May 3, 2026, 9:42 p.m.
(PHOTOS: Judicial and Legal Newspaper)
The Odesa District Administrative Court dismissed a man's claim against the territorial center for recruitment and social support, which had granted the plaintiff the status of a person liable for military service.
According to the Judicial and Legal Newspaper, the plaintiff asked the court to declare unlawful the decision of the recruitment center, which refused to deregister him and put him on the wanted list.
The man substantiated his claims by the fact that on September 29, 2011, he was excluded from the military register due to his conviction for a particularly serious crime and serving a prison sentence. The plaintiff argued that the law does not provide for the re-registration of persons legally excluded from the register, so he is not a subject of military registration. At the same time, he was listed in the Oberih register and the Reserve+ application as a person liable for military service who had been wanted since June 2025.
The court found that on November 11, 2002, the plaintiff was indeed found guilty of committing crimes under Article 140, paragraph 2, and Article 185, paragraph 5, of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (as amended in 1960), i.e., theft committed on a large scale or as part of an organized group, and was sentenced to 7 years in prison with confiscation of property. He served his sentence from June 24, 2003 to December 17, 2008.
On September 29, 2011, the plaintiff was removed from the military register on the basis of subparagraph 6 of paragraph 6 of Article 37 of the Law of Ukraine "On Military Duty and Military Service" (in the version in force at that time).
However, on May 18, 2024, the Law of Ukraine came into force, which restated Article 37 of the Law "On Military Duty and Military Service" and conviction for a serious or especially serious crime ceased to be a ground for deregistration.
Therefore, the court noted that as of 2025, the legislation did not provide for exemption from military duty on the basis of such a conviction, and therefore the plaintiff was subject to military service during mobilization.
Кирило Бойко