Man fined for "illegal hunting" with a hunting dog: video proved no violation

Disputes regarding holding citizens administratively liable for hunting rules violations often boil down to the evaluation of evidence on which the controlling authority based the fact of the offense. At the same time, the administrative offense protocol itself or references to photographic materials do not exempt the authority from the obligation to prove the legality of its decision in court.

Legislation imposes on the authority the duty to confirm with proper and admissible evidence all circumstances that served as grounds for holding a person liable. If such evidence is not provided or does not allow establishing the fact of the offense, the decision must be canceled.

This conclusion was reached by the Kovel City District Court of Volyn region after considering a case filed by a citizen against the State Environmental Inspectorate of Volyn region seeking to cancel the decision imposing an administrative penalty for hunting rules violations.

The court examined the legality of the inspector's decision that held the person administratively liable under Part One of Article 85 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses for being in hunting grounds with a hunting dog during a prohibited hunting time without the necessary permits.

Case essence

The plaintiff claimed he did not commit the alleged offense. In the court session, he explained that the dog was in a cage in the car, and the group of people was on the roadside, not directly in the forest. According to him, their purpose was not hunting but conducting field tests of hunting dogs scheduled to start at 10:00. At the time the environmental inspectors arrived, the tests had not yet begun.

The State Environmental Inspectorate opposed the claim. The defendant stated that the decision was based on the administrative offense protocol. According to the inspectorate, the plaintiff's actions indicated hunting rules violations. The defendant also emphasized that conducting field tests of hunting dogs is only possible under a set of legally prescribed conditions, including allocation of a special area by the hunting grounds user, approval by the authorized body, and compliance of the place, time, and procedure with the relevant permits.

The court found that by the decision dated March 30, 2026, the citizen was held administratively liable under Part One of Article 85 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses. The basis for the fine was the inspector's conclusion that on March 28, 2026, at 09:22, he was in the state hunting reserve near the village of Budyshche, Kovel district, with a hunting dog of the "West Siberian Laika" breed during prohibited hunting time and without the necessary permits.

The decision stated that such actions violated the Law "On Hunting Economy and Hunting" and the Law "On the Animal World." Simultaneously, an administrative offense protocol was drawn up, citing photographic materials as evidence of the violation.

Court's position

The court in case No. 159/2114/26 noted that according to Part Two of Article 77 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, the burden of proving the legality of the decision lies with the authority.

Reviewing the case materials, the court analyzed the provisions of the Law "On Hunting Economy and Hunting," which regulate the order of hunting, conducting field tests of hunting dogs, and establish liability for hunting rules violations.

The court also noted that the administrative offense decision referenced certain provisions of Article 20 of the Law "On Hunting Economy and Hunting" but did not specify which parts were violated. Similarly, it did not specify which violation of Article 63 of the Law "On the Animal World" the person was held liable for.

The administrative offense protocol stated that photographic materials were evidence of the violation. However, the defendant did not provide the court with any evidence underlying the contested decision that could confirm the circumstances described therein.

Instead, from the video submitted by the plaintiff, the court established the circumstances of the protocol's preparation. The video showed the citizen denying the dog was unsupervised and demonstrating to the inspectors that the animal was in a cage in the car.

Under these circumstances, the court concluded that the defendant did not prove the legality of the decision and did not provide proper evidence confirming the administrative offense.

Court conclusions

The Kovel City District Court of Volyn region recognized the legality of the State Environmental Inspectorate of Volyn region's decision holding the citizen administratively liable under Part One of Article 85 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses as unproven.

Accordingly, the court canceled the fine of 1020 UAH and closed the administrative offense case.

The court also ordered the State Environmental Inspectorate of Volyn region to pay the plaintiff court fees amounting to 665.60 UAH from its budget allocations.

The court emphasized that the absence of proper and admissible evidence confirming the circumstances of the offense prevents recognizing the decision holding a person administratively liable as lawful.

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.