The Military Commissariat Left a Man with a Group II Disability as Subject to Military Service in the “Obereg” Registry: The Court Ordered Data Correction
The Fifth Administrative Court of Appeal sided with a man with a Group II disability who was recognized as unfit for military service by the military medical commission in 2022 with removal from the military register. Despite this, he continued to be listed as subject to military service in the “Obereg” registry. The court concluded that the Military Commissariat (TCK) cannot refuse to update data citing its own errors in document processing or storage and ordered the registry to be updated with the information about the person’s removal from the military register.
Valid documents confirming unfitness for military service cannot be ignored simply because the TCK did not keep some medical materials or found inaccuracies in its own military registration documents. This conclusion was reached by the Fifth Administrative Court of Appeal, which overturned the decision of the first-instance court and fully satisfied the citizen’s claim.
Case Circumstances
The plaintiff suffers from severe lung diseases, has a Group II disability, and receives a disability pension. In November 2022, the military medical commission recognized him as unfit for military service with removal from the military register, which was reflected in the VLK certificate and the temporary military service obligation ID.
However, after updating data via the “Reserve+” app, the man found that he was still listed as subject to military service in the “Obereg” registry. He applied twice to the TCK requesting data updates but received no response. After a separate court ruling obliging the TCK to consider his request, the authority still refused to make changes to the registry.
Why the TCK Refused
The TCK based its refusal on the absence of a medical examination card (Appendix 13 to the Military Medical Expertise Regulation) in its materials, doubts about the origin of the VLK certificate and temporary ID, certain discrepancies in military registration documents, and the fact that the plaintiff uses a deferment as a person with a disability and therefore, according to the defendant, remains subject to military service.
The first-instance court agreed with this position and dismissed the claim.
What the Appellate Court Decided
The Fifth Administrative Court of Appeal overturned this decision.
The panel of judges noted that the plaintiff was recognized as unfit for military service with removal from the military register back in 2022. According to the appellate court, pursuant to Article 37 of the Law "On Military Duty and Military Service," this means the person loses the status of being subject to military service, and thus the TCK has an obligation to reflect this legal fact in the Unified State Register of Conscripts, Persons Subject to Military Service, and Reservists (“Obereg”).
The court also emphasized that the law clearly distinguishes between "removal from military registration" and "exclusion from military registration." According to the judges, if removal from registration is temporary, exclusion is a final legal consequence after which the person loses the status of subject to military service. Therefore, information about such exclusion must be entered into the “Obereg” registry.
State Authority Errors Cannot Deprive a Person of Rights
One of the key conclusions of the ruling was the application of the principle of good governance.
The panel stressed that the absence of a medical examination card or other internal VLK documents at the TCK is a problem of the state authority itself and cannot be grounds for denying the validity of officially issued documents to the citizen. The plaintiff is not responsible for maintaining or storing the VLK’s official documentation and cannot suffer negative consequences due to its loss.
Furthermore, the court noted that technical errors or inaccuracies in military registration documents made by TCK officials also cannot be grounds for depriving a person of their acquired legal status. As long as the VLK certificate and temporary military service obligation ID have not been canceled or declared invalid in accordance with the law, the TCK had no legal basis to ignore the information contained therein.
Referring to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, the appellate court emphasized that the risk of errors by a state authority must be borne by the state, not the citizen.
New Rules Cannot Be Applied Retroactively to 2022 Events
The appellate court also found the application by the first-instance court and the TCK of Cabinet of Ministers Resolutions No. 559 and No. 560, which came into force only in 2024, to be erroneous.
The panel noted that the VLK decision on unfitness was made in November 2022, so applying normative acts adopted later to these legal relations contradicts Article 58 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which enshrines the principle of non-retroactivity of laws and other normative legal acts.
Deferment Does Not Replace Exclusion from Military Registration
The appellate court separately rejected the TCK’s argument that the plaintiff uses a deferment as a person with a disability.
According to the panel, the deferment mechanism applies only to persons who have the status of being subject to military service. Since the plaintiff was excluded from the military register as unfit for military service back in 2022, procedures intended for those subject to military service, including deferment issuance or extension, cannot apply to him.
Court Decision
The Fifth Administrative Court of Appeal satisfied the appeal, overturned the decision of the Odesa District Administrative Court, and issued a new ruling.
In case No. 420/28253/25, the court recognized the TCK’s refusal to update the plaintiff’s data as unlawful and ordered the inclusion in the “Obereg” registry of information that he is unfit for military service with removal from the military register according to the VLK certificate and temporary military service obligation ID. Additionally, the court awarded the plaintiff UAH 2,422.40 in court costs.
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.
