Even with a deferral, you can receive a 17,000 hryvnia fine from the TRC: important requirement for those liable for military service

The Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal confirmed the legality of a 17,000 hryvnia fine imposed on a person liable for military service for violating military registration rules. The court concluded that the return of a postal item with a summons marked as the addressee being absent at the specified address is proper confirmation of notification about the call to the Territorial Center for Recruitment and Social Support (TRC). At the same time, the panel of judges emphasized that having a deferral from mobilization does not exempt a person liable for military service from the obligation to appear upon the call of the territorial recruitment and social support center.

Circumstances of the case

A citizen appealed to the court demanding the cancellation of the TRC's decision to hold him administratively liable under part three of article 210 of the Code of Administrative Offenses and to close the proceedings. The basis for the fine was his failure to appear at the TRC on the summons on the specified day.

According to the case materials, through the Unified State Register of conscripts, those liable for military service, and reservists, a summons was issued to the man requiring him to appear at the TRC on January 16, 2026. The document was sent by registered mail with an inventory of enclosure to the residence address he himself indicated during the clarification of military registration data.

The person liable for military service did not appear at the TRC. Subsequently, an administrative offense report was drawn up against him, and later a decision was made to impose a minimum fine of 17,000 UAH for violating military registration rules during a special period.

In court, the plaintiff stated that he did not receive the summons and was not properly notified about the call. He also referred to having a deferral from conscription during mobilization due to caring for his mother, who requires constant care. In his opinion, this excluded the composition of an administrative offense.

The court of first instance denied the claim, after which the man filed an appeal.

What the appellate court established

The panel of judges established that the postal operator sent a registered letter with the summons to the plaintiff's address. After the arrival of the item, the addressee was notified by placing a notice in the mailbox. However, the letter was not received and was returned to the sender.

The court noted that according to the Procedure for conscripting citizens for military service during mobilization, proper confirmation of notification of a person liable for military service can be not only the fact of receiving the summons but also the postal operator's mark about the absence of the person at the place of residence or refusal to accept the postal item.

In this case, the postal item was returned with a mark indicating the absence of the addressee at the specified address. The appellate court concluded that such a mark is proper confirmation of notification of the person liable for military service about the call to the TRC.

Moreover, the plaintiff did not provide evidence of valid reasons for his absence at the place of residence during the delivery of the letter and did not inform about valid reasons for not appearing at the TRC within the time specified by the summons.

A deferral does not exempt from fulfilling military registration duties

The court separately evaluated the arguments regarding the existence of a deferral from mobilization.

The panel of judges noted that being registered for military service and having a deferral do not grant conscripts, those liable for military service, or reservists the right to violate military registration rules during a special period. Having a deferral does not exempt a person from fulfilling other duties established by the legislation on military duty and mobilization preparation, including the obligation to appear upon the call of the TRC.

Considering the established circumstances, the appellate court agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance that the fact of violating the requirements of article 22 of the Law "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization" is proven, and the decision to impose the fine is lawful and justified.

As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Lutsk City District Court of Volyn Region and the TRC's decision to impose a fine of 17,000 UAH remain unchanged. The ruling of the Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal in case 161/5167/26 has entered into legal force and is not subject to cassation appeal.

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 updated on the most important events.