Меню
Соціальні мережі
Розділи
March 14, 2026, 8:44 p.m.
Court finds actions of TCC in Odesa unlawful due to determination of husband as violator
This article also available in English960
PHOTOS: Voice of the Carpathians
The Odesa District Administrative Court upheld the claim of a person liable for military service against the territorial center for recruitment and social support to declare the center's actions unlawful.
The plaintiff found that the mobile application Reserve+ displayed information about his alleged violation of the rules of military registration, but all credentials were updated in time, and no protocols or decisions on an administrative offense were drawn up against him, the Judicial and Legal Newspaper reported.
It was this discrepancy that gave rise to the lawsuit. The plaintiff requested that the TCC's actions, which consisted of entering false information into the Unified State Register of Conscripts, Persons Liable for Military Service and Reservists, be declared unlawful. In addition, he demanded to oblige the military administration body to remove from the register the data on the alleged violation of the rules of military registration.
The court found that the plaintiff was registered for military service and had an electronic military registration document. Information in the mobile application showed that the credentials were updated in a timely manner. At the same time, Reserve+ contained a record of violation of the rules of military registration.
The judges drew attention to the definition of the very concept of violation of military registration rules. The legislation provides for a whole list of such violations - from untimely updating of personal data to evasion of medical examination or failure to appear at the call of the CMC. However, any of these violations must be recorded in accordance with the procedure established by law, which provides for the drawing up of a report on an administrative offense. Having considered all the case materials, the court concluded that the actions of the territorial recruitment center were illegal. In this case, the plaintiff complied with the requirements of the law and clarified his data within the specified time frame. Thus, there were no objective grounds to consider him a violator of the rules of military registration.
Since the court found that the plaintiff was not brought to administrative responsibility, the entry in the register on violation of the rules of military registration was recognized as not complying with the requirements of the current legislation.
