TCC Fine for Failure to Update Data: Man Claimed Coercion and Psychological Pressure but Lost the Case

Ivano-Frankivsk City Court of Ivano-Frankivsk region considered administrative case No. 344/8553/26 on the claim to cancel the decision of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center (TCC and SSP), which held the conscript liable under part three of article 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses and imposed a fine of 17 thousand hryvnias. The plaintiff requested to recognize the decision as illegal, citing both the absence of an administrative offense and violations in the procedure of holding him liable.

Essence of the Case

The plaintiff stated that after his car was stopped by police officers allegedly due to unpaid fines, he was forcibly taken to the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center. According to him, psychological pressure was exerted on him in the TCC and SSP premises, as a result of which he signed a statement consenting to administrative liability and waiving the right to appeal the decision.

The decision of the TCC and SSP fined him under part three of article 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses because he did not update his personal data by July 16, 2024.

The plaintiff considered the decision illegal because it did not specify which data were not updated, nor did it provide evidence of the impossibility of obtaining the relevant information through electronic interaction with state registries. In his opinion, the TCC and SSP could have independently obtained the necessary information since he worked at a state higher education institution, was registered for military service, had not changed his place of residence, later updated his personal data through the "Reserve+" app, and came to the TCC and SSP for clarification.

Additionally, the plaintiff argued that the obligation to update personal data was introduced within the framework of mobilization measures, not military registration rules, so he believed that the provisions of part three of article 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses were applied incorrectly.

The representative of the TCC and SSP opposed the claim, stating that the personal data were updated only on November 21, 2024, while the law required this to be done by July 16, 2024. The defendant also referred to the plaintiff's written statement in which he agreed to administrative liability and did not deny the offense.

Position and Conclusions of the Court

The court established that the TCC and SSP decision held the plaintiff administratively liable for failure to update personal data within the legally established period. The case materials show that the data were updated through the "Reserve+" app only on November 21, 2024.

The court noted that after the entry into force of Law No. 3633-IX, citizens registered for military service were obliged within 60 days to update their personal data by one of the legally defined methods: through the administrative services center, the electronic cabinet of the conscript, the liable person and reservist, or directly at the TCC and SSP.

According to the court, the note to article 210 of the Code of Administrative Offenses regarding the non-application of articles 210 and 210-1 in case of the possibility to obtain personal data from state registries did not exempt the plaintiff from the legal obligation to personally update his personal data within the prescribed period. The holder of the Unified State Register of conscripts, liable persons, and reservists can verify the fact of data updating, but the obligation to perform such updating rests with the liable person.

The court concluded that the plaintiff did not use any of the legally provided methods to update personal data within the established period, thereby violating the requirements of legislation on military duty, military registration, and mobilization preparation.

The court also noted that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of valid reasons for failing to fulfill this obligation, and no procedural violations in holding him administratively liable were found during the case consideration that could affect the legality of the decision.

Separately, the court indicated that claims of psychological pressure, threats, and other unlawful actions by TCC and SSP employees were not proven during the trial. Moreover, such circumstances, according to the court, should be subject to investigation by law enforcement agencies at the initiative of the complainant himself.

As a result of the case consideration, the court denied the claim and left the TCC and SSP decision on imposing an administrative fine unchanged.

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 informed about the most important events.