Re-registration for Military Service of a Person Removed Due to Age Limit: Position of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Administrative Court of the Supreme Court considered a case regarding the recognition of the actions of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center(TRSSC) as unlawful concerning the plaintiff's registration for military service and the obligation to remove him from military registration.

The key issue is the legality of the defendant's actions in registering the plaintiff for military conscription, reservists, and military personnel, as a person who was previously removed from military registration due to reaching the age limit for reservists, notes the 5th Administrative Court of Appeal.

Regarding military duty, Ukrainian citizens are divided into the following categories:

• pre-conscripts - persons subject to registration at conscription offices;
• conscripts - persons registered at conscription offices;
• military personnel - persons serving in the military;
• Conscription-eligible men - persons in the reserve for staffing the Armed Forces of Ukraine and other military formations during special periods, as well as for performing defense-related tasks;
• reservists - persons serving in the military reserve of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and other military formations, designated for staffing in peacetime and special periods.

Paragraph 2 of part one of Article 37 of Law No. 2232-XII distinguishes between "removal" and "exclusion" from military registration, which have different grounds and consequences. However, exclusion from registration does not mean the impossibility of re-registration.

Amendments to Article 28 of the Law of Ukraine No. 2232-XII "On Military Duty and Military Service" (hereinafter – Law No. 2232-XII), which increased the age limit for reservists to 60 years, are general in nature and apply to all persons who have not reached this age, regardless of their previous status. Thus, a person's legal status is determined not only by the fact of previous exclusion but also by the legislation in force at the time the disputed legal relations arose.

At the same time, the provisions of Article 28 of Law No. 2232-XII stating that the age limit for second-category reservists is the maximum age for staying in the reserve and military reserve have not changed.

Therefore, changes to the legislation regarding the age limit for reservists apply to persons who, at the time these changes came into force, had not reached the new age limit, regardless of their previous removal from military registration. Due to the increase of the age limit for reservists to 60 years, such persons are considered reinstated in the reserve and subject to military registration.

The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that with the entry into force of these legislative changes, the plaintiff falls under their scope as a person who has not reached the legally established age limit for second-category reservists. Thus, due to the extension of the age limit for reservists, the plaintiff was automatically reinstated in the reserve, regardless of whether he was previously registered, since he had not reached 60 years of age and therefore must, according to current legislation, be registered for military service.

Therefore, since the plaintiff has not reached 60 years of age, he is considered to be in the reserve, and the defendant lawfully registered him for military service. Moreover, there are no grounds in the disputed legal relations to claim retroactive application of the law or other normative legal acts, since the disputed relations arose in 2024, after the relevant amendments to Law No. 2232-XII were made.

The ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court dated 09.04.2026 in case No. 280/6524/24 can be found at this link.

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