The Territorial Recruitment Center fined 17 thousand for alleged refusal of the Military Medical Commission, but the court found no evidence on the body camera video

The Second Administrative Court of Appeal considered the case filed by a conscript against the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centers regarding the recognition as unlawful and cancellation of the ruling in the case of an administrative offense.

The man was held administratively liable for violating the legislation on mobilization preparation and mobilization. The Territorial Recruitment Center imposed a fine on him, but the appellate court recognized this decision as illegal.

The panel of judges noted that to hold a person administratively liable, it is necessary to prove the occurrence of the event and the composition of the offense. In this case, the defendant did not confirm that the conscript was properly directed to undergo the Military Medical Commission and unjustifiably refused the medical examination.

The man was fined for alleged refusal to undergo the Military Medical Commission

As established by the courts, in July 2025, the head of the Territorial Recruitment Center issued a ruling recognizing the man guilty of committing an administrative offense under part 3 of article 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses.

The ruling stated that on July 9, 2025, the man arrived at the Territorial Recruitment Center but refused to undergo the medical examination of the Military Medical Commission. According to officials, this indicated a violation of the legislation on mobilization preparation and mobilization.

Initially, the court of first instance denied the man's claim and agreed with the legality of the Territorial Recruitment Center's ruling.

The plaintiff appealed this decision. He insisted that he did not evade undergoing the Military Medical Commission but only requested the opportunity to undergo the medical examination after he could provide the necessary medical documents.

According to him, he had the right to submit medical documentation to the Military Medical Commission members that could affect the determination of his fitness for military service, but at the time of being at the Territorial Recruitment Center, he did not have such documents with him.

He also noted that before undergoing the Military Medical Commission, he should have been handed the appropriate summons and referral, which was not done.

The court: undergoing the Military Medical Commission must be preceded by proper documentation

The appellate court noted that the procedure for undergoing the Military Medical Commission involves prior preparation of the relevant documents.

In particular, the court stated that before directing a person to a medical examination, a summons for the Military Medical Commission must be issued, as well as the appropriate referral for the medical examination.

The panel of judges found that the case materials lack evidence that the plaintiff was handed a summons to undergo the medical examination.

"The case materials contain no information that the plaintiff was sent or handed a summons to undergo a medical examination to determine fitness for military service," the court noted.

Thus, the court concluded that the mere presence of the man in the Territorial Recruitment Center premises does not automatically indicate an obligation to undergo the Military Medical Commission at that moment or the commission of an offense in case of refusal to undergo the examination.

The body camera video did not confirm refusal to undergo the Military Medical Commission

The appellate court separately examined the body camera video provided by the Territorial Recruitment Center as evidence of the man's refusal to undergo the Military Medical Commission.

However, the panel of judges noted that this evidence does not allow establishing the factual circumstances of the event.

The court pointed out that it is impossible to determine who exactly is recorded on the video. Moreover, none of the persons shown on the video introduced themselves or explained what was happening, what documents were being processed, and for what reasons.

According to the court's conclusion, such a video does not confirm either the fact of handing the summons to the man for the Military Medical Commission or his refusal to undergo the medical examination.

"From the video 587/4798/25 attached to the case materials, it is impossible to establish who exactly is recorded, as none of the persons shown introduced themselves or commented on what was happening and what documents were being filled out. Therefore, such a video in no way confirms either the circumstances of handing the summons to the plaintiff for the Military Medical Commission or the circumstances of refusal to undergo such a commission," stated the Second Administrative Court of Appeal.

The Territorial Recruitment Center did not prove the composition of the administrative offense

The court also emphasized that the burden of proving the legality of the decision to hold a person administratively liable lies with the authority that made the decision.

In administrative cases challenging decisions of authorities, the defendant must prove the legality of their actions and the presence of sufficient evidence.

The appellate court noted that the Territorial Recruitment Center did not provide proper and admissible evidence that the man violated the legislation on mobilization preparation and mobilization.

Additionally, the court took into account the plaintiff's explanation that he did not refuse to undergo the Military Medical Commission but requested to postpone the medical examination due to the need to provide documents regarding his health condition.

These arguments, the court noted, were not properly refuted by the defendants.

The appellate court canceled the fine and closed the case

As a result of the case consideration, the Second Administrative Court of Appeal satisfied the man's appeal.

The court:

• canceled the decision of the Sumy District Court of Sumy Region;
• recognized as unlawful and canceled the ruling of the head of the Territorial Recruitment Center on holding the man administratively liable;
• closed the proceedings in the administrative offense case.

The court also ordered the Territorial Recruitment Center to reimburse the court fee paid by the plaintiff for filing the claim and appeal in the amount of 1,514 hryvnias from budget funds.

The ruling of the Second Administrative Court of Appeal came into legal force upon announcement and is not subject to cassation appeal.

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 account to stay updated on the most important events.