Father of three children declared wanted for failure to appear at the military enlistment office and fined 25,500 UAH: how the case ended

The Bila Tserkva City District Court of Kyiv region reviewed administrative case No. 357/7411/25 filed by a conscripted person against the Territorial Center for Recruitment and Social Support (TCRC) regarding the cancellation of the decision on administrative liability under part 3 of article 210 of the Code of Administrative Offenses and the imposition of a fine of 25,500 UAH. The court examined the issue of proper notification of the person about the summons to the TCRC and the availability of evidence of violation of military registration rules.

Case circumstances

The head of the district territorial center for recruitment and social support, by a decision dated April 8, 2025, held the conscripted person administratively liable under part 3 of article 210 of the Code of Administrative Offenses and imposed a fine of 25,500 UAH. The basis was the claim of failure to appear on the summons dated January 16, 2025, for updating military registration data.

The plaintiff appealed the decision to the court. He stated that as of the date of the summons, his military registration data were up to date, he had passed the military-medical commission in May 2024, and also had a valid deferment from conscription during mobilization as a father of three minor children according to paragraph 3 of part 1 of article 23 of the Law "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization." This deferment had previously been granted and was valid until May 2025.

According to the plaintiff, after receiving an electronic notification from the TCRC, he independently scheduled an appointment through the Ministry of Defense's electronic service for January 14, 2025, arrived at the appointed time, registered in the visitor log, submitted the necessary documents, and was informed that the issue with the summons likely arose by mistake. He did not receive any additional summons or notification about the need to appear again. In March 2025, while visiting the MIA service center, he learned that he was wanted for alleged failure to appear at the TCRC on January 16, 2025. At the TCRC, he explained that he had already visited the institution on January 14 and provided all necessary documents; however, an administrative offense report had been drawn up against him. Later, he received the fine decision by mail.

During the case review, the court established that the plaintiff was registered for military service, had a military ID in the "Obereg" registry, passed the military-medical commission, and was deemed fit for military service. His status as a father of multiple children and the deferment from conscription during mobilization until May 9, 2025, were also confirmed.

The defendant did not submit a response to the claim or provide the court with the requested administrative case materials on which the contested decision was based.

Court's position and conclusions

The court noted that holding a person administratively liable is possible only if the principle of legality is observed and there is proper evidence of the event and the composition of the administrative offense. The duty to collect evidence lies with authorized officials, and in administrative cases challenging decisions of authorities, the defendant must prove the legality of their decision.

The court pointed out that according to the Procedure for conscription of citizens for military service during mobilization, approved by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 560, proper confirmation of notification of a conscript about the summons is either personal delivery of the summons or confirmation of its receipt or proper notification through a postal operator. To hold a person liable for failure to appear, it is necessary to prove the fact of sending the summons to the correct address and the fact of proper notification of the person about the summons.

From the case materials, the court found that the summons was not personally delivered to the plaintiff. There was also no evidence that the postal operator notified him about the arrival of a registered letter marked "TCRC Summons" or left a corresponding notice in the mailbox. Under these circumstances, the court found the plaintiff's arguments reasonable that he was not properly notified about the need to appear at the TCRC and Social Support.

The court concluded that under paragraph 41 of Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 560, the plaintiff cannot be considered properly notified about the summons to the TCRC and therefore cannot bear legal responsibility for failure to appear. Additionally, the court took into account that the plaintiff had a valid deferment from conscription, was registered for military service, passed the military-medical commission, and provided evidence of visiting the TCRC on January 14, 2025, which indicates no intent to evade military obligations.

Referring to article 62 of the Constitution of Ukraine and the practice of the Supreme Court, the court emphasized that all doubts regarding the proof of a person's guilt are interpreted in their favor, and unproven facts of the offense and guilt are equated with proven innocence. Meanwhile, the defendant did not provide any evidence confirming the legality of the issued decision and did not exercise the right to submit a response to the claim.

As a result, the Bila Tserkva City District Court of Kyiv region concluded that there was no proper evidence of the plaintiff violating the requirements of part 3 of article 210 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, satisfied the claim, canceled the decision of the head of the TCRC imposing a fine of 25,500 UAH, and closed the proceedings in the administrative offense case.

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