When a TCC fine for violation of military registration is illegal and subject to cancellation: the court's position

The issue of holding conscripts administratively liable for violations of military registration rules remains one of the most relevant in judicial practice. In particular, disputes often concern the legality of imposing fines in cases where a person has timely updated their personal data in the Unified State Register of conscripts, conscripts liable for military service, and reservists, but the territorial recruitment center still concluded that there was a violation of the legislation on military registration.

In such cases, courts assess not only the fact of changing the place of residence or updating personal data but also whether the authority proved the presence of all elements of the administrative offense and whether it had the opportunity to obtain the necessary information through electronic information interaction with state registers.

It was such a dispute that the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kharkiv considered in an administrative lawsuit against the TCC to recognize as unlawful and cancel the decision on administrative liability under part three of Article 210 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of Ukraine (CAO).

Essence of the case

The basis for the court appeal was the decision dated March 1, 2026, No. R386303, which held the person administratively liable under part three of Article 210 CAO with a fine of UAH 17,000. The decision stated that the person did not register for military service at the new place of residence, thereby violating the requirements of Article 37 of the Law of Ukraine "On Military Duty and Military Service."

The plaintiff noted that the decision was made without drawing up a protocol, without summoning for explanations, and practically without his participation. According to him, the case was considered solely based on a self-admission statement submitted via the "Reserve+" mobile application.

The plaintiff also emphasized that as early as June 20, 2025, he updated his personal data in the Unified State Register of conscripts, conscripts liable for military service, and reservists, which reflected the current information about his place of residence in Kharkiv. Despite this, the disputed decision indicated a different address as the place of residence. In the plaintiff's opinion, the conclusion about the violation of military registration rules did not correspond to the actual circumstances of the case.

Moreover, the plaintiff stated that he actually resides in Kharkiv, properly notified state authorities about the change of residence, and the decision was issued by the territorial recruitment and social support center, which is not the authority responsible for military registration at his place of residence. He also pointed out that after updating the information in the Unified State Register, he fulfilled the legal requirements regarding notification of his place of residence, so the claims about violation of military registration rules are unfounded.

Position and conclusions of the court

The court established that according to the military registration document and other evidence, the person updated his personal data on June 20, 2025, and his actual place of residence is an address in Kharkiv. Additionally, the relevant documents confirmed his status as an internally displaced person and residence at that address.

Analyzing the provisions of the Law of Ukraine "On Military Duty and Military Service," the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization," the Procedure for organizing and maintaining military registration of conscripts, conscripts liable for military service, and reservists approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Resolution No. 1487 dated December 30, 2022, as well as the norms of the CAO, the court noted that administrative liability is possible only if the administrative offense event and the person's guilt are proven by proper and admissible evidence.

The court drew attention to the fact that according to Procedure No. 1487, military registration is maintained using the Unified State Register of conscripts, conscripts liable for military service, and reservists, and conscripts are obliged to notify about changes in personal data. The legislation provides for the possibility of updating such data through information and communication systems and electronic information interaction of state registers.

Having established that the plaintiff timely updated his personal data on June 20, 2025, the court concluded that holding him administratively liable could only be lawful if the defendant proved the impossibility of obtaining the relevant personal data through electronic information interaction with other state information systems, registers, and databases. However, the defendant provided no evidence of such impossibility to the court.

The court also considered the legal position of the Second Administrative Court of Appeal, expressed in the decision dated April 29, 2025, in case No. 636/11340/24, according to which liability under similar circumstances is possible only if there is evidence of the impossibility of obtaining the necessary information from state registers.

Furthermore, the court applied the constitutional principle of the presumption of innocence, the provisions of Article 62 of the Constitution of Ukraine, the recommendations of the Council of Europe Committee No. R (91) 1 on administrative sanctions, the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, and the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court, according to which all doubts about proving the person's guilt are interpreted in their favor, and the burden of proving the legality of the authority's decision lies with that authority.

Since the defendant did not prove by proper and admissible evidence the fact of committing the administrative offense provided for in part three of Article 210 CAO, the court concluded that there are no legal grounds for holding the person administratively liable.

As a result, the court recognized decision No. R386303 dated March 1, 2026, as unlawful and canceled it, closed proceedings in case No. 638/5502/26 on the administrative offense, and also recovered court fee expenses in favor of the plaintiff at the expense of the defendant's budget allocations.

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