The Territorial Recruitment Center fined a man 25,500 UAH for failing to appear after a summons — just 25 minutes after the protocol was drawn up

A conscript challenged a 25,500 UAH fine imposed by the Territorial Recruitment Center (TRC) for failing to appear after a summons. He claimed that he had timely updated his military registration data, was not properly notified about the summons, and pointed out deficiencies in the summons' preparation.

The Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal annulled the decision of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center to impose a 25,500 UAH fine on the conscript under part three of Article 210-1 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses and sent the case for reconsideration. The court emphasized that before applying an administrative penalty, the official is obliged to thoroughly investigate the circumstances of the case, consider possible valid reasons for non-appearance, and properly justify the chosen amount of the fine.

Circumstances of the case

The plaintiff appealed the TRC decision dated November 26, 2024, which found him guilty of an offense under part three of Article 210-1 the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses and imposed a fine of 25,500 UAH.

According to the TRC decision, the man was sent a summons by registered mail via Ukrposhta requiring him to appear on October 16, 2024, for a medical examination and updating of military registration data. Since he did not appear at the TRC and did not report valid reasons for absence, he was held administratively liable.

The plaintiff, however, stated that he had updated his military registration data on May 19, 2024, through the Administrative Services Center (ASC) and electronic cabinet, denied proper delivery of the summons, cited deficiencies in its preparation, and noted that he had previously undergone a medical examination and was recognized as limitedly fit. He requested the court to annul the decision and close the proceedings.

The Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Lviv denied the claim, reasoning that after receiving the summons, the citizen was obliged to appear at the TRC but actually appeared only after being brought by police officers.

What the appellate court established

The panel of judges agreed with some conclusions of the first-instance court but noted that it did not properly assess the plaintiff's arguments regarding the unjustified application of the maximum fine.

The court pointed out that according to Article 33 of the the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, when determining an administrative penalty, the official must consider the nature of the offense, the offender's personality, degree of guilt, financial status, as well as mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

The judges noted that according to the case materials, the plaintiff arrived at the TRC at 9:50, while the hearing was scheduled for 10:15 AM. The court considered that such a short time frame raises reasonable doubts about the possibility of fully clarifying all circumstances relevant under Article 33 of the the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses for determining the type and amount of the administrative penalty. Furthermore, the panel concluded that the case materials do not indicate proper establishment of these circumstances.

The appellate court also noted that the defendant did not consider whether the plaintiff had valid reasons for not appearing at the TRC, although this is crucial for deciding on administrative liability.

Additionally, the court noted that the defendant did not explain why the case was heard just 25 minutes after the protocol was drawn up and why the plaintiff was absent during the hearing after the protocol was drawn up.

Court conclusions

The appellate court concluded that the maximum fine was applied without proper justification, without fully clarifying all circumstances of the case, and without observing the requirements of good faith and impartiality in decision-making.

Accordingly, the panel partially satisfied the appeal, annulled the first-instance court decision and the TRC decision imposing the administrative penalty, and sent case 466/12436/24 for a new hearing to the competent authority.

At the same time, the appellate court did not close the proceedings or decide on the absence of grounds for the plaintiff's administrative liability. The court only concluded that the TRC did not ensure a full and objective investigation of all circumstances during the case consideration, so the materials must be reconsidered by the authorized body in compliance with legal requirements. The appellate court's decision took legal effect upon announcement and is final.

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