The Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court ruled that the Territorial Center for Recruitment and Social Support’s (TCRSS) refusal to remove a Ukrainian citizen—who had officially changed her gender from male to female—from the military registry was unlawful, and ordered the center to make the corresponding changes to the “Oberig” registry.
According to the civic movement “All Together!” citing the court’s decision, the case concerns a citizen who was previously registered for military service as a male subject to military service and, after officially changing her gender, received documents indicating her female gender.
After obtaining her new documents, she applied to the Territorial Military Registration and Enlistment Office (TMC) to be removed from the military registry. However, the agency refused, citing that a change of gender is not explicitly provided for by law as an independent basis for removal from the registry. In addition, TMC representatives insisted that she undergo a military medical examination.
The court found that the plaintiff had no medical or pharmaceutical education or specialization that could serve as a basis for mandatory military registration of women. Furthermore, she had not submitted an application for voluntary registration.
In the court’s view, the absence in the legislation of a separate procedure for removal from military registration following an official change of gender cannot serve as grounds for denying the protection of a citizen’s rights. The court also noted that it is impermissible to apply to the plaintiff the rules intended for men after she officially changed her legal status.
As a result, the court fully granted the claim, ruled that the TCC’s refusal was unlawful, and overturned it. The agency was ordered to remove the plaintiff from the military registration of conscripts and to update her information in the Unified State Register of Conscripts, Military-Age Persons, and Reservists, “Oberig.”
The decision was issued on October 15, 2026, in Case No. 160/22278/26. It may be appealed.
COURT, military registration, OBERIG, Territorial Military Commissariat, UKRAINE
According to Experts.news, all ten of Ukraine’s largest corporate plaintiffs—based on the number of new court cases in 2026—operate in the financial sector. Furthermore, among the 100 most active legal entities that filed lawsuits, 39 are engaged in lending and providing other financial services, according to data from the “OpenDataBot” study published on October 28, 2026.
According to data from the court registry, the largest number of cases filed in the incomplete year of 2026 were initiated by the financial company “Ukr Credit Finance”—80,421.
Second place goes to “Consumer Center” with 68,076 cases, third to “Universal Bank” with 25,544, fourth to “Accent Bank” with 22,002, and fifth to “Factoring Partners” with 19,688.
In sixth place is “Unit Capital” with 19,050 cases. Next are “Digi Finance” with 17,050 cases, “Collect Center” with 16,699, “Credit Capital” with 15,613, and the “European Debt Recovery Agency” with 14,993.
Thus, according to calculations based on the published ranking, the ten largest corporate plaintiffs account for a total of over 299,000 new court cases for the incomplete year of 2026.
At the same time, just two leaders—“Ukr Credit Finance” and “Consumer Center”—appear in 148,497 cases, accounting for nearly half of the top ten’s combined total.
Compared to 2025, the structure of the ranking has changed significantly.
“Ukr Credit Finance” rose from eighth place to first, and “Factoring Partners” rose from 17th to fifth.
“Universal Bank” improved its position from fifth to third, and “Accent Bank” from sixth to fourth. “Unit Capital” rose from ninth to sixth place, “Digi Finance” from 15th to seventh, and “Collect Center” from 13th to eighth.
At the same time, the “European Debt Recovery Agency,” which ranked first in 2025, fell to tenth place.
The ranking indicates a high concentration of legal actions among credit market participants; however, it does not allow for determining what proportion of these lawsuits was successful or what amounts were actually recovered from debtors.
Utilities and energy companies also play a significant role among the top 100 corporate plaintiffs.
According to “OpenDataBot,” 24 entities in the ranking operate in the electricity, gas, heating, and water supply sectors.
Another 14 organizations belong to the public administration sector.
Thus, the most active corporate plaintiffs are predominantly organizations whose activities are related to consumers’ financial obligations, the provision of financial or utility services, and the performance of government functions.
Vasyl Krat, a judge on the Supreme Court of Ukraine, attributes the high level of litigation activity by creditors to the limited options for out-of-court debt collection on consumer loans.
According to him, for banks and financial companies, going to court in many cases remains the primary means of enforcing debt collection.
At the same time, court proceedings allow for verification of the validity of the creditor’s claims, including the legality of the interest charged.
The “OpenDataBot” study covers court cases from 2025–2026 in which legal entities served as plaintiffs. The published results for 2026 are preliminary and are compared with the full previous calendar year.
Source: “OpenDataBot,” a study of Ukraine’s largest corporate plaintiffs dated October 28, 2026.
Only 5 criminal cases involving the forgery, destruction, or replacement of VIN codes and other vehicle identification numbers were referred to court in Ukraine during the first nine months of 2026. This represents about 1% of the 599 offenses registered during this period, according to OpenDataBot, citing data from the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine.
In total, from 2020 through September 2026, 11,417 criminal offenses were registered in Ukraine under Article 290 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Of these, 7,152—or about 63%—remain on the docket. In nearly seven years, only 69 cases were sent to court—about 1% of the total number of recorded offenses.
