintiff stated that as early as August 2020, the military medical commission recognized him unfit for military service and excluded him from military registration. The relevant information was entered into a temporary military registration certificate, which also indicated that he was not subject to a repeated medical examination.

In April 2025, the electronic military registration document generated through the "Reserve+" application reflected information about the man's exclusion from military registration due to unfitness for military service.

However, later the information in the registry changed. The new electronic military registration document contained information about the person's presence on military registration, the existence of a deferment due to booking, and the status of liable for military service.

After that, the man applied to the Territorial Recruitment Center with a request to enter the correct information into the register according to the available military registration documents. However, his request was effectively not considered. The failure to consider the application and the failure to enter the relevant information into the register became the grounds for appealing to the court.

Position of the Territorial Recruitment Center (TRC)

In the appeal, the defendant referred to chronological and substantive discrepancies in the plaintiff's documents. In particular, the temporary certificate indicated the date of exclusion from military registration in 2020, while one of the VLK certificates was dated 2022. According to the appellant, this indicated the absence of legal grounds for excluding the person from military registration.

What the court found

The appellate court agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance that the case materials confirm the fact that the plaintiff was recognized unfit for military service and excluded from military registration back in 2020. The court gave decisive weight to the entries in the temporary military registration certificate, which contained the relevant marks.

The panel of judges noted that the defendant did not provide evidence of the cancellation or invalidation of the military medical commission's conclusions, did not conduct an official investigation regarding the legality of their adoption, and did not prove in court the unlawfulness of the plaintiff's exclusion from military registration.

Therefore, the arguments about discrepancies between certain documents were deemed insufficient by the court to ignore the valid documents confirming unfitness for military service and exclusion from military registration.

Discrepancy of data in the register

The court established that the information in the plaintiff's military registration documents did not correspond to the information contained in the Unified State Register of conscripts, those liable for military service, and reservists.

The panel emphasized that the Procedure for issuing and issuing military registration documents provides the citizen the right to apply to the TRC to eliminate such discrepancies, and the respective body is obliged to consider the application and make changes to the register.

The court also noted that current legislation does not establish the obligation of personal appearance at the TRC to submit such an application. Submission of the application in paper form is a proper way to exercise the right to update information in the register.

The burden of registry errors cannot be placed on the citizen

One of the key conclusions of the ruling was that the negative consequences of improper military registration cannot be borne by the person.

The court emphasized that it is the TRC that is responsible for maintaining military registration and the accuracy of the information entered into the Unified State Register of conscripts, those liable for military service, and reservists. If an error occurred due to failure or improper performance of these duties, it cannot create additional obligations or negative legal consequences for the citizen.

The difference between removal and exclusion from military registration

The court separately noted that the concepts of "removal from military registration" and "exclusion from military registration" have different legal meanings and are not identical.

The panel referred to the legal position of the Supreme Court set out in the ruling dated May 21, 2025, in case No. 280/2880/24. According to it, a person excluded from military registration does not belong to the category of those liable for military service, while a person removed from military registration retains such status.

Court decision

The First Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and left unchanged the decision of the Donetsk District Administrative Court. In case No. 200/7268/25, the court confirmed the unlawfulness of the failure to consider the plaintiff's application and obliged the TRC to enter into the Unified State Register of conscripts, those liable for military service, and reservists the information about his exclusion from military registration as a person recognized unfit for military service.

The ruling came into legal force on the day of its adoption.

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