Man Admitted Violation but Avoided a 17,000 UAH Fine: Court Found a Critical Flaw in the Actions of the Territorial Recruitment Center

The Zastavna District Court of Chernivtsi Region canceled the decision of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center (TRSSC) on holding the conscript administratively liable under Part 3 of Article 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses and the fine of 17,000 UAH. The court concluded that the defendant did not prove proper notification of the plaintiff about the need to appear at the territorial recruitment and social support center in the manner prescribed by law.

Case circumstances

The TRSSC held the citizen administratively liable for allegedly failing to appear upon summons to clarify military registration data during martial law. The decision stated that the conscript violated the requirements of Article 22 of the Law "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization" by not appearing upon summons, for which he was fined under Part 3 of Article 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses.

The plaintiff claimed he never received any summons and therefore could not have violated the duty to appear. He also noted that he was not properly informed about the time and place of the administrative offense hearing.

In turn, the TRSSC opposed the claim, arguing that the plaintiff did not appear upon summons, which, according to the defendant, was sent via an electronic summons generated through the Unified State Register of Conscripts, Reservists, and Military Obliged Persons. Additionally, the defendant noted that on the day the decision was issued, the man submitted an application through the "Reserve+" app admitting the violation and agreeing to the case being considered without his participation. It was after this that the TRSSC head issued the fine decision.

What the court established

The court noted that according to Article 279-9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, a person does have the right to submit an application admitting the violation and agreeing to the case being considered without their participation. However, this procedure does not exempt the TRSSC from the obligation to verify the factual circumstances of the case and prove the presence of all elements of the administrative offense.

After examining the case materials, the court found that neither the decision itself nor other materials contained specific information about the summons, the non-compliance with which was the basis for holding the person liable.

Specifically, the decision lacked information about which summons was used to call the plaintiff, its number, date, time and place of appearance, method of sending or delivery, the address to which it was sent, as well as any data about its receipt, refusal to receive, or return of the postal item.

The court stated that the law defines specific ways to confirm proper notification of the conscript, including a personal signature confirming receipt of the summons, video recording of its delivery or refusal to receive, or postal operator documents confirming delivery, refusal, or impossibility of delivery. At the same time, the case materials contained no evidence of using any of the legally prescribed methods to confirm proper summons of the plaintiff.

Why the application in "Reserve+" was insufficient

The court paid special attention to the application the plaintiff submitted through the "Reserve+" app.

The court emphasized that submitting an application via "Reserve+" admitting the violation and agreeing to the case being considered without the person's participation does not exempt the TRSSC from the obligation to verify the factual circumstances of the case and confirm them with proper and admissible evidence.

In the court's opinion, such an application does not have predetermined evidentiary value and by itself does not confirm the commission of an administrative offense. It cannot replace evidence confirming the occurrence of the offense, the person's guilt, and the presence of all elements of the administrative offense in their actions.

Moreover, the court referred to the practice of the Supreme Court, according to which a decision on administrative liability is not in itself proof of the person's guilt, and the authority must prove the legality of its decision. The court also cited the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, noting that the conclusion about proven guilt must be based on sufficiently convincing, clear, and consistent evidence, not only on the person's statement admitting the violation.

Court decision

Based on the case 716/1041/26, the court concluded that the TRSSC did not prove proper notification of the plaintiff about the summons and, accordingly, did not confirm the presence of the elements of the administrative offense under Part 3 of Article 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses in his actions.

Therefore, the court canceled the decision imposing the 17,000 UAH fine, closed the administrative offense proceedings, and recovered 665.60 UAH in court fees from the TRSSC in favor of the plaintiff.

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 updated on the most important events.