According to OpenDataBot, in previous years, about 40% of such cases were closed for various reasons, including the absence of an incident or the lack of elements constituting a criminal offense. In 2026, one in five open cases was closed, and the number of active cases stands at 473.
At the same time, the number of registered offenses is increasing compared to last year. In the first nine months of 2026, 599 such cases were recorded, compared to 387 during the same period in 2025—a 22% increase.
The highest number of offenses related to the forgery, destruction, or alteration of vehicle identification numbers was recorded in Kyiv—169 cases, or 28% of the total. In the Dnipropetrovsk region, 114 cases (19%) were recorded, and in the Odesa region, 45 (8%). Thus, these three regions account for more than half of all offenses recorded over the nine-month period.
Under Article 290 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the destruction, forgery, or replacement of a vehicle’s identification number is punishable by a fine ranging from 2,550 to 4,250 UAH, community service for up to two years, probation, or restriction of liberty for up to three years.
Source: OpenDataBot.
In Ukraine, 1,293 personal bankruptcy cases were filed from January through September 2026, which is 37% more than during the same period in 2025. The highest number of such cases was recorded in Kyiv, Kyiv Oblast, and Lviv Oblast, according to data from the Supreme Court published on October 19 by “OpenDataBot,” a service that monitors state registries.
According to the study, the number of personal bankruptcy cases has been rising for the fourth consecutive year following a decline in 2022. In 2021, 496 cases were filed; in 2022, 374; in 2023, 576; in 2024, 927; and in 2025, 1,348.
Thus, in just the first nine months of 2026, the number of cases already exceeded the total for all of 2024 by 39.5% and accounted for nearly 96% of the total for all of 2025.
In total, 5,014 cases of individual insolvency have been recorded in Ukraine since the beginning of 2021.
The largest share of citizens who initiated bankruptcy proceedings in 2026 consists of people aged 25 to 45. This category accounts for 876 cases, or 67.7% of the total.
Another 304 cases, or 23.5%, involve individuals over 45 years of age, while 113 cases, or 8.7%, were filed by citizens under 25 years of age. The youngest applicant is 20 years old, and the oldest is 77.
In terms of gender distribution, 2026 marked the first time that women outnumbered men among the parties to such proceedings: 685 women versus 608 men. Women accounted for 53%, whereas in 2025, men accounted for 51%.
Regionally, the courts in Kyiv handled the largest number of insolvency cases involving individuals—228 proceedings. Compared to the first nine months of 2025, this number increased by 57.2% from 145 cases.
The Kyiv region ranked second with 130 proceedings, and the Lviv region ranked third with 109. These three regions account for 467 cases, or 36.1% of the national total.
In the Kyiv region, the number of cases rose by 85.7%, from 70 to 130, and in the Lviv region, by 43.4%, from 76 to 109.
Among the regions with a notable increase in the number of cases are also the Kirovohrad region, where the figure rose by 115%, from 20 to 43 cases; the Ternopil region—by 64.3%, from 28 to 46; and the Kharkiv region—by 59.4%, from 32 to 51.
At the same time, some regions saw a decrease in the number of cases. Specifically, in Vinnytsia Oblast, the figure fell by 18.2%, from 77 to 63 cases; in Odesa Oblast, by 5.9%, from 68 to 64; and in Mykolaiv Oblast, by 31.3%, from 16 to 11.
The increase in the number of insolvency cases may indicate both a rise in the debt burden on individual households and more active use by citizens of the debt settlement procedure provided for by law. At the same time, these statistics alone do not allow for determining the causes of bankruptcy for each applicant.
Individuals in Ukraine gained the ability to initiate bankruptcy proceedings in October 2019, following the entry into force of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures.
Unlike corporate bankruptcy, insolvency proceedings against an individual can be initiated only upon the individual’s own petition. Creditors do not have the right to initiate such proceedings against an individual on their own.
However, the opening of proceedings does not automatically mean that the person is declared bankrupt or that all their debts are discharged. The court proceedings may involve debt restructuring, the satisfaction of creditors’ claims through the sale of assets, and subsequent discharge from certain obligations in cases provided for by law.
Certain types of debt, such as child support obligations, are not subject to discharge as a result of bankruptcy proceedings.
In addition, for five years after being declared bankrupt, the individual is required to disclose their status before entering into loan, credit, surety, or pledge agreements. Reopening an insolvency case during this period is also restricted by law.
You can check information about an individual’s bankruptcy through the “OpenDataBot” service using their tax ID number.
“OpenDataBot” is a Ukrainian service that monitors public registries, providing information on companies, entrepreneurs, court decisions, debt obligations, and other legally significant data. The service regularly publishes analytical reports based on government statistics and open data.
Source: “OpenDataBot”
According to OpenDataBot, Ukrainian courts are overturning fines imposed by Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centers (TRSSCs) on corporate accountants for violations of military registration rules, primarily due to a lack of evidence of the employees’ personal culpability and an improper definition of their job responsibilities.
