The court explained whether an oral message from a TRC representative can be grounds for refusal of critical enterprise status
The Poltava District Administrative Court considered an administrative case filed by an LLC against the Poltava Regional Military Administration regarding the recognition as unlawful and cancellation of a decision that denied the enterprise recognition as critical for the functioning of the economy and ensuring the livelihood of the population during a special period.
Essence of the case
The LLC, which operates in the field of hazardous waste management, applied to the Poltava Regional Military Administration with a request to be recognized as critical for the functioning of the economy and ensuring the livelihood of the population during a special period. The company stated that it meets the criteria established by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 76, as well as the criteria approved by the head of the Poltava OVA, which apply to enterprises important for the economic sector or for meeting the needs of territorial communities in the region.
To support its position, the company submitted a significant package of documents to the Poltava OVA, including information about the enterprise, evidence of compliance with established criteria, an extract from the Unified State Register, the charter, personnel documents, a license from the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources of Ukraine, a declaration of business activity in waste management, an environmental impact assessment conclusion, permits, contracts with JSC "Ukrgazvydobuvannya", financial and tax reports, a certificate of no tax debt, a conclusion from the district military administration, and documents regarding assistance to the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
After submitting the application, the enterprise also sent certified extracts from the lists of personal military registration of conscripts, reservists, and those liable for military service employed by the company to the Poltava OVA.
During the meeting of the Commission for determining enterprises, institutions, and organizations critical for the functioning of the economy and ensuring the livelihood of the region’s population during a special period, it was established that the enterprise provided documents confirming compliance with three criteria stipulated in subparagraphs 4, 5, and 6 of paragraph 2 of the Criteria and Procedure approved by Cabinet Resolution No. 76. In particular, the commission was informed that the company’s main activity is the processing and disposal of hazardous waste, the enterprise has no tax debt, and the average salary of its employees exceeds the established norm.
However, during the discussion, a representative of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center informed the commission members that the company does not comply with Ukrainian legislation in the field of defense, mobilization training, and mobilization. Following this, the commission did not support the recommendation to recognize the enterprise as critical. As a result of the vote, the decision to grant the relevant status was not made.
Subsequently, the Poltava Regional Military Administration formalized the decision by a letter dated April 7, 2026, which recognized LLC "VITABUD" as not meeting the criteria defined in paragraph 2 of the Criteria and Procedure approved by Cabinet Resolution No. 76. The decision stated that according to regional criteria, a positive decision requires documented information from the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center confirming the enterprise’s compliance with legislation in defense, mobilization training, and mobilization. The administration referred to the message from the TRC representative who stated during the commission meeting that the company did not meet such requirements.
Disagreeing with the refusal, the enterprise appealed to the court. The plaintiff argued that the decision of the Poltava OVA was unfounded, made without proper legal and factual grounds, while all documents confirming compliance with the established criteria were provided. The defendant insisted that the commission acted within its powers and the decision was made according to Procedure and Criteria No. 76 and the regional procedure for determining critical enterprises.
Position of the court
In assessing the legal relations in dispute, the Poltava District Administrative Court proceeded from the fact that state authorities, according to Article 19 of the Constitution of Ukraine, must act solely on the basis, within the powers, and in the manner defined by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine. The issue of recognizing enterprises as critical is regulated by the Law "On Mobilization Training and Mobilization," Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 76, which approves the Criteria and Procedure for determining such enterprises, as well as regional criteria approved by the Poltava Regional Military Administration.
The court noted that Procedure No. 76 imposes an obligation on the authorized body to consider the enterprise’s application within a specified period and make a reasoned decision based on the results. The decision on the enterprise’s non-compliance with the criteria must contain proper justification for the refusal.
During the consideration of case No. 440/5413/26, the court established that the LLC applied to the Poltava OVA with a request to be recognized as a critical enterprise and submitted documents, later additionally providing certified extracts from the lists of personal military registration of employees. The commission reviewed the submitted materials but decided that the enterprise did not meet the criteria, after which the Poltava OVA formalized the corresponding decision by letter dated April 7, 2026.
The court found that the sole basis for refusal was an oral message from a representative of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center, who stated during the commission meeting that the company did not comply with Ukrainian legislation in defense, mobilization training, and mobilization. This message was the basis for the commission’s conclusion about the enterprise’s non-compliance with the criteria.
At the same time, the court noted that the defendant did not provide any proper evidence confirming the statements of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center representative. The case materials lack documents indicating established violations of legislation in defense, mobilization training, or mobilization by the plaintiff. Thus, the commission’s conclusion was essentially based only on an oral message that was not supported by any evidence.
However, the court noted that the plaintiff indeed did not submit an official letter from the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center confirming the absence of violations in mobilization training and mobilization as required by the regional criteria of the Poltava OVA. Nevertheless, the enterprise provided other documents, including certified extracts from the lists of personal military registration of its employees.
The court pointed out that the Poltava Regional Military Administration itself did not receive or provide the court with any official information from the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center that would document violations by the company. Meanwhile, the regional criteria explicitly require that information on the enterprise’s compliance with legislation on defense, mobilization training, and mobilization be provided by the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center in the form of an official letter. The court stated that such a document is absent in the case.
Under these circumstances, the court concluded that the defendant did not prove the legality of the contested decision, and the refusal to recognize LLC "VITABUD" as a critical enterprise was made without proper evidentiary basis and sufficient factual justification. An oral message from the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center representative alone cannot be considered a proper basis for a decision on the enterprise’s non-compliance with established criteria.
Conclusions of the court
Evaluating the disputed legal relations as a whole, the court emphasized that according to part two of Article 77 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, the burden of proving the legality of the decision lies with the authority. In this case, the Poltava Regional Military Administration did not provide proper and admissible evidence confirming violations by LLC "VITABUD" of legislation in defense, mobilization training, and mobilization. Reference solely to an oral message from the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center representative cannot be considered sufficient evidence for refusal to recognize the enterprise as critical.
The court also proceeded from the fact that when making a decision, the administrative body must act reasonably, in good faith, and consider all circumstances relevant to the case. If the commission had doubts about the enterprise’s compliance with mobilization legislation, such doubts should have been confirmed by proper documents, not solely oral explanations from a participant in the meeting. The absence of documentary confirmation indicates unproven circumstances underlying the contested decision.
At the same time, the court noted that the administrative court is not empowered to independently recognize an enterprise as critical, as this decision belongs to the discretionary powers of the authorized body. The court’s task is to verify whether the decision of the authority was made on the basis, within the powers, and in the manner prescribed by law, and whether it is reasonable and supported by proper evidence. In the absence of such conditions, the court may annul an unlawful decision but cannot substitute itself for the state authority in deciding on granting the enterprise the relevant status.
In view of this, the court concluded that the proper way to protect the violated right is to recognize as unlawful and cancel the decision of the Poltava Regional Military Administration formalized by the letter dated April 7, 2026, No. 01-66/2507, and to oblige the defendant to reconsider the LLC’s application for recognition as a critical enterprise for the functioning of the economy and ensuring the livelihood of the population during a special period, taking into account the legal assessment provided by the court in this decision. During the new consideration, the administration must evaluate all documents submitted by the enterprise and make a decision based on proper, admissible, and sufficient evidence.
Thus, the court found that the refusal of the Poltava Regional Military Administration did not meet the requirements of legality and reasonableness, as it was based on unconfirmed oral information without a proper evidentiary basis.
This circumstance became the basis for satisfying the claim in part by canceling the contested decision and obliging the defendant to reconsider the enterprise’s application in accordance with current legislation.
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 informed about the most important events.
