Territorial Recruitment Centres Got More Time: How Courts Calculate Penalty Periods for Lack of Military Medical Commission in the 'Limited Fitness' Category

Under martial law and constant legislative changes, the issue of time limits for administrative liability under Articles 210 and 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (CAO) has become especially important. The most contentious cases involve individuals who had the status of "limited fitness" and were required to independently undergo a repeated medical examination by June 5, 2025. Court practice in June 2026 established a unified approach to calculating deadlines, which every conscript should know.

The problem arose after changes to the rules for undergoing military medical examination. From May 4, 2024, Law No. 3621-IX came into force, which removed the status of "limited fitness for military service" from the legislation.

According to the Final and Transitional Provisions of this Law (as amended by Law No. 4235-IX), citizens aged 25 to 60 who previously had the status of "limited fitness" were required to independently contact the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center (TRSSC) either directly or via the electronic cabinet to obtain a referral for the Military Medical Commission (MMC).

The deadline for fulfilling this obligation was set as June 5, 2025. That is, if the violation is considered completed on June 6, 2025, the deadline for imposing an administrative penalty is June 6, 2026. After this date, the TRSSC legally loses the ability to impose a fine for failing to initiate the MMC within the established timeframe.

At the same time, despite June 6, 2026 being the "deadline" for the one-year liability period, courts actively apply the concept of a continuing violation, allowing the TCC to impose fines throughout the entire year after the actual detection of the offender.

Court Practice

Appeal courts in 2026 developed a consistent position regarding the liability of such persons under Part 3 of Article 210-1 of the CAO (violation of mobilization legislation during a special period).

Priority of Independent Obligation: No Summons Required

The Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal, in its decision dated June 17, 2026, in case No. 595/130/26, confirmed that former "limited fitness" conscripts were required to independently undergo a repeated military medical examination by June 5, 2025, regardless of receiving a summons.

In the case, the plaintiff challenged a 17,000 UAH fine imposed after police delivered him to the TCC in December 2025. He claimed he had not received a summons to undergo the MMC.

However, the court noted that after legislative changes, the obligation to undergo a repeated medical examination rested directly on the conscript and did not depend on the delivery of a summons. Since the plaintiff did not prove that he contacted the TRSSC or underwent the MMC within the legally established period—from May 4, 2024, to June 5, 2025—the court upheld the fine as lawful.

The panel of judges rejected the complainant's arguments about missed deadlines for drawing up the administrative offense report, referring to Part 7 of Article 38 of the CAO.

The court emphasized that for offenses under Articles 210 and 210-1 of the CAO committed during a special period, special liability periods apply. In particular, an administrative penalty may be imposed within three months from the date the offense is detected, but no later than one year from the date of commission.

Thus, the appellate court concluded that no violation of deadlines was established in this case, and the arguments about the illegality of liability were unfounded.

How Liability Periods Are Calculated

The Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal, in its decision dated June 23, 2026, in case No. 359/502/26, recognized a fine for failure to undergo a repeated military medical commission as lawful and explained in detail the procedure for calculating liability periods.

The plaintiff, who was recognized as "limited fitness" back in 2011, was obliged to undergo a repeated MMC by June 5, 2025, but did not do so. The administrative penalty decision was issued on January 6, 2026.

The court determined that the date of the offense is the day following the deadline for fulfilling the obligation—June 6, 2025—since from that moment the obligation is considered unfulfilled.

At the same time, the date of detection of the offense was recognized by the appellate court as December 24, 2025—the date when the TRSSC conducted data verification through the "Oberig" system, officially establishing the absence of confirmation of MMC completion.

Considering these dates, the court concluded that the fine was imposed within the legally prescribed periods: 12 days after detection of the offense (within the three-month period) and seven months after its commission (within the one-year period).

Thus, the decision to impose the fine was upheld as lawful.

Concept of Continuing Violation and Penalty Periods

The Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal, in the same June 23, 2026 decision in case No. 359/502/26, also clarified the approach to calculating deadlines for imposing administrative penalties in cases of failure to undergo the military medical commission.

The plaintiff challenged the fine issued on January 6, 2026, arguing that the liability period expired on September 6, 2025—three months after the deadline for undergoing the MMC (June 5, 2025).

The court disagreed with these arguments, noting that the expiration of the deadline for fulfilling the obligation does not terminate the obligation itself. In such cases, the offense has a continuing nature, and the person remains in violation until the violation ceases or is detected.

The panel of judges indicated that the date of detection of the offense in this case is December 24, 2025—the date of data verification through the "Oberig" system when the absence of MMC completion information was established.

Accordingly, the three-month period for imposing an administrative penalty is calculated from the moment the offense is detected, and the one-year period—from the moment it was committed.

Based on these approaches, the court concluded that the fine was imposed within the legally prescribed periods, and the decision on liability is lawful.

Legality of Search and Data Entry into the "Oberig" System

The TRSSC has the right to enter data about violations of military registration into the "Oberig" register even before imposing an administrative fine. This provision was effectively confirmed by the decision of the Third Administrative Court of Appeal dated June 22, 2026, in case No. 280/9320/25.

The court considered a citizen's lawsuit demanding removal from the register of an entry about "violation of registration rules" and "search," arguing that no administrative penalty had yet been imposed on him.

The plaintiff argued that the absence of a penalty decision excludes grounds for any negative entries in state information systems and further actions regarding his detention.

However, the court sided with the territorial recruitment center. The decision stated that the mere fact of failing to undergo the military medical commission within the legally established period is sufficient grounds to record the violation in the "Oberig" register.

Moreover, the court recognized as lawful the TRSSC's further actions, including contacting the National Police for administrative detention and delivery of the person for drawing up the administrative offense report.

Thus, the court effectively confirmed the possibility of entering information about military registration violations into the state register even before completing the administrative liability procedure.

Additionally, the plaintiff argued that since he did not undergo the MMC by the deadline of June 5, 2025, the period for holding him liable under Article 38 of the CAO expired on September 6, 2025. In his opinion, after this date, there was no need to search for or deliver him, as the TRSSC no longer had the right to impose a fine.

The panel of judges rejected the plaintiff's arguments about expiration of limitation periods. Delivery to the TRSSC is carried out precisely for the purpose of drawing up the protocol if it is impossible to do so on the spot.

The court emphasized that the presence of the note "Violation of military registration rules" in the application is not a fact of liability but only reflects official data about non-fulfillment of the obligation, which remained unchanged at that time.

Summary

Courts have developed a unified approach: citizens who had the status of "limited fitness" had a personal and unconditional obligation to undergo a repeated examination by June 5, 2025. The argument of not receiving a summons is not grounds for canceling the fine, as the law clearly defined the obligation for active behavior by the citizen himself.

Article 38 of the CAO during a special period allows imposing fines within one year from the date of commission, but no later than three months from the date of detection. For most offenders, the deadline for liability is June 6, 2026. After this, the TRSSC legally loses the ability to punish for ignoring the 2025 deadline unless the violation is recognized as continuing in a specific case.

Courts confirmed the legality of entering data about searches and delivery of persons into the "Oberig" system if they missed the MMC deadline. Even if the penalty periods have expired, this does not automatically cancel the "wanted" status, as delivery is carried out to record the violation and draw up the protocol.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp pages on Facebook and Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.