Man Demanded to Be Removed from Military Registration Citing Failure to Obtain a Military Specialty by Age 40: What the Court Decided
The Zaporizhzhia District Administrative Court considered administrative case No. 280/4219/26, lodged by a citizen against the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centre. The case concerned an appeal against actions and inactions related to the reinstatement of his military registration, the refusal to remove him from military registration, and the failure to implement corresponding changes in the Unified State Register of conscripts, those liable for military service, and reservists, as well as in the "Reserve+" application.
Essence of the Case
The plaintiff stated that he was removed from military registration for health reasons in 1996, but the physical document confirming this was subsequently lost. According to him, in January 2026, he was reinstated on the military registration of those liable for military service. Following this, he applied to the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centre, requesting removal from military registration and the implementation of corresponding changes in the Unified State Register of conscripts, those liable for military service, and reservists.
In response, the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centre informed him that his appeal had been directed to the incorrect authority. They recommended that he personally contact the accounting and booking department with the relevant documents for their consideration in accordance with the law.
Disagreeing with these actions, the plaintiff petitioned the court to recognise the inaction regarding the non-consideration of his application as unlawful. He also sought to have the actions related to his reinstatement on military registration declared unlawful, to compel his removal from military registration, and to mandate changes to the "Oberig" Register and the "Reserve+" application, restoring his status to "not registered." To substantiate his claims, he further contended that he had not obtained a military registration or a related specialty by the age of 40. Therefore, in his opinion, he was subject to removal from military registration under the version of Article 37 of the Law of Ukraine "On Military Duty and Military Service" that was in force at that time.
Position and Conclusions of the Court
The court noted that the procedure for maintaining military registration, making changes to the Unified State Register of conscripts, those liable for military service, and reservists, and issuing military registration documents is regulated by the Law of Ukraine "On Military Duty and Military Service," the Law of Ukraine "On the Unified State Register of Conscripts, Those Liable for Military Service, and Reservists," the Procedure for organising and maintaining military registration approved by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 1487, and the Procedure for issuing (creating) and issuing military registration documents approved by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 559.
The court found that when applying to the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centre, the plaintiff did not provide a physical military registration document containing information about his removal from military registration. Under these circumstances, the court found no grounds to consider the refusal to make changes to the Unified State Register of conscripts, those liable for military service, and reservists unlawful. The court also noted that a disability pension certificate of Group II and medical documentation alone do not constitute proper confirmation that the person was recognised by the military-medical commission as unfit for military service with removal from military registration.
The court separately considered the plaintiff’s arguments that he should be removed from military registration due to his failure to obtain a military registration or related specialty by the age of 40. The court noted that the wording of part six of Article 37 of the Law of Ukraine "On Military Duty and Military Service" was repeatedly amended, and at the time the disputed legal relations arose, such grounds for removal from military registration had already been excluded from the law.
Furthermore, the court noted that the legislator repeatedly changed the maximum age for those liable for military service in the reserve. While at the time the plaintiff reached 40 years old, the maximum age for the second category of reserve was 40 years, after amendments in 2014, it was first increased to 50 and later to 60 years. The court emphasised that after the relevant amendments came into force, they apply to all citizens of Ukraine who have not reached the new maximum age for being in the reserve. Since the plaintiff has not reached 60 years of age, he continues to be considered liable for military service.
The court also took into account the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court, set out in rulings dated 19 September 2018 in case No. 814/4386/15 and 17 February 2020 in case No. 820/3113/17, as well as the conclusions of the Third Administrative Court of Appeal, set out in the ruling dated 3 February 2025 in case No. 280/6524/24 regarding the application of the relevant legal norms.
Given the established circumstances, the court concluded that there were no legal grounds to satisfy the plaintiff’s claims and fully denied them.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua, follow SUD.UA on Google News , and join us on VIBER, WhatsApp, Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the important events.
