Man Challenged Record of Military Registration Violation in Reserve+ and Won Court Case Against the Territorial Recruitment Center

The Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court concluded that information about violations of military registration rules cannot be entered into the Unified State Register of Conscripts, Reservists, and Military Obliged Persons solely based on the mere fact of a possible violation.

The court noted that the Law of Ukraine "On the Unified State Register of Conscripts, Reservists, and Military Obliged Persons" provides for the entry into the Register specifically of information about bringing a person to administrative responsibility under Articles 210, 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of Ukraine.

Since no protocol was drawn up against the plaintiff, no ruling was issued, and the fact of administrative liability was absent, the court recognized the actions of the Territorial Recruitment Center as unlawful and ordered the corresponding record to be removed from the Register.

The plaintiff applied to the court after discovering a record about a violation of military registration rules in his electronic military registration document in the "Reserve+" application. The record also showed information about the Territorial Recruitment Center's appeal to the National Police to deliver him for the purpose of drawing up a protocol on an administrative offense.

The man stated that he had timely informed the Territorial Recruitment Center about undergoing examination and treatment due to an incurable disease, repeatedly submitted medical documents, and provided an address for correspondence. Later, he also informed the Territorial Recruitment Center 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 information about the violation of military registration rules from "Reserve+" and "Diia".

At the same time, no protocol on an administrative offense was drawn up against him, and no ruling on bringing him to administrative responsibility was issued.

Position of the Territorial Recruitment Center

The defendant opposed the claim. The Territorial Recruitment Center stated that the plaintiff did not register or declare a new place of residence in the manner prescribed by law, so the summons was sent to the registered address. After the postal item was returned, the person was considered duly notified of the summons.

The Territorial Recruitment Center also explained that after the plaintiff failed to appear in response to the summons, an automated request was generated to the National Police regarding the delivery of the military obliged person. Additionally, the defendant claimed that the information about the violation of military registration rules in the "Reserve+" application is a result of the automated system's operation, not individual actions of the Territorial Recruitment Center officials.

At the same time, the Territorial Recruitment Center considered that the medical documents submitted by the plaintiff did not confirm his continuous treatment and did not indicate the impossibility of appearing at the territorial recruitment center after the cessation of valid reasons for absence.

What the Court Established

The court established that the plaintiff repeatedly contacted the Territorial Recruitment Center with statements about undergoing examination and treatment, attached medical documents, provided an address for correspondence, and also submitted a statement about the impossibility of personally appearing at the Territorial Recruitment Center to resolve the issue of removal from military registration due to an incurable disease. At the same time, he requested the removal of information about the violation of military registration rules from "Reserve+" and "Diia".

However, after his failure to appear in response to the summons, the Territorial Recruitment Center appealed to the National Police regarding the administrative detention and delivery of the plaintiff, and a record about the violation of military registration rules appeared in the electronic military registration document.

At the same time, the defendant did not deny that no protocol on an administrative offense was drawn up against the plaintiff, no ruling on bringing him to administrative responsibility was issued, and no evidence of such liability was provided.

Legal Conclusion of the Court

The court noted in case 160/32214/25 that the Law of Ukraine "On the Unified State Register of Conscripts, Reservists, and Military Obliged Persons" contains an exhaustive list of information that can be entered into the Register.

In particular, the Register may include information about bringing a military obliged person to administrative responsibility under Articles 210, 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of Ukraine, indicating the date, number, and brief content of the protocol and/or ruling on the administrative offense.

At the same time, the law does not provide for any other information about violations of military registration rules.

The court emphasized that the mere fact of a possible failure to comply with military registration rules, including failure to appear upon summons to the Territorial Recruitment Center, failure to update registration data, or other obligations, without drawing up a protocol and/or ruling on an administrative offense, is not grounds for entering the relevant information into the Register.

Separately, the court noted that in this case it did not assess whether the plaintiff actually violated military registration rules. This issue was not part of the dispute. The subject of the court proceedings was exclusively the legality of entering the relevant information into the Unified State Register of Conscripts, Reservists, and Military Obliged Persons.

The court also rejected the defendant's arguments about the automatic display of information in "Reserve+", noting that territorial recruitment and social support centers are the bodies responsible for maintaining the Register and, according to the law, ensure the maintenance and updating of its database.

Decision

The Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court fully satisfied the claim.

The court recognized the actions of the Territorial Recruitment Center regarding the entry of 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 removal of this information from the Register, and recovered 968.96 UAH of court fees from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff.

In its decision, the court also referred to the legal positions of the Third Administrative Court of Appeal, which previously stated that the mere fact of non-compliance with military registration rules without proper formalization of bringing a person to administrative responsibility is not grounds for entering the relevant information into the Register.

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.