In 2026 Ukrainian administrative courts received a series of cases brought by people who had been excluded from military registration — or believe they should have been — under the rules in force before the reserve age limit was raised. Some first-instance courts have upheld such claims, even setting aside mobilisation orders. At the same time, in April 2026 the Supreme Court reached the opposite conclusion, and there are refusals that rely on it.
So the key question today is not whether favourable decisions exist, but which category a particular person falls into, how exactly they were re-registered and what documents prove it. Below is the position of the Law Firm “Pravovyi Tsentr” (pcentr.com) and an overview of current case law.
Current as of 15 October 2026.
Age limits before 2014
Until 1 April 2014 the age limit for the second-category reserve (Article 28 of the Law of Ukraine “On Military Duty and Military Service”) was:
- privates — 40;
- sergeants and petty officers — 45;
- warrant officers — 50;
- junior officers — 50.
Laws No. 1169-VII and No. 1604-VII raised these limits in 2014. For privates, sergeants and petty officers the limit is now 60. This created a separate category of disputes: what happens to people who had already reached the old limit before the law changed, and could the state register them again many years later?
Who is affected
Mainly men who had already reached the old age limit by 1 April 2014 and are not yet 60:
- privates — born roughly between October 1966 and March 1974;
- sergeants and petty officers — born roughly between October 1966 and March 1969.
For warrant officers and junior officers the issue is now practically irrelevant: everyone who turned 50 before 2014 is already over 60.
But the year of birth is only a guide. What matters is the rank, the legal ground and the exact wording of the entry in the military registration documents.
Not only age: no military specialty
The former Article 37 of the Law (para. 8, part 6) provided another ground for exclusion: not obtaining a military specialty (or a related one) by the age of 40. Note that not having served does not by itself mean the person had no military or related specialty — this has to be checked in the documents.
This ground has its own time limit, unrelated to 2014: it was removed by Law No. 1357-IX, in force since 23 April 2021. So the question may also concern people who turned 40 after 2014 but before 23.04.2021.
In the decisions we cite, the courts refused. The Kyiv District Administrative Court on 29 June 2026 (case No. 320/8941/26) held that from 23.04.2021 this circumstance ceased to be a lawful ground for exclusion and dismissed the claim. The Zaporizhzhia District Administrative Court also refused in case No. 280/4219/26.
The Supreme Court: re-registration is possible
The authorities' main argument today is the Supreme Court ruling of 9 April 2026 in case No. 280/6524/24 (panel of the Administrative Cassation Court). The facts were strong for the claimant: a private excluded in 2011 under the age limit of the time, with entries in his military ID and passport. Even so, the court held that re-registering him in 2024 was lawful.
The Supreme Court's reasoning: once the age limit was raised, a person below the new threshold is again covered by the current rules. This is not retroactive application of the law but application of the new law to the person's present status.
Importantly, the arguments that exclusion is a completed legal fact and that Article 58 of the Constitution prohibits retroactivity were raised in that case and rejected. Simply repeating them in a new claim is not enough.
Decisions in favour of citizens
Despite the Supreme Court's position, there are decisions in people's favour.
The clearest is the Poltava District Administrative Court judgment of 22 September 2026 (case No. 440/4870/26, full text dated 28 September 2026). The man had been excluded on 15 May 2013 for reaching the age limit. On 19 May 2025 he was automatically registered again via the registers (under Cabinet Resolution No. 932) and was mobilised in October 2025. The court:
- declared the registration unlawful;
- set aside the mobilisation call-up order;
- ordered the military unit to remove him from its personnel lists;
- ordered the Oberih register to record his exclusion as of 15 May 2013.
The court's reasoning: once a person has lost the status of a person liable for military service through exclusion, a later change in age limits does not by itself restore that status.
The weaknesses must be stated honestly. The judgment has not yet taken effect and may be appealed. The Poltava court did not analyse Supreme Court ruling No. 280/6524/24, so the appeal court may reach a different conclusion.
Negative practice after the Supreme Court ruling
There are refusals relying on the Supreme Court. For example, the Kharkiv District Administrative Court on 2 October 2026 (case No. 520/11716/26) dismissed the claim of a man who believed he should have been excluded in 2014 on turning 40. The court relied on ruling No. 280/6524/24 and disregarded a favourable appellate decision in another case cited by the claimant: by law, courts must follow the conclusions of the Supreme Court, not of other courts.
That case is weaker than the Poltava one: judging by the decision, there was no exclusion entry — the man only believed he should have been excluded. But it shows the risk well: a favourable decision of another court does not by itself persuade the court.
Automatic registration: a separate issue
Some people were re-registered not by a TRC decision but automatically, through data exchange between registers under Cabinet Resolution No. 932 of 16 August 2024.
By its ruling of 16 September 2026 (case No. 320/31215/25), the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal declared paragraphs 17 and 17-1 of that resolution unlawful and invalid insofar as they provided for automatic registration of people excluded from registration, and ordered the Cabinet of Ministers to bring the resolution into line with the law and regulate how such registration is cancelled. The appellate ruling took effect on the day it was adopted — 16 September 2026.
According to a media report of 13 October 2026, the Cabinet has filed a cassation appeal and a motion to suspend the ruling. At the time of publication no Supreme Court decision on opening proceedings or on suspension had been published — this should be checked at the time of applying.
