15 Years After Removal from the Register, a Man Found Himself Subject to Military Service in Reserve+: Court Reviewed Dispute with the Territorial Recruitment Center
The Seventh Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first instance court, which denied the citizen's request to enter information about his removal from military registration into the Unified State Register of conscripts, those liable for military service, and reservists.
The plaintiff referred to a record in his military ID about removal from military registration due to health reasons. However, the courts established that the conclusion of the military medical commission, on the basis of which his documents were issued, contained the wording "unfit for military service in peacetime, limited fitness in wartime." Such a conclusion is not a basis for removal from military registration.
The appellate court also noted that after the cancellation of the "limited fitness" status, persons of this category were required to undergo a repeated medical examination by June 5, 2025, to determine fitness for military service. The plaintiff did not do this.
What the dispute was about
The plaintiff applied to the court demanding to recognize the inaction of the territorial recruitment center as unlawful regarding the failure to enter information about his removal from military registration into the Register and to oblige them to enter such data.
As established by the courts, on March 15, 2010, the military medical commission declared the man unfit for military service in peacetime and limitedly fit in wartime. At the same time, he was removed from the conscripts' military registration.
In June 2010, a record was made in the military ID about removal from military registration due to health reasons as not liable for military service. However, in 2011, he was registered as liable for military service.
In July 2025, through the "Reserve+" application, the man discovered that he was listed in the register as liable for military service. After that, he appealed to the Territorial Recruitment Center and the Military Commissariat demanding to enter information about his removal from military registration into the register, but this was not done.
Court: Two Military Medical Commission Conclusions Have Different Legal Consequences
The appellate court considered the content of the military medical commission's conclusion issued regarding the plaintiff in 2010 as key to resolving the dispute.
The panel of judges noted that at the time of the medical commission, the legislation provided for different conclusions regarding fitness for military service. In particular, there were separate conclusions "unfit for military service in peacetime, limited fitness in wartime" and "unfit for military service with removal from military registration."
The court emphasized that these conclusions have different legal meanings and consequences. The basis for removal from military registration is precisely the conclusion of unfitness for military service with removal from military registration. In contrast, the status of a person unfit for service in peacetime and limitedly fit in wartime did not exempt them from being registered as liable for military service.
Why the Record in the Military ID Was Not Decisive
The appellate court agreed with the first instance court's conclusion that the record in the military ID about removal from military registration did not correspond to the content of the military medical commission's conclusion issued regarding the plaintiff. According to the court, such a discrepancy cannot create legal grounds for exempting a person from military duty.
The panel of judges also rejected the plaintiff's reference to a note made by an official on a summons in 2022. The court stated that such a note is not an individual act of a public authority and cannot replace the legally prescribed procedure for removal from military registration, which requires the appropriate conclusion of the military medical commission.
How Legislative Changes Affected the Case
The court separately noted Law No. 3621-IX, which came into force on May 4, 2024, and abolished the statuses "limited fitness for military service" and "unfit for military service in peacetime, limited fitness in wartime."
After these changes, citizens aged 25 to 60 who had such status were required to undergo a repeated medical examination by June 5, 2025, to determine fitness for military service. They had to independently apply to the Territorial Recruitment Center or use the electronic military service account.
The court found that the plaintiff did not undergo the repeated medical examination, did not apply for a referral, and did not prove the existence of objective reasons preventing him from fulfilling this obligation.
Court Conclusion
The panel of judges in case 240/24533/25 concluded that in the absence of a military medical commission conclusion on unfitness for military service with removal from military registration, there are no grounds to enter information about the plaintiff's removal into the Register.
The appellate court agreed that a person who in 2010 was recognized as unfit for military service in peacetime and limitedly fit in wartime was subject to military registration as liable for military service and after legislative changes was required to undergo a repeated medical examination.
As a result, the appellate complaint was dismissed, and the decision of the Zhytomyr District Administrative Court remained unchanged.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, and follow us on Facebook and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.
