The conscript did not come to the Territorial Recruitment Center due to surgery and was later fined 17 thousand hryvnias

The Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal canceled the Territorial Recruitment Center's decision to impose a 17 thousand hryvnia fine on the conscript for violating mobilization legislation and closed the case proceedings. The court concluded that the Territorial Recruitment Center did not take into account the citizen's notification about the inability to appear due to health reasons, and his guilt in committing the offense was not proven by proper evidence.

The panel of judges also noted that the Territorial Recruitment Center did not specify which military registration data required clarification, although the case materials show that the plaintiff's data were timely updated through the "Reserve+" application. Under these circumstances, the appellate court concluded that there was no administrative offense.

Case circumstances

In February 2025, the conscript received a summons to the Territorial Recruitment Center to clarify military registration data. He did not appear on the specified date but on February 25 submitted a statement to the center explaining his inability to appear due to health reasons.

Later, the man was informed about the consideration of the case regarding his administrative liability. On the eve of the hearing, he again applied to the center stating he was undergoing inpatient treatment and requested to postpone the session. Despite this, the head of the center issued a decision to hold him liable under part three of article 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses and imposed a fine of 17 thousand hryvnias.

The Liubeshiv District Court of Volyn region denied the claim to cancel the decision, after which the conscript filed an appeal.

Plaintiff's position

The plaintiff argued that he did not evade his duties but timely informed the center about his inability to appear due to health reasons and provided relevant documents. He also emphasized that after his health improved, he voluntarily came to the center, underwent a military-medical commission, and completed the necessary military registration procedures.

Additionally, the man pointed out that his request to postpone the hearing due to treatment was ignored, and the case was considered without his participation.

What the appellate court found

The panel of judges noted that the contested decision stated the conscript not only failed to appear but also did not notify the reasons for absence within three days.

However, the case materials showed otherwise. The court established that on February 25, 2025, the plaintiff submitted a statement to the center about his inability to appear due to health reasons. Therefore, the conclusion that he did not notify the reasons for absence did not correspond to the actual circumstances.

The appellate court emphasized that the evidence in the case confirmed the valid reasons for the plaintiff's failure to appear within the summons deadline, and his submitted statement was not properly considered during the center's case review.

The significance of the Military Medical Commission's conclusion and data in "Reserve+"

The court also took into account that after the case review, the military-medical commission declared the plaintiff temporarily unfit for military service due to health reasons. According to the panel, this additionally confirmed the plaintiff's claims about health issues he had previously referenced.

Separately, the appellate court noted the remark to article 210 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, according to which the provisions of articles 210 and 210-1 do not apply if the necessary personal data can be obtained through electronic information interaction between state registries and information systems.

The panel stated that neither the summons nor the center's decision specified which military registration data needed clarification. Meanwhile, the case materials show that according to the extract from the "Reserve+" application, the plaintiff's data were updated in a timely manner.

Court conclusions

The appellate court concluded that the plaintiff's guilt in violating mobilization preparation and mobilization legislation was not proven by proper and sufficient evidence. The court stressed that holding a person administratively liable is possible only if the offense and the person's guilt are proven by proper evidence.

According to the panel, the Territorial Recruitment Center failed to fully consider the case and did not establish all the circumstances necessary to hold the person liable. As a result, the appellate instance in case No. 162/629/25 overturned the district court's decision, satisfied the claim, canceled the center's decision to impose a 17 thousand hryvnia fine, and closed the administrative offense case. Additionally, 1,514 hryvnias of the paid court fee were recovered in favor of the plaintiff at the expense of the defendant's budget allocations.

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