Court Denied the Territorial Recruitment Center's Request to Restrict Driving Rights of a Military Reservist: Delivery of the Demand Not Proven

The Hlukhiv City District Court of Sumy Region considered in an open court hearing, under simplified administrative proceedings, a case filed by the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center against a citizen regarding temporary restriction of the right to drive a vehicle during mobilization.

Essence of the Case

The plaintiff filed an administrative lawsuit requesting to temporarily restrict the defendant's right to drive vehicles during the mobilization period due to his failure to fulfill obligations prescribed by the legislation on mobilization preparation and mobilization.

Supporting the claim, the plaintiff stated that a summons to appear at the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center was sent to the defendant by postal means. According to the postal operator's note about the citizen's absence at the place of residence, the defendant is considered duly notified in accordance with paragraph 41 of the Procedure for Conscription of Citizens for Military Service during Mobilization, approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Resolution No. 560 dated May 16, 2024.

The plaintiff indicated that the defendant did not appear at the Territorial Recruitment Center at the date and time specified in the summons and did not provide reasons for absence, thus violating the requirements of parts one and three of Article 22 of the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization," which, according to the plaintiff, constitutes an administrative offense under Article 210-1 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses.

Separately, the plaintiff filed a motion to renew the deadline for filing the lawsuit, citing consequences of military actions, including damage to the administrative building of the Territorial Recruitment Center caused by a strike from a "Geran-2" type unmanned aerial vehicle, which resulted in the loss of some evidence and the need to restore it.

Court's Conclusions

The court established that the proceedings were initiated by court order and scheduled for consideration under simplified administrative proceedings. The parties did not appear at the hearing; however, the plaintiff submitted a request to consider the case in his absence and supported the claims in full.

The case materials confirm that the defendant is registered for military accounting at the relevant Territorial Recruitment Center. Summons and demands to appear for updating records and fulfilling obligations prescribed by law were sent to his registration and military accounting address.

At the same time, it was established that some postal items were returned due to the addressee's absence at the place of residence, and there is no confirmation of actual delivery of the demand to fulfill military obligations to the address unquestionably belonging to or confirmed as the defendant's place of residence.

The court also took into account the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine regarding the obligation of state authorities to act solely on the basis and within the powers defined by law, as well as the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization," the Presidential Decree on general mobilization, and Cabinet of Ministers resolutions regulating the procedure for summoning citizens and consequences of their failure to appear.

The court noted that according to Article 27 of the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization" and Article 283-2 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, the application of temporary restriction on the right to drive a vehicle is possible only if a set of legally significant circumstances is proven, including proper delivery of the demand, failure to fulfill obligations, and confirmation of administrative detention measures taken.

In case No. 576/1009/26, the court concluded that the plaintiff did not prove with proper and admissible evidence the fact of delivery of the demand to fulfill military obligations specifically to the defendant at his place of residence or stay. Sending the demand to another address without proper confirmation of residence there cannot be considered proper delivery under the law.

Therefore, the court found the absence of one of the mandatory conditions necessary for applying temporary restriction on the right to drive a vehicle, namely proper delivery of the demand by the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center.

Considering the above, the court concluded that there is no set of legal grounds provided by law to satisfy the plaintiff's claims.

The court renewed the deadline for filing the lawsuit and denied the claim.

An appeal may be filed within the period established by law to the relevant appellate administrative court. The decision becomes legally binding after the expiration of the appeal period if no appeal is filed.

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