According to an OpenDataBot study published on October 16, 2026, in six out of eight identified court cases from 2024–2026, the accountants’ claims were granted in full, and in one other case, they were granted in part. Only in one instance did the court uphold the TCC’s position.
One of the main reasons for the annulment of administrative penalties was the lack of specificity regarding the violations. In particular, the TCC noted general shortcomings in the organization of military registration at enterprises but did not always specify which specific actions or omissions the accountant had committed.
The courts also noted that certain violations pertained to the organizational functions of the enterprise’s management, rather than to the employees responsible for the day-to-day maintenance of documentation.
Case No. 179/1326/26, heard on July 30, 2026, by the Magdalinivka District Court of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, is illustrative.
The chief accountant of the municipal enterprise “Magdalynivsky Butter Plant” challenged the decision of the Tax and Customs Committee dated April 29, 2026, imposing a fine of 59,500 UAH under Part 3 of Article 210-1 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses.
During the proceedings, the court found that there were insufficient grounds to hold the employee administratively liable. In particular, it noted the need for a clear definition of her official duties and for establishing the elements of the offense.
As a result of the proceedings, the court overturned the decision imposing a fine of 59,500 UAH and dismissed the administrative offense case due to the absence of the elements of the offense.
At the same time, the claim was partially granted, as the court denied a separate request to declare the decision unlawful, explaining that its overturning already constituted the appropriate legal assessment.
The court also ordered that 532.48 UAH in court costs be awarded to the plaintiff, to be paid from the defendant’s budgetary allocations.
According to Resolution No. 1487 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated December 30, 2022, the personal military registration of employees at enterprises must be carried out by responsible persons designated in accordance with established procedures.
Responsibility for organizing military registration rests with the enterprise’s director. The actual maintenance of records is typically carried out by human resources staff or other authorized employees.
Thus, the position of accountant does not in itself automatically entail the assignment of all military registration duties to the employee. At the same time, an accountant may perform the relevant duties if they have been properly assigned to him or her. In such a case, the possibility of administrative liability depends on the nature of the violation, the defined scope of authority, and the availability of evidence of guilt.
The reviewed case law underscores the importance of properly documenting responsibility for military registration at enterprises. It also confirms the need to individually establish an official’s guilt when imposing an administrative fine.
OpenDataBot is a Ukrainian platform for monitoring open government data that provides information from government registries, court decisions, and enforcement proceedings. The service also conducts analytical research on business activities, judicial practice, and economic processes in Ukraine.
Source: OpenDataBot, study dated October 16, 2026.
Court decision: Magdalynivka District Court, Case No. 179/1326/26 dated July 30, 2026.
Ukrainian courts have fully upheld six out of eight lawsuits filed by corporate accountants challenging fines imposed by Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centers (TRSSCs) for violations of military registration rules, according to a study by OpenDataBot published on October 16, 2026.
According to analysts who used the “Babusia” court registry search engine, at least eight relevant court decisions were identified between 2024 and 2026. In six cases—or 75%—the courts ruled entirely in favor of the accountants. Another lawsuit was partially granted, while in one case the court refused to overturn the fine.
Thus, the plaintiffs’ claims were fully or partially granted in seven of the eight cases reviewed, accounting for 87.5% of the identified rulings.
In seven cases, the Tax Control Chambers imposed fines of 34,000 UAH on the accountants; in one other case, the administrative penalty amounted to 59,500 UAH. The total amount of the contested fines in the eight cases reached 297,500 UAH.
The first two court decisions are dated 2024. Three similar cases were identified in 2025, and three more decisions were issued in 2026.
The geographic scope of the legal disputes covers seven regions of Ukraine. The highest number of cases was recorded in the Khmelnytskyi region—two. Courts in the Dnipropetrovsk, Chernihiv, Ternopil, Ivano-Frankivsk, Kharkiv, and Kyiv regions each issued one ruling.
According to the analysis, the main reasons for overturning the fines were an insufficient evidentiary basis on the part of the Tax and Customs Service, a lack of specificity regarding the violations, and an improper identification of the responsible officials.
In particular, the rulings on administrative offenses did not always specify exactly what actions or omissions the accountant committed, when the violation occurred, or which specific duties were not fulfilled.
Analysts also point to cases where responsibility for organizational matters related to military registration was placed on the accountant, even though such authority belongs to the company’s management.
At the same time, the obligation to maintain military registration records does not automatically fall on an accounting department employee. Typically, these functions are performed by human resources staff or specifically designated company employees.
The eight court decisions identified do not cover all cases in which accountants were held administratively liable and do not allow for determining the overall proportion of fines imposed by the Tax and Customs Service of Ukraine that were subsequently overturned.
OpenDataBot is a Ukrainian service for monitoring open government data that provides information on companies, court decisions, enforcement proceedings, and other government registries. The company regularly publishes analytical studies on economic activity, judicial practice, and administrative procedures.
