The TRC fine was recognized as illegal: did the man manage to obtain 25 thousand hryvnias in moral damages through the court

The Kropyvnytskyi Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which denied the recovery of 25 thousand UAH in moral damages to the person against whom the TRC decision imposing a fine for violation of military registration rules was previously canceled. The court concluded that the claim was filed against an improper defendant.

At the same time, the appellate court referred to the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which the participation of the State Treasury Service of Ukraine or its territorial bodies in disputes over compensation for damage caused by the state is not mandatory.

Circumstances of the case

In June 2025, the Territorial Center for Recruitment and Social Support issued a decision against a citizen to bring him to administrative responsibility under part three of Article 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses and imposed a fine of 17 thousand UAH.

In December 2025, the Novoukrainka District Court of Kirovohrad region canceled this decision and closed the proceedings in the administrative offense case.

After that, the citizen filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for moral damages. He stated that the illegal administrative liability caused him mental suffering, stress, interference with private life, and negatively affected his reputation. The plaintiff estimated the amount of moral damages at 25 thousand UAH.

The claim was filed against the State of Ukraine represented by the Main Department of the State Treasury Service of Ukraine in Kirovohrad region.

Arguments of the parties

In the appeal, the plaintiff argued that the cancellation of the decision and closure of the administrative offense case were grounds for compensation for moral damages. He referred to the practice of the Supreme Court and emphasized that the illegal accusation of evading mobilization during a special period itself caused him moral suffering.

The plaintiff also claimed that involving the territorial body of the Treasury was lawful since compensation should be made from the funds of the State Budget of Ukraine.

In contrast, the representative of the Treasury insisted that the territorial body of the service is not the subject that caused harm to the plaintiff and therefore cannot be considered a proper defendant in the case.

Position of the appellate court

The appellate court agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance and dismissed the appeal.

The panel of judges reminded that according to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, the state participates in compensation cases through the body authorized in the disputed legal relations. In such disputes, the state is the party to the process, and the respective body represents its interests within its competence.

The court also noted that the State Treasury Service of Ukraine and its territorial bodies are not subjects that violate a person's rights, and therefore their participation in such cases does not affect the determination of the proper defendant. This was explicitly indicated by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in its previous decisions.

The panel of judges drew attention to the fact that the plaintiff himself associated the moral damage with the actions of the Territorial Center for Recruitment and Social Support, which issued the fine decision. At the same time, no claim was filed against this body.

Under these circumstances, the appellate court concluded that the territorial body of the Treasury is not a proper defendant in this dispute, and the arguments of the appeal do not refute the correctness of the decision of the court of first instance.

Conclusions of the court

The appellate court emphasized that in case 396/2760/25 there were no grounds to overturn the decision of the local court since the claim was filed against the wrong subject, whose actions, according to the plaintiff, caused harm. For this reason, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision to deny moral damages remained unchanged.

The ruling came into legal force on the day of its adoption and can be appealed to the Supreme Court in cassation procedure.

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