Removed from the register: the court prohibited the Territorial Recruitment Center from serving draft notices

The lawfulness of actions by Territorial Recruitment Centers (TRCs) and Joint Centers towards persons removed or excluded from the military register has become one of the key issues in wartime case law. Recent rulings of administrative courts of appeal show a clear trend: if a man has proper evidence that he has been removed from military registration, any subsequent actions by a TRC – from serving a draft notice to referring him to a military medical commission (MMC) – are found unlawful. In a high‑profile case, the court expressly stated that a person removed from the military register is neither liable for military service nor a reservist and therefore does not fall under mobilisation measures, so a draft notice and referral to an MMC in respect of such a person are legally unfounded.

Case background: checkpoint, draft notice and fine for refusal to undergo MMC
At a checkpoint, authorised TRC officers tried to serve a man with a draft notice and simultaneously issued a referral to an MMC, but he refused, referring to his removal from the military register and insisting that any actions towards him must be taken only at his place of registration. In response, the TRC drew up a protocol under Part 2 of Article 210‑1 of the Code of Administrative Offences and fined him UAH 25,500 for allegedly refusing to undergo the MMC; the case file included the notice, the refusal act, copies of his passport and his military ID, which became the key piece of evidence in court.

Key argument: the mark on removal from military registration
The court of appeal paid particular attention to the military ID, which contained a mark confirming the man’s removal from the military register under subparagraph “g” of paragraph 5 of Article 37 of the Law of Ukraine “On Military Duty and Military Service” (for example, due to reaching the maximum age or on other grounds). The court stated directly that such a mark means the person no longer has the status of someone liable for military service or a reservist. Accordingly, reconciliation of military‑registration data, summonses to the TRC, referrals to the MMC to determine fitness and any mobilisation‑related actions in respect of that person lack legal basis and are regarded by the court as unlawful. In effect, the court settled the dispute: possession of a valid document with a proper mark on removal from the register takes precedence over the absence or late updating of data in departmental registries (such as “Oberig” or internal TRC databases).

Why registry entries do not override the military ID
One of the core practical problems is the gap between registry data and the marks in military IDs. Case law proceeds from the premise that TRC mistakes in updating the register of conscripts, persons liable for service and reservists may not worsen a citizen’s position. In a case where the TRC failed to update the “Oberig” registry to reflect a man’s exclusion from the military register, the court found such inaction unlawful and obliged the TRC to update the data, emphasising that once a person is officially excluded from the register, their status cannot depend on bureaucratic failures. Therefore, in the checkpoint case it was the military ID with the removal mark that served as the starting point for assessing the lawfulness of the TRC’s actions.

Unlawfulness of referring to an MMC without the status of a person liable for service
Courts consistently stress that undergoing an MMC as part of mobilisation measures is possible only for persons who have the status of conscript, liable for military service or reservist and who have been duly summoned to the TRC. In the discussed ruling, the court of appeal clearly stated that referring a man removed from the military register to an MMC contradicts the law and the Military Registration Procedure, so refusal to undergo the MMC in such a situation does not constitute an offence, and a fine for “failure to appear” is unlawful. Courts take a similar view where a TRC cannot prove proper service of a draft notice or referral: without a signature, date and proper record of service, the very elements of an offence are missing.

Implications for TRC practice and for citizens
The appellate court’s decision has far‑reaching consequences not only for the individual claimant but also for overall practice in TRC interactions with persons excluded or removed from the military register. The court effectively confirmed that:

• a draft notice to appear at a TRC may not be served on someone who has been excluded/removed from the register;
• such a person may not be referred to an MMC within mobilisation procedures;
• involving them in mobilisation measures is unlawful;
• fines for “failure to appear” or “refusal to undergo an MMC” in such circumstances must be quashed.

For citizens, this means that a documented status (a mark in the military ID, a decision on exclusion from the register, etc.) is the key piece of evidence in any dispute with a TRC. For TRCs, it means that ignoring status changes, attempting to “overlook” old marks in IDs or delaying registry updates may lead to lost court cases and findings that their actions were unlawful.

Practical takeaways for men removed from the military register
Case law suggests several important practical steps for persons removed or excluded from the military register:

1. Keep the original military ID with the removal/exclusion mark and make notarised copies.
2. If a draft notice or MMC referral is attempted, calmly refer to the mark in the ID and demand that this be recorded in an official act.
3. If, despite this, a protocol is drawn up and a fine imposed, challenge the decision in court, submitting the military ID as the principal piece of evidence.
4. If the TRC has not entered information on exclusion into registries (such as “Oberig”), seek a court order declaring such inaction unlawful and obliging the TRC to update the data.

It is also important to remember that a note in the “Reserv+” app about an “offence of military registration rules” on its own, without properly executed draft notices and other documents, is not sufficient proof of the lawfulness of TRC claims.

Significance of the ruling for future case law
The appellate ruling is significant because it clearly formulates a basic principle: the state cannot require a person to fulfil duties tied to the status of someone liable for military service if the state itself has officially removed that status. This approach is consistent with the rule of law, the principle of legal certainty and the prohibition on worsening a citizen’s position due to errors by public authorities. Predictably, as the number of disputes involving TRCs grows, such decisions will serve as a guide for lower courts and an additional argument for lawyers in cases where people who have truly been excluded from the register face unlawful pressure and fines.

If you have questions or problems related to removal or exclusion from the military register, challenging fines for “failure to appear” or “refusal to undergo an MMC”, fixing your status in registries or building a defence strategy in a dispute with a TRC, you should seek professional legal advice based on your specific documents and circumstances.

Author – Svitlana Krutorohova, attorney at WINNER Law Firm.