The Supreme Court explained how to determine whether a person was removed or excluded from military registration

The Supreme Court, as part of the Cassation Administrative Court, reviewed a case regarding the entry of information into the Unified State Register of conscripts, conscripts liable for military service, and reservists concerning a person's status.

The court concluded that the lower courts prematurely denied the claim because they did not clarify which specific registration action was actually taken regarding the plaintiff — removal from military registration or exclusion from it — and also did not examine the legal and factual basis for entering the respective record into the military registration document.

Circumstances of the case

The plaintiff applied to the administrative court demanding to recognize the inaction of the territorial recruitment and social support center as unlawful regarding the failure to enter information about his exclusion from military registration into the electronic register and to oblige the entry of the corresponding changes.

In support of the claim, he stated that he was excluded from military registration based on paragraph 3 of part six of article 37 of the Law of Ukraine "On Military Duty and Military Service." To confirm this, he referred to an entry in a temporary certificate issued instead of a military ID.

At the same time, according to the information reflected in the "Reserve+" application and the Unified State Register of conscripts, conscripts liable for military service, and reservists, the plaintiff continued to be registered as liable for military service.

To resolve this discrepancy, the plaintiff's representative repeatedly contacted the territorial recruitment and social support centers with lawyer's inquiries regarding the entry of information about the plaintiff's exclusion from military registration into the electronic register. After the relevant changes were not made and no responses were effectively received, the plaintiff turned to the court.

During the case review, it was established that the temporary certificate contains an entry stating that the person was "removed from military registration," but at the same time refers to article 37 of the Law with a paragraph reference that, according to the plaintiff, corresponds precisely to the grounds for exclusion from military registration.

Decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances

The Kyiv District Administrative Court, whose conclusions were agreed upon by the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal, denied the claim.

The courts reasoned that the Law of Ukraine "On Military Duty and Military Service" clearly distinguishes between the concepts of "removal from military registration" and "exclusion from military registration," which have different grounds and different legal consequences.

The courts noted that exclusion from military registration means the loss of the status of a conscript, whereas after removal from military registration, the person does not lose this status.

Examining the temporary certificate, the courts concluded that it contains an entry specifically about removal from military registration. In their opinion, the mere reference in the document to the relevant provision of article 37 of the Law does not change the content of the recorded entry. Therefore, the courts recognized the legality of reflecting the plaintiff's registration status in the register.

Legal position of the Supreme Court

Reviewing the case, the Supreme Court first referred to its legal position set out in the ruling dated May 21, 2025, in case No. 280/2880/24, according to which the legislator clearly distinguished the concepts of "removal from military registration" and "exclusion from military registration," providing different grounds and different legal consequences for them.

The court emphasized that persons excluded from military registration lose the status of conscripts, while citizens removed from military registration continue to hold this status.

At the same time, the Supreme Court concluded that in this case, the lower courts prematurely concluded that the plaintiff was specifically removed from military registration.

The panel of judges noted that although the literal wording of the entry in the temporary certificate indeed contains the words "removed from military registration," the courts did not properly assess that the same entry simultaneously contains a reference to the legal basis, which is formulated unclearly and does not allow an unequivocal determination of which part and paragraph of article 37 of the Law the authority referred to.

The Supreme Court stressed that article 37 of the Law has a complex structure and contains different grounds both for removal and for exclusion from military registration. At the same time, the specific factual circumstance must correspond to the specific legal basis provided by law.

The court noted that if a person was recognized as unfit for military service, such a circumstance according to the law is grounds specifically for exclusion from military registration, not for removal from it. Therefore, the wording in the military registration document must correspond to the legal basis for entering the respective record, and the authority is not vested with discretionary powers to independently decide whether to apply the procedure of removal or exclusion from military registration under the same legally established grounds.

The panel of judges stated that the disputed military registration document combines mutually exclusive information: on the one hand, it states removal from military registration, and on the other hand, it provides a legal basis that by its content may indicate exclusion from military registration. Such internal inconsistency requires establishing the true content of the entry and the legal basis for its entry.

In the Supreme Court's opinion, after identifying such a contradiction, the courts could not limit themselves only to the literal interpretation of the wording "removed from military registration." They were obliged to clarify which specific registration action was actually taken regarding the plaintiff, what circumstances were the basis for its execution, whether these circumstances met the legal requirements for removal or exclusion from military registration, as well as to examine the military registration materials, documents on the basis of which the disputed entry was made, and other evidence confirming its legal and factual basis.

The Supreme Court emphasized that establishing whether a person was removed from military registration or excluded from it is decisive for determining the presence or absence of conscript status and, accordingly, for assessing the legality of the information reflected in the Unified State Register of conscripts, conscripts liable for military service, and reservists.

Since the lower courts did not ensure a complete, comprehensive, and objective clarification of the case circumstances, did not examine all necessary evidence, and did not establish the factual and legal basis for entering the disputed record, the Supreme Court concluded that procedural law norms were violated.

As a result of the cassation review, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the decision of the Kyiv District Administrative Court and the ruling of the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal, and sent case No. 320/29761/25 for a new trial to the court of first instance.

During the new trial, the court must establish which specific registration action was actually taken regarding the plaintiff, clarify the legal and factual basis for entering the record into the temporary certificate, and evaluate all evidence considering the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court.

The ruling comes into legal force from the date of its adoption, is final, and is not subject to appeal.

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