Man Reported Incurable Disease to Military Commissariat, but Was Marked as Violator in Reserve+ — What the Court Decided
The Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court made a decision in a case regarding the procedure for entering information into the Unified State Register of Conscripts, Reservists, and Military Obliged Persons. The court found the actions of the territorial recruitment and social support center unlawful in entering information into the Register about the military obliged person's violation of military registration rules and ordered the exclusion of these data.
Circumstances of the Case
The plaintiff was registered for military service at the territorial recruitment and social support center (TRSSC). Later, he discovered in the "Reserve+" application an entry stating that the TRSSC had contacted the National Police to deliver him for protocol drafting. Also, the electronic military registration document displayed information about violations of military registration rules.
The man claimed that he had timely informed the TRSSC about undergoing treatment due to an incurable disease, which, according to him, made his conscription during mobilization impossible. He repeatedly submitted applications to the TRSSC, reported inpatient and outpatient treatment, attached medical documents, and also provided a different mailing address during treatment. Later, he separately applied to the TRSSC with a statement about his inability to personally appear to resolve the issue of removal from military registration specifically due to the incurable disease and requested the removal of the "search" information from the "Reserve+" and "Diia" applications. At the same time, no protocol on administrative offense was drawn up against him, nor was a decision on administrative liability issued. For this reason, he asked the court to recognize the entry of the relevant information into the Register as illegal and to oblige the TRSSC to exclude it.
The TRSSC opposed the claim. The defendant stated that the summons was generated using the Unified State Register of Conscripts, Reservists, and Military Obliged Persons and sent to the plaintiff's registered place of residence. Since the postal item was returned marked as the addressee absent, the plaintiff was considered duly notified of the summons. After his failure to appear, an automatic request was generated to the National Police for administrative detention and delivery to the TRSSC. The defendant also emphasized that the information about violations of military registration rules in the "Reserve+" application is a result of the automated system's operation, not individual actions of TRSSC officials. Additionally, the TRSSC noted that the provided medical documents do not confirm continuous treatment and do not prove the plaintiff's inability to appear at the territorial center after the cessation of valid reasons for absence. Also, according to the defendant, the plaintiff did not provide a phthisiatrician's conclusion after being referred for the appropriate consultation during the military-medical commission.
What the Court Established
The court established that no protocol on administrative offense was drawn up against the plaintiff, nor was a decision on administrative liability issued under Articles 210 or 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. The defendant did not dispute these facts.
Analyzing the Law "On the Unified State Register of Conscripts, Reservists, and Military Obliged Persons," the court noted that it defines an exhaustive list of information that may be entered into the Register. In particular, it may include information about a person's administrative liability under Articles 210 and 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, specifying the date, number, and brief content of the protocol and/or decision. At the same time, Articles 7 and 8 of this Law do not provide for entering any other information solely about the conscript's, reservist's, or military obliged person's violation of military registration rules.
The court emphasized that the mere fact of possible non-compliance with military registration rules, such as failure to appear upon summons to the TRSSC, failure to update registration data, or untimely notification of change of residence, without drawing up a protocol and/or decision on administrative offense, is not grounds for entering corresponding information into the Register. The court referred to similar legal conclusions of the Third Administrative Court of Appeal in cases No. 340/3086/25 and No. 280/9003/25.
Separately, the court noted that this case did not address whether the plaintiff actually violated military registration rules or whether there were grounds for his administrative liability. Such circumstances were not subject to proof. The dispute concerned exclusively the legality of entering information about violations of military registration rules into the Register in the absence of the fact of administrative liability imposed on the person in the manner prescribed by law.
Court Decision
The court fully satisfied the claim. It recognized the actions of the TRSSC in entering information about the plaintiff's violation of military registration rules into the Unified State Register of Conscripts, Reservists, and Military Obliged Persons as unlawful, ordered the exclusion of these data from the Register, and recovered 968.96 UAH in court fees in favor of the plaintiff at the expense of the defendant's budget allocations.
The court concluded that in the absence of the fact of administrative liability imposed on a person, entering information about violations of military registration rules into the Unified State Register of Conscripts, Reservists, and Military Obliged Persons does not comply with the requirements of Law No. 1951-VIII, which defines an exhaustive list of data that may be contained in the Register.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, our page on Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.
