Late Passing of the Military Medical Commission Does Not Save from a 17 Thousand Hryvnia Fine: Man Lost the Case Against the Territorial Recruitment Center
The Seventh Administrative Court of Appeal concluded that a conscript who was recognized as limitedly fit for military service is obliged to independently undergo a repeated medical examination by June 5, 2025. Further passing of the Military Medical Commission after the established deadline does not refute the fact of the already committed administrative offense.
The court left unchanged the decision of the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Chernivtsi, which refused to cancel the Territorial Recruitment Center and Social Support's decision to impose a fine of 17,000 hryvnias for violating the legislation on defense, mobilization training, and mobilization.
Case circumstances
The plaintiff was discharged from military service in 2023 and was registered as a conscript. Before the entry into force of Law No. 3621-IX, he had the status of a person recognized as limitedly fit for military service during wartime.
After legislative changes, citizens aged 25 to 60 who were previously recognized as limitedly fit for military service were obliged to undergo a repeated medical examination by June 5, 2025, to determine fitness for military service. The law also imposed on such persons the duty to independently contact the Territorial Recruitment Center and Social Support or use the electronic cabinet to obtain a referral for the Military Medical Commission.
The Territorial Recruitment Center and Social Support established that the conscript did not fulfill this obligation within the specified period. Consequently, on September 15, 2025, he was held administratively liable under Part 3 of Article 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses and fined 17,000 UAH.
At the same time, on September 10, 2025, i.e., after the deadline established by law, the man passed the Military Medical Commission and was recognized as fit for military service. He referred to this circumstance when appealing the fine.
Arguments of the parties
The plaintiff argued that at the time the decision was made, he had already passed the Military Medical Commission, and therefore the administrative offense did not occur. In addition, he believed that the Territorial Recruitment Center and Social Support missed the deadlines for bringing him to administrative responsibility and that he was not properly notified about the case hearing.
In contrast, the defendant insisted that the person did not fulfill the legal obligation to undergo a repeated medical examination by June 5, 2025, and therefore the decision to impose the fine is lawful.
Conclusions of the appellate court
The panel of judges agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance and noted that for persons recognized as limitedly fit for military service, the obligation to undergo a repeated medical examination by June 5, 2025, arose directly from the law. The court emphasized that fulfilling this obligation was not dependent on receiving a summons or any other separate call.
The appellate court established that until June 5, 2025, the plaintiff did not undergo the repeated medical examination and did not provide evidence that he contacted the Territorial Recruitment Center and Social Support or used the electronic cabinet to obtain a referral for the Military Medical Commission.
Regarding the passing of the Military Medical Commission on September 10, 2025, the panel noted that this circumstance only confirms the subsequent fulfillment of the person's obligation but does not refute the fact of non-fulfillment within the deadline set by law. The court indicated that it is precisely the failure to fulfill the obligation by June 5, 2025, that constitutes the administrative offense under Part 3 of Article 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. Passing the Military Medical Commission after the deadline does not eliminate the fact of the already committed violation.
What the court said about deadlines for bringing to responsibility
The appellate court also rejected arguments about missing the deadlines for imposing administrative penalties.
The panel noted that for offenses under Article 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses committed during a special period, special deadlines established by Part Nine of Article 38 of the Code apply.
The court proceeded from the fact that the day of the offense is June 6, 2025 — the day following the deadline set by law for undergoing the repeated medical examination. At the same time, the offense was detected on September 10, 2025, during the preparation of the administrative offense report. Since the decision was made on September 15, 2025, this occurred within the three-month period from the date of detection and the one-year period from the date of commission.
Notification about the case hearing
The court also disagreed with the arguments about improper notification of the plaintiff about the case hearing.
As established by the panel, the administrative offense report indicated the date, time, and place of the hearing, and contained the plaintiff's signature acknowledging its content. Under these circumstances, the court concluded that the person was properly informed about the hearing and had the opportunity to exercise his procedural rights.
Court decision
The Seventh Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and left the decision of the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Chernivtsi in case 727/2551/26 unchanged. The court found that the Territorial Recruitment Center and Social Support proved the fact of the plaintiff's violation of the legal obligation to undergo a repeated medical examination by June 5, 2025, and that the decision to impose the fine was made by an authorized person and in compliance with legal requirements.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, page on Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.
