The Territorial Recruitment Center did not prove the fact of proper summons of the military liable person — the court canceled the 17 thousand UAH fine

The Svitlovodsk City District Court of Kirovohrad region considered case No. 401/781/26 regarding the appeal against the decision of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center on holding a military liable person administratively liable under part three of article 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses for failure to appear upon summons to the Territorial Recruitment Center and Social Support.

Based on the review, the court concluded that there was no proper evidence of the person receiving the summons and canceled the decision imposing a fine of 17 thousand hryvnias, simultaneously closing the proceedings in the administrative offense case.

Case circumstances

The acting head of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center on January 4, 2026, issued a decision to hold the citizen administratively liable under part three of article 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. The basis for imposing the 17 thousand hryvnias fine was the failure to appear upon summons to the Territorial Recruitment Center and Social Support at the time and place specified in the summons.

The plaintiff applied to the court demanding to recognize the decision illegal and cancel it. He stated that he had not received any summons or other call to the Territorial Recruitment Center and Social Support and therefore was unaware of the need to report to the respective authority. The plaintiff also indicated that he was registered for military service, timely updated his military registration data through the Administrative Service Center, and only learned about the existence of the decision after logging into the mobile application "Reserve+".

From the case materials, it was established that as of March 2026, the plaintiff was registered as a military liable person, timely updated his registration data in January 2026, passed the military-medical commission, and had a deferment from conscription.

Court's position

The court noted that to hold a person administratively liable for failure to appear at the Territorial Recruitment Center and Social Support, it is necessary to establish the fact of proper notification about the summons, compliance of the summons with legal requirements, and absence of valid reasons for non-appearance.

The court drew attention to paragraph 41 of the Procedure for conscription of citizens for military service during mobilization, approved by the Cabinet of Ministers resolution No. 560 dated May 16, 2024, which defines an exhaustive list of evidence of proper notification of the military liable person about the summons to the Territorial Recruitment Center and Social Support. Such evidence may include a personal signature confirming receipt of the summons, video recording of its delivery, or postal operator documents confirming receipt or proper sending of the postal item.

Examining the case materials, the court found that there was no evidence of delivery of the summons to the plaintiff. Also, there was no evidence of proper notification of the person about the arrival of the registered letter marked "Summons of the Territorial Recruitment Center," including by phone notification or placing a notice in the mailbox.

The court emphasized that the lack of awareness of a person about the emergence of a certain obligation cannot indicate intentional non-fulfillment of such obligation.

Separately, the court took into account the amendments introduced by Law No. 3696-IX dated May 9, 2024, according to which the provisions of articles 210 and 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses do not apply in cases where the necessary personal data can be obtained by the holder of the Unified State Register of conscripts, military liable persons, and reservists through electronic information interaction with other state registers and information systems.

The court established that the plaintiff was registered for military service, timely updated his registration data, passed the military-medical commission, and received a deferment from conscription. Under such circumstances, the employees of the Territorial Recruitment Center and Social Support had the opportunity to obtain the necessary information about him from the relevant state registers.

What the court decided

The court noted that holding a person administratively liable is possible only if there is an administrative offense event and proven guilt of the person confirmed by proper evidence.

At the same time, the contested decision lacked a factual description of the violation and was limited to quoting the legal norms allegedly violated.

The court also emphasized that the burden of proving the legality of its decision lies with the authority. The defendant did not provide evidence confirming that the plaintiff received the summons, was properly notified about the summons to the Territorial Recruitment Center and Social Support, or that there was an administrative offense in his actions.

Given the unproven circumstances underlying the decision on the administrative offense, the court recognized it as illegal and canceled it, closing the proceedings in the case. In addition, at the expense of the defendant's budget allocations, court costs in the amount of 1331.20 UAH were recovered in favor of the plaintiff.

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