What the Territorial Recruitment Center Must Do Before Issuing a Fine: Court Conclusion

The Putyla District Court of Chernivtsi Region reviewed an administrative lawsuit seeking to declare unlawful and cancel the decision of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center, which held the conscript administratively liable under part 3 of article 210-1 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses (CUAO) and imposed a fine of 17,000 UAH.

Essence of the Case

The plaintiff approached the court after, on February 24, 2026, a state executor informed him about the initiation of enforcement proceedings to collect a fine of 34,000 UAH. At the State Executive Service department, he received a copy of the decision of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center No. 1001 dated June 2, 2025, which held him administratively liable under part 3 of article 210-1 CUAO and imposed a fine of 17,000 UAH.

The decision stated that the conscript violated military registration rules by failing to update his personal data within 60 days from the date the President of Ukraine’s decree on mobilization came into effect, in a manner prescribed by law. It also noted that based on the Unified State Register of conscripts, reservists, and liable persons, he was identified as a violator of military registration, and a corresponding report was sent to the National Police.

The plaintiff considered the decision unlawful, citing gross violations of the procedure for reviewing administrative offense cases and the requirements of the CUAO. In his view, the decision was made unreasonably, biasedly, without the elements of an administrative offense, and violated his procedural rights, leading to unlawful administrative liability. Therefore, he requested the court to cancel the decision and close the case proceedings.

The defendant’s representative requested the claim be denied. He stated that the plaintiff, being liable for military service, did not update his military registration data within the legally established period from May 18 to July 16, 2024, did not use any legally provided methods to update them, and did not provide evidence of such actions. Additionally, the defendant noted that state registers lacked information about the plaintiff’s actual residence, contact means, and email address, thus considering the administrative liability justified.

Court’s Position and Conclusions

In case No. 721/242/26, the court established that by the decision of the head of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center dated June 2, 2025, the plaintiff was held administratively liable under part 3 of article 210-1 CUAO for failure to update military registration data and was imposed an administrative fine.

The court noted that according to part two of article 77 of the Administrative Procedure Code of Ukraine, in cases challenging decisions of authorities, the burden of proof of the lawfulness of the decision lies with the defendant. However, the defendant did not provide evidence confirming the lawfulness of the decision.

The court found that the decision did not indicate how the person was notified about the date, time, and place of the administrative offense case hearing, nor what evidence confirmed such notification. As a result, the person’s rights and obligations, including the right to defense, were not explained, and the opportunity to submit motions and provide explanations was not given, which the court recognized as a gross violation of the law.

The court also rejected the defendant’s argument about proper notification based on the administrative offense protocol. The protocol lacked the date of its preparation and contained information about the case hearing on February 2, 2025, while the decision was issued only on June 2, 2025.

Referring to articles 277-2, 278, 279, and 268 of the CUAO, the court stated that notification of the person about the date and place of the case hearing must be made at least three days before the hearing, and during the hearing, the authority or official must verify the notification, explain the person’s rights, hear explanations, examine evidence, and decide on motions. Hearing the case in the person’s absence is possible only if they were properly notified and there is no motion to postpone or conduct the hearing without their participation.

After evaluating the evidence, the court concluded that the case materials did not confirm proper notification of the plaintiff about the date and place of the hearing. Consequently, his procedural rights were not explained, and he was not given the opportunity to submit motions, provide explanations, or participate in evidence examination, which grossly violated his right to defense in the administrative offense proceedings.

Considering the requirements of articles 245 and 280 of the CUAO and the principle of the rule of law, the court noted that the defendant did not comply with the legally established procedure for recording the administrative offense and reviewing the case when issuing the decision, therefore the decision must be canceled.

Accordingly, the administrative lawsuit was satisfied, the decision holding the plaintiff administratively liable under part 3 of article 210-1 CUAO was canceled, and the administrative offense proceedings were closed.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua, Google News SUD.UA here, as well as our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram page to stay informed about the most important events.