In that case the person had been excluded in 2017 on health grounds, not age. For age cases the ruling is not an automatic win, but it can be an important argument where the re-registration was automatic. Even so, finding automatic registration unlawful does not answer whether a TRC may later register the person by another lawful route — and there the Supreme Court's position applies again.
It is therefore important to establish not only the date of the old exclusion, but also who re-entered the person into the register, when, by what document and on what basis.
“Deregistered” and “excluded” are not the same
When a person is deregistered, they usually remain liable for military service — only the place of registration changes. Exclusion has different consequences: the person loses that status. The Supreme Court described this general distinction in its ruling of 21 May 2025 (case No. 280/2880/24). But that case concerned deregistration on emigration, not the age limit, so it does not answer our question directly.
So the prospects depend not only on the date and age, but also on the exact wording of the old entry in the military ID or archive records.
Former police and rescue service officers
A special rank such as “senior police lieutenant” does not by itself mean the military rank of “reserve senior lieutenant”. Status is determined by the military registration documents: which military rank is recorded, whether a military specialty was assigned, the reserve category, and whether there is an exclusion entry and on what ground. Two people with the same career do not necessarily have the same legal prospects.
Position of the Law Firm “Pravovyi Tsentr”
Pravovyi Tsentr's lawyers believe that the arguments of people who were properly excluded from registration before 2014 deserve to be heard in court, and they share the approach of the courts that side with them.
At the same time, the firm stresses that Supreme Court ruling No. 280/6524/24 is a serious obstacle, and courts must take its conclusions into account. The risk of refusal in such cases is significant, and any favourable decision may be reviewed on appeal or cassation. No one can guarantee the outcome.
In the lawyers' view, the best prospects are in cases with specific differences from the one the Supreme Court decided: how exactly the person was re-registered, by whom and on what basis, what the old documents say, and whether mobilisation has already happened.
Pravovyi Tsentr's lawyers have many years of experience obtaining academic legal opinions from scholars of the Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University (formerly the National Law Academy of Ukraine) and use them in complex cases to prepare arguments. Their limits: an academic opinion is not binding on the court, and a procedural expert opinion on law under Articles 112–113 of the Code of Administrative Procedure is only possible on analogy of law and on the content of foreign law. An academic view does not by itself outweigh the Supreme Court's conclusions.
Does a lawsuit stop mobilisation?
No. Filing a claim does not stop mobilisation procedures. Nor does filing an application for interim measures stop them automatically — a court order is required.
The court decides such an application under Articles 150–151 of the Code of Administrative Procedure: whether there are grounds for interim measures, whether the measure is proportionate to the claim and whether it is permissible in the specific situation. The law also contains specific restrictions — in particular on suspending commanders' orders issued to service members under martial law.
Specific documents — a summons, a referral to a medical board, a status change in Oberih, other TRC actions — help to justify the application but do not by themselves guarantee that the court will grant it.
Why act before mobilisation
Once enlisted in a unit, the person becomes a service member, and the dispute concerns not only registration but also whether the military service relationship arose lawfully. The Poltava court restored the pre-mobilisation position in such a case, but one should not count on every court doing the same.
What to check before assessing prospects
Prospects cannot be assessed from the year of birth alone. You need to establish:
- date of birth;
- military rank as of 1 April 2014;
- whether the person served;
- whether a military specialty was obtained;
- what exactly the old military ID says;
- whether there is an “excluded from military registration” entry;
- on what ground and with what date it was made;
- whether an archived registration card exists;
- when, by whom and by what document the person was re-registered — by a TRC decision or automatically via the registers;
- what Oberih and Reserve+ currently show;
- whether the person has since passed a medical board;
- whether a new military registration document was issued;
- whether there are written replies from the TRC;
- whether there are specific mobilisation actions now.
Documents that often need to be requested
People often do not have a complete set of old documents. Relevant may be:
- the archived registration card;
- records of registration, deregistration and exclusion;
- the ground for the old exclusion and copies of the military commissariat's decisions;
- data on the assignment or absence of a military specialty and the reserve category;
- information on who re-entered the person into Oberih, when and on what basis (TRC decision or automatic entry), and the history of changes to the record.
These documents show whether the case has real prospects — or that there are not sufficient grounds to go to court. A lawyer's request to the TRC can help obtain the available documents and information; the scope of the reply depends on what the recipient holds, its powers and the legal access regime for the information.
How to order requests online
- Package “Full military registration history” — UAH 10,000: a consolidated request to the TRC of current registration, a request to the TRC or archive of previous registration, and one follow-up request to the competent body. Separately these would cost UAH 12,000.
- A single lawyer's request to the TRC — UAH 4,000, if you only need the current status.
Requests are placed online on this website and sent by the partner lawyer.
Where to start
Not with a lawsuit. First check the old military registration documents, establish the legal ground in force on the relevant date, obtain the missing archive and register data and compare them with the current records. Only then can a strategy be chosen: correcting the data, further requests, going to court, interim measures.
Being 40, 45 or 50 does not by itself mean a person can be excluded from registration today, and an old entry does not guarantee the outcome. After the Supreme Court ruling the risk of refusal is significant, but there are decisions in citizens' favour. What matters is the specific registration history, how the re-registration happened and the documents that prove it.
The lawyers of the Law Firm “Pravovyi Tsentr” can review your military registration documents and assess the prospects in your situation — pcentr.com.
This material is based on the position of the Law Firm “Pravovyi Tsentr”, is for information only and does not guarantee the outcome of any specific case.