Did not receive the summons and did not know about the fine – was the conscript able to cancel the 17,000 hryvnia fine from the Territorial Recruitment Center through the court
The Bila Tserkva City District Court of Kyiv region considered an administrative lawsuit filed by a citizen against the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center to recognize as unlawful and cancel the decision on an administrative offense. The court satisfied the claim, canceled the decision imposing an administrative penalty in the form of a fine, and closed the case on the administrative offense.
Case circumstances
In May 2026, a lawyer acting on behalf of the citizen filed an administrative lawsuit with the Bila Tserkva City District Court of Kyiv region against the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center. The plaintiff requested to recognize as unlawful and cancel decision No. BCRTC/1/1009/25 dated January 23, 2026, which held him administratively liable under part three of Article 210-1 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses and imposed a fine of 17,000 hryvnias.
The contested decision stated that the citizen was notified by postal mail with a registered letter and delivery receipt about a summons dated December 16, 2025, No. 5886398, to appear at the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center on December 26, 2025, to clarify personal data. The plaintiff did not appear on the specified date and did not inform about the reasons for absence. By the decision, he was found guilty of violating part three of Article 22 of the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization" and subparagraphs 21, 27 of the Procedure for conscription of citizens for military service during mobilization and special periods, approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Resolution No. 560 dated May 16, 2024.
The plaintiff’s representative stated that the citizen did not receive any summons, call, or order. The summons was not delivered personally nor sent by postal means. The administrative case was considered without the plaintiff’s presence and without notifying him about the hearing. From the content of the decision, it is impossible to establish which specific obligation was not fulfilled and on what evidence the occurrence and composition of the administrative offense were established. They also referred to the note to Article 210 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, according to which the provisions of Articles 210 and 210-1 of this Code do not apply if the holder of the Unified State Register of conscripts, reservists, and military liable persons can obtain personal data through electronic information interaction with other information and communication systems, registers, and databases.
The plaintiff requested to restore the missed deadline for filing to the court, as he learned about the decision only on April 20, 2026, after reviewing the enforcement proceedings materials. Previously, the decision was neither delivered nor sent to him. Along with the lawsuit, a claim for reimbursement of legal assistance costs in the amount of 15,000 hryvnias was submitted.
By the court ruling dated May 18, 2026, the missed deadline was restored, proceedings were opened, and the case was scheduled for consideration under simplified proceedings without notifying (summoning) the parties. No response to the lawsuit was received from the defendant.
From the military registration document generated in the "Reserve+" application, it is evident that the citizen is registered with the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center, with data timely updated on July 15, 2024.
Court decision
The Bila Tserkva City District Court of Kyiv region in case No. 357/7906/26 decided to satisfy the administrative claim.
The court recognized as unlawful and canceled the decision made by the head of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center in the administrative offense case No. BCRTC/1/1009/25 dated January 23, 2026, which found the citizen guilty of an administrative offense under part three of Article 210-1 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses and imposed an administrative penalty in the form of a fine of 17,000 hryvnias.
The case on the administrative offense against the citizen under part three of Article 210-1 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses was closed.
The court ordered the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center to reimburse the plaintiff from budgetary funds the paid court fee of 665.60 hryvnias and legal assistance costs in the amount of 3,000 hryvnias, totaling 3,665.60 hryvnias.
The court noted that according to Article 7 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, no one can be subjected to administrative measures except on grounds and in the manner established by law. Proceedings in administrative offense cases are conducted based on strict observance of legality. The tasks of the proceedings are timely, comprehensive, complete, and objective clarification of the circumstances of each case (Article 245 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses). A mandatory condition for holding a person administratively liable is the presence of an administrative offense event, which is proven by evidence (paragraph 1 of part one of Article 247 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses).
The court indicated that holding a person administratively liable is possible only if there is an event of an administrative offense and the person’s guilt in its commission, confirmed by proper evidence. The defendant did not properly prove the fact of delivery or receipt of the summons dated December 16, 2025, No. 5886398 by the citizen. The administrative offense case was considered without notifying the plaintiff, depriving him of the opportunity to provide explanations.
Regarding legal assistance costs, the court, guided by the criteria of reality, necessity, and reasonableness of the amount, considering the specific circumstances of the case (consideration under simplified proceedings without summoning parties, prevalence of the dispute category), reduced the claimed amount of 15,000 hryvnias to 3,000 hryvnias.
The court referred to the practice of the Supreme Court, in particular the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in the ruling dated November 16, 2022, in case No. 922/1964/21, noting that obligations arising between a lawyer and a client in the context of resolving the issue of court cost allocation are not binding on the court. When deciding on this matter, the court must assess the costs to be compensated by the other party, considering whether they were actually incurred and their necessity.
Similar conclusions were reached by the Supreme Court in rulings dated April 17, 2024, in case No. 756/6927/20, April 4, 2024, in case No. 701/804/21, April 10, 2024, in case No. 530/259/21, and April 10, 2024, in case No. 367/6289/21, which also addressed the issue of reducing legal assistance costs in the absence of objections from the other party.
The court emphasized the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court that when resolving identical disputes, courts must consider the latest legal position of the Supreme Court (this position is set out in the Grand Chamber ruling dated January 30, 2019, in case No. 755/10947/17).
According to part 4 of Article 242 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, when choosing and applying the legal norm to the disputed legal relations, the court takes into account the conclusions on the application of the relevant legal norms set out in the rulings of the Supreme Court.
According to part 6 of Article 13 of the Law of Ukraine "On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges," conclusions on the application of legal norms set out in the rulings of the Supreme Court are taken into account by other courts when applying such legal norms.
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 Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.
