The Territorial Recruitment Center demanded the personal appearance of a man whom the Military Medical Commission recognized as unfit for military service — what the court said

The Fifth Administrative Court of Appeal concluded that the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center did not complete the documentary processing of the already carried out removal of the individual from the military register, as it did not enter the relevant information into the Unified State Register of conscripts, those liable for military service, and reservists. The court also emphasized that the negative consequences of improper performance of duties by the officials of the Territorial Recruitment Center cannot be borne by the citizen.

In 2023, the plaintiff was recognized by the Military Medical Commission as unfit for military service with removal from the military register. The relevant information was entered into his temporary military registration certificate.

In 2025, the man applied to the Territorial Recruitment Center with a request to enter information about his removal from the military register into the Unified State Register of conscripts, those liable for military service, and reservists. In response, the Territorial Recruitment Center recommended that he personally come to the recruitment center, questioned the legality of the previously issued documents, and stated that the plaintiff was not registered specifically with this Territorial Recruitment Center.

The court of first instance denied the claim. However, the appellate court overturned this decision, recognized the inaction of the Territorial Recruitment Center as unlawful, and obliged it to enter the information about the plaintiff's removal from the military register into the Register. Additionally, the court ordered the reimbursement of the court fee paid by the plaintiff.

Circumstances of the case

As established by the court, in April 2023, the Military Medical Commission recognized the plaintiff as unfit for military service with removal from the military register under Article 52-A, Section II of the Schedule of Diseases. Based on this decision, information about his unfitness for military service and removal from the military register was entered into the temporary military registration certificate.

On April 29, 2025, the plaintiff sent a registered letter with an inventory of enclosures to the Territorial Recruitment Center requesting the entry of information about his removal from the military register into the Unified State Register of conscripts, those liable for military service, and reservists. He attached a notarized copy of the temporary military registration certificate to the application.

In response, the Territorial Recruitment Center recommended that he personally appear at the recruitment center, expressed doubts about the legality of the previously issued documents, and stated that the plaintiff was not registered with this particular Territorial Recruitment Center. After this, the citizen turned to the court.

Why the appellate court disagreed with the decision of the first instance court

The appellate court noted that the case materials 420/17458/25 confirm the receipt of the plaintiff's application by the Territorial Recruitment Center. This refutes the first instance court's conclusion that there was no proper application.

The panel of judges analyzed the legal norms regulating military registration and the Unified State Register of conscripts, those liable for military service, and reservists, and noted that it is precisely the district (city) Territorial Recruitment Centers that are the bodies maintaining the Register and are obliged to ensure timely entry of information provided by law.

The court found that the Military Medical Commission's decision on the plaintiff's unfitness is valid, his military registration documents contain the relevant information, and the defendant did not provide any evidence that this conclusion is erroneous or that the documents are forged. At the same time, the defendant did not provide the court with evidence of the entry of information about the plaintiff's removal from the military register into the Register.

Personal appearance was not mandatory

The appellate court separately rejected the arguments about the necessity of the citizen's personal presence.

The panel noted that paragraph 4 of the Procedure for the processing (creation) and issuance of military registration documents, approved by the Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 559, does not require mandatory personal appearance at the Territorial Recruitment Center solely for submitting an application to amend information. Therefore, sending such an application by mail is a proper way of applying.

Improper work of the Territorial Recruitment Center cannot create problems for the citizen

The appellate court emphasized that the Territorial Recruitment Center is responsible for completing the procedure of removing a person from the military register, including entering the relevant information into the Unified State Register of conscripts, those liable for military service, and reservists.

Failure to fulfill this obligation, according to the panel of judges, violates the principle of legal certainty and may create negative legal consequences for the person in the future.

The court also stressed that the discrepancy between paper military registration documents and the Register data only indicates improper performance of duties by the officials of the Territorial Recruitment Center and does not indicate the inadmissibility of the documents confirming the plaintiff's rights. Such errors of a state body cannot be borne by the citizen whose rights are confirmed by proper evidence.

What the appellate court decided

The Fifth Administrative Court of Appeal satisfied the appeal, overturned the decision of the court of first instance in the contested part, and adopted a new decision fully satisfying the claim.

The court recognized the inaction of the Territorial Recruitment Center regarding the failure to make a decision on the plaintiff's application to enter information about his removal from the military register into the Unified State Register of conscripts, those liable for military service, and reservists as unlawful and obliged the defendant to enter the relevant data into the Register.

Additionally, the court ordered the recovery in favor of the plaintiff of UAH 968.96 of the court fee paid for filing the claim, as well as UAH 1,453.44 of the court fee for filing the appeal.

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