Penalties for errors in military registration require clear rules, – UNBA

The liability of officials for violations of military registration rules must be legally defined, proportionate, and effectively enforceable. Otherwise, the new fines will not protect citizens from registration errors but will create additional risks.

The Ukrainian National Bar Association submitted comments to the Verkhovna Rada Committee on law enforcement regarding draft law No. 15115 dated March 30, 2026, «On amendments to article 210-1 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses regarding liability for violations of military registration rules by officials».

The document proposes imposing a fine of 10,000 non-taxable minimum incomes for «violation by an official of the procedure for maintaining military records of conscripts, persons subject to military service, or reservists, which resulted in the registration of persons who, in accordance with the law, are not subject to military registration as conscripts, persons subject to military service, or reservists».

The UNBA noted that the proper condition of military registration documentation is important not only for manning the armed forces but also for protecting citizens’ rights. This pertains, in particular, to preventing groundless detention, erroneous notification, or the unlawful registration of persons who are not subject to such registration. At the same time, in its proposed version, the draft law contains a number of technical-legal and substantive-legal shortcomings. Without further refinement, the new provision may become ineffective or create risks of violating the principles of legal certainty, proportionality, and the presumption of innocence.

In particular, the UNBA drew attention to the vagueness of the term «official» for the purposes of the new provision. Military registration involves various parties: the head of the enterprise, a human resources employee, the person responsible for employee records, and a mobilization officer. Without clarifying the responsible party, disputes will arise regarding whose specific action or inaction led to the violation.

Reports under Article 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses are drawn up by authorized officials of the TCC and the Special Purpose Unit (SPU). If the new provision is adopted without amendments to Article 255 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, a situation may arise where an official of the TCC must draw up a report regarding an official of the same TCC. The UNBA believes that, with regard to TCC officials, such reports should be drawn up by police officers.

Separately, the advocates noted that a fixed fine deprives the court of the ability to take into account the nature of the offense, the form of guilt, the identity of the offender, financial status, and other circumstances of the case.

It is also necessary to ensure the creation of technical prerequisites for proving guilt. This involves recording in the Unified State Register of Conscripts, Military Service Obligors and Reservists data regarding the person performing the registration action, the date, time, type of action, and the grounds for its performance. Without such a «digital trail», proving the guilt of a specific official will be difficult in many cases. Therefore, the Final Provisions of the draft should require the Ministry of Defense to ensure that the registry mandates the recording of a qualified electronic signature of the person performing the registration action.

In light of the above, the UNBA proposes a comprehensive revision of the draft law: to align it with the Code of Administrative Offenses, the Law «On military duty and military service», as well as subordinate legislation. Only under such conditions can liability become a real, rather than a declarative, instrument for ensuring the proper state of military registration.

The full text of the comments and proposals regarding Draft Law No. 15115 is available at this link.