Father of three children with a deferment lost the court case against the TRC: the 17,000 hryvnia fine upheld

The Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal confirmed the legality of the 17,000 hryvnia fine imposed on a conscripted individual for failure to appear at the TRC upon summons to update military registration data. The court concluded that a deferment from conscription during mobilization does not exempt a person from fulfilling military registration duties. The court also recognized that a postal operator's mark indicating the addressee was absent at the specified address can be considered proper confirmation of notifying the conscript about the summons to the MCR & REO in accordance with the Procedure for conscription during mobilization.

Case circumstances

The conscript filed a lawsuit demanding the cancellation of the order issued by the head of the TRC, which held him administratively liable under part 3 of article 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses and fined him 17,000 hryvnias. The basis for liability was failure to appear upon summons to update registration data during a special period.

Case materials show that the summons was generated through the Unified State Register of conscripts, conscripted persons, and reservists and sent by registered mail with an inventory of enclosure to the residence address previously provided by the man during the update of his military registration data. However, the letter was returned to the sender with the note "addressee absent at the specified address." After that, the man did not appear at the TRC and did not notify the reasons for his absence within the legally established time frame.

The plaintiff claimed he was not properly notified about the summons to the TRC and did not receive the summons. Additionally, he referred to having a deferment from conscription during mobilization due to supporting three minor children. In his opinion, under such circumstances, his actions did not constitute an administrative offense.

The Liubeshiv District Court of Volyn region denied the claim. Disagreeing with this decision, the man filed an appeal.

Conclusions of the Court of Appeal

The panel of judges noted that the legislation imposes on conscripted persons the obligation to appear upon summons of the TRC to update personal and military registration data, undergo medical examination, and perform other military registration measures. These obligations are stipulated by the Law "On Military Duty and Military Service," the Law "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization," and the Procedure for conscription of citizens for military service during mobilization, approved by the Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 560.

The court separately analyzed the procedure for sending summons by mail. The panel noted that paragraph 41 of Procedure No. 560 explicitly defines cases when a person is considered properly notified about the summons to the TRC. One such case is the postal operator's mark indicating the person's absence at the place of residence address provided to the TRC or registered as their place of residence.

The court established that the summons was issued in accordance with legal requirements, contained a QR code and all necessary details, and the postal item was sent precisely to the address the plaintiff himself reported as his place of residence. At the same time, he provided no evidence of valid reasons for his absence at that address during the delivery of the letter.

The panel also emphasized that current legislation does not impose on the MCR & REO the obligation to verify whether postal workers actually notified the addressee about the arrival of the registered letter marked "TRC Summons." Instead, the return of the postal item with the corresponding postal operator's mark is sufficient to confirm the fact of notification within the meaning of Procedure No. 560.

Why the court rejected the deferment certificate

One of the appellant's main arguments was the existence of a deferment from conscription during mobilization as a father of three minor children.

However, the Court of Appeal stressed that a deferment from conscription does not exempt a conscripted person from fulfilling military registration duties. In particular, it does not cancel the obligation to appear at the TRC upon summons to update military registration data. Therefore, the mere existence of a deferment does not exclude liability for violating military registration rules.

Court decision

The Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance and found that the TRC proved the fact of the plaintiff's administrative offense under part 3 of article 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses.

As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Liubeshiv District Court of Volyn region and the order in case 162/160/26 imposing a fine of 17,000 hryvnias remain unchanged. The appellate court's ruling took legal effect upon announcement and is not subject to cassation appeal.