Court annulled the TCC decision on a 17 thousand UAH fine: failure to appear by summons is not a continuing offense
The Cherkasy District Court of Cherkasy region considered an administrative lawsuit against the Territorial Center for Recruitment and Social Support to annul the decision imposing a fine under Part 3 of Article 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses for failure to appear by summons.
The court concluded that such an offense is not continuing, and the TCC missed the three-month period for imposing an administrative penalty, therefore it annulled the decision on the 17,000 UAH fine and closed the case proceedings.
Case circumstances
In May 2026, the plaintiff discovered that the "Reserve+" app displayed information about violations of military registration rules, specifically: "Did not appear by summons to the TCC and SS," due to which on 15.01.2026 the TCC and SS sent a request to law enforcement agencies for forced detention and delivery to the TCC and SS to prepare materials on the administrative offense.
On 14.05.2026, the plaintiff, according to Article 2799 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, sent through the "Reserve+" app (electronic cabinet for conscripts, military liable persons, reservists) a service-proposed statement of non-dispute of the violation and consent to administrative liability in their absence.
On 15.05.2026, the head of the TCC and SS issued a decision to impose an administrative penalty on the plaintiff in the form of a 17,000.00 UAH fine for the administrative offense under Part 3 of Article 2101 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, stating: "Based on the review of data and registry information of the Unified State Register of conscripts, military liable persons, and reservists, it was established that PERSON_1 did not appear upon summons to the TCC and SS at the time and place specified in the summons (Article 22 of the Law on Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization), thereby violating legislation on defense, mobilization preparation, and mobilization."
The defendant was duly notified of the time and place of the case hearing. The defendant’s representative did not appear at the court session. No response to the lawsuit was received. The court did not receive the requested case materials on the administrative offense.
Reasons for the court’s decision
Articles 17, 65, and paragraph 20 of Part One of Article 106 of the Constitution of Ukraine impose on the state the duty to ensure the defense of Ukraine, on citizens the duty to defend the homeland, and on the President of Ukraine the authority to introduce martial law and announce mobilization.
Due to the armed aggression of the Russian Federation, by Presidential Decrees No. 64/2022 "On the Introduction of Martial Law in Ukraine" and No. 69/2022 "On General Mobilization," approved by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, martial law was introduced and general mobilization announced, which have been repeatedly extended.
According to Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization," mobilization is a set of measures aimed at transitioning the state, its bodies, and the Armed Forces of Ukraine to operate under special period conditions.
Parts One and Three of Article 22 of this Law impose on military liable persons the obligation to appear upon summons to the territorial center for recruitment and social support within the time and place specified in the summons. In case of inability to appear for valid reasons, the person must notify the TCC and SS within the legally established period.
The military registration rules, approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Resolution No. 1487 dated 30.12.2022, also require conscripts, military liable persons, and reservists to appear upon summons to the TCC and SS within the time specified in the summons.
Part Three of Article 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses establishes administrative liability for violations of legislation on defense, mobilization preparation, and mobilization committed during a special period. This provision is a blanket norm and is applied in connection with the legislation regulating mobilization preparation and mobilization.
According to paragraph 41 of the Procedure for conscription of citizens for military service during mobilization, approved by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 560 dated 16.05.2024, proper confirmation of delivery of a summons sent by postal service includes, among others, a mark of refusal to receive it or absence of the person at the notified address.
However, according to Articles 7, 247, 251, 252, 268, 278, and 280 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, bringing a person to administrative responsibility is possible only if the legally established procedure is followed, the person is properly notified, all circumstances of the case are fully clarified, and the occurrence of the offense and the person’s guilt are confirmed by proper and admissible evidence.
A similar legal conclusion regarding the necessity to prove the fact of an administrative offense was stated in the Supreme Court decision dated 20.05.2020 in case No. 524/5741/16-а.
According to Articles 72, 73, 77, and 90 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, evidence must be proper and admissible data, and in cases challenging decisions of authorities, the burden of proof of the legality of the decision and submission of all materials underlying it lies with the defendant.
Court conclusions based on case review
According to Part Seven of Article 38 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, an administrative penalty for offenses under Articles 210, 210-1 committed during a special period may be imposed within three months from the date of their detection, but no later than one year from the date of commission.
The start of this period is the day the administrative offense was committed, and for continuing offenses — the day of their detection.
The Supreme Court in its decision dated 11.04.2018 in case No. 804/401/17 stated that a continuing offense is one related to prolonged and continuous non-fulfillment of a legal duty, which ends only after its fulfillment or termination of the respective duty.
The court concluded that the offense under Part Three of Article 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, consisting in failure of a military liable person or conscript to appear upon summons to the territorial center for recruitment and social support, is not continuing but a one-time act exhausted by the fact of non-appearance at the specified date, time, and place.
The case materials established that the plaintiff did not appear by summons as of 15.01.2026. No later than this date, the defendant became aware of the offense, confirmed by the request to the National Police for search and delivery of the plaintiff.
However, the decision to impose the administrative penalty was issued only on 15.05.2026, i.e., after the expiration of the three-month period established by Part Seven of Article 38 of the Code of Administrative Offenses.
Moreover, the person’s statement acknowledging guilt does not exempt the authority from the obligation to prove the occurrence of the administrative offense and the person’s guilt with proper and admissible evidence. According to paragraph 7 of Article 247 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, after expiration of the periods established by Article 38 of this Code, proceedings cannot be initiated, and if initiated, must be closed.
According to paragraph 3 of Part Three of Article 286 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, the court has the right to annul the decision of the authority and close the administrative offense case based on the case review results.
The burden of proving the legality of the challenged decision lies with the defendant. However, the defendant did not submit a response, did not provide the requested case materials, and did not prove grounds for holding the plaintiff administratively liable.
The Constitutional Court of Ukraine in its decision dated 22.12.2010 No. 23-рп/2010 and the Supreme Court in its decision dated 08.07.2020 in case No. 463/1352/16-а emphasized that in administrative offense cases the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence applies, and all doubts regarding the offense and the person’s guilt are interpreted in their favor.
In view of the above, the court concluded that the decision dated 15.05.2026 No. R534748 to hold the plaintiff administratively liable under Part Three of Article 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses is unlawful, subject to annulment, and the proceedings in case No. 707/2116/26 are to be closed.
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.
