Can the Territorial Recruitment Center fine 17 thousand UAH without proof of summons delivery: the court sided with the conscripted citizen

17:30, 23 June 2026
telegram sharing button
facebook sharing button
viber sharing button
twitter sharing button
whatsapp sharing button
The Avtozavodskyi District Court of Kremenchuk considered a case regarding the legality of a 17,000 UAH fine imposed by the Territorial Recruitment Center for alleged failure to appear upon summons and violation of mobilization legislation.
Can the Territorial Recruitment Center fine 17 thousand UAH without proof of summons delivery: the court sided with the conscripted citizen
Follow the latest news on SUD.UA social networks

The Avtozavodskyi District Court of Kremenchuk considered an administrative case filed by a citizen against the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center seeking to cancel the ruling on administrative liability under Part Three of Article 210-1 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses.

The plaintiff appealed the ruling of the Territorial Recruitment Center, which imposed a fine of 17,000 UAH on him for violating the legislation on defense, mobilization training, and mobilization.

Essence of the case

By the ruling of the acting head of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center, the citizen was found guilty of committing an administrative offense as provided for in Part Three of Article 210-1 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses.

The contested ruling stated that the person allegedly failed to comply with the legislation on defense, mobilization training, and mobilization by not appearing at the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center at the specified time and place upon summons.

At the same time, the plaintiff claimed that he had not received any summons and that the ruling itself did not contain proper evidence of the offense. Moreover, in his opinion, the content of the ruling contradicted the protocol on the administrative offense.

The defendant did not submit a response to the claim nor provide the court with any materials confirming the legality of the decision made.

Position and conclusions of the court

The court cited the provisions of Article 9 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, according to which an administrative offense is an unlawful, culpable act or omission for which administrative liability is provided by law. The court also referred to Article 210-1 of the Code, which establishes liability for violations of legislation on defense, mobilization training, and mobilization, as well as to Article 22 of the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Training and Mobilization," which defines the obligation of citizens to appear upon summons at territorial recruitment and social support centers within the time and place specified in the received summons.

Evaluating the circumstances of case No. 524/4495/26, the court noted that for lawful administrative liability, it is necessary not only to establish the fact of the offense but also to comply with the procedure established by law for considering the case.

The court emphasized that according to Article 77 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, the burden of proving the legality of the decision lies with the authority. In cases challenging decisions of authorities, such an entity cannot rely on evidence that was not the basis of the contested decision, except when it proves the impossibility of obtaining such evidence before the decision was made. To support this conclusion, the court referred to the Supreme Court ruling of August 28, 2018, in case No. 826/6382/17.

The court found that the defendant did not provide any evidence confirming the legality of the ruling on administrative liability. The case materials lacked proof of sending the citizen a summons to the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center, as well as any proper and admissible evidence that he failed to fulfill the obligation to appear upon summons.

Under these circumstances, the court concluded that there was no evidence of the plaintiff committing an administrative offense under Part Three of Article 210-1 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses and therefore recognized the ruling of the Territorial Recruitment Center as unlawful.

The court satisfied the claim, canceled the ruling imposing the 17,000 UAH fine, and closed the administrative offense case. Additionally, at the expense of the defendant's budget allocations, the court fee of 532.48 UAH was recovered in favor of the plaintiff.

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

XX Congress of Judges of Ukraine – online broadcast – day one