Forgot military registration document, did not clarify data and refused the medical commission: man received three fines of 17 thousand hryvnias each

The Seventh Administrative Court of Appeal partially satisfied the claim of a conscript who challenged three decisions of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center imposing fines under Part 3 of Article 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. The man was held administratively liable for not having a military registration document with him, not clarifying military registration data, and refusing to undergo the military medical commission.

During the preparation of administrative protocols, the man explained that he left the military registration document at home, did not clarify the registration data because he was unaware of such an obligation, and refused to undergo the medical commission due to the absence of all medical documents. For each of the three episodes, the head of the Territorial Recruitment Center issued a separate decision imposing a fine of 17 thousand hryvnias.

The court of first instance denied the claim, but the appellate court concluded that one of the decisions was made with significant violations of the law, and regarding the other two, a new consideration must take into account the legislative requirements for imposing administrative penalties.

Regarding the military registration document

The appellate court agreed with the conclusion that the case materials confirm the fact of failure to present the military registration document.

The panel of judges noted that during mobilization, men aged 18 to 60 are obliged to have a military registration document with them and present it upon request of authorized persons.

Since the plaintiff himself explained during the protocol preparation that he forgot the document at home, and the relevant protocol contained his signature and these circumstances were not refuted, the court recognized the fact of violation of this obligation as proven.

At the same time, decision No. 4510 was not upheld by the appellate court. It was canceled, and the case was sent back for reconsideration to the Territorial Recruitment Center, since when deciding on holding a person liable, it is necessary to consider, among other things, the requirements of Article 36 of the Code of Administrative Offenses regarding the imposition of penalties for multiple administrative offenses.

The court canceled the fine for failure to clarify registration data

Regarding this episode, the appellate court found significant violations in the legal qualification of the offense.

The Territorial Recruitment Center held the man liable under Part 3 of Article 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, but the decision referred to legal norms with incorrect indication of their structure and did not clarify the exact composition of the administrative offense.

The panel noted that the articles of law cited by the Territorial Recruitment Center do not contain paragraphs, although such "paragraphs" were referenced. Moreover, the content of the decision implied that the person was actually accused of violating military registration rules, while liability was applied for violations of legislation on defense, mobilization preparation, and mobilization.

The appellate court emphasized that Articles 210 and 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses provide for different compositions of administrative offenses, and therefore incorrect legal qualification is a significant violation.

In view of this, decision No. 4511 was canceled and the proceedings in the case were closed.

Lack of medical documents does not justify refusal of the medical commission

Regarding refusal to undergo the military medical commission, the appellate court agreed with the conclusion that the plaintiff had no legal grounds to refuse the medical examination.

The court noted that the law imposes on conscripts the obligation to undergo the medical commission, and the issue of sufficiency of medical documents is decided by the doctors of the military medical commission.

The panel pointed out that the doctors have access to the electronic health system, can obtain necessary medical information, and if needed, refer the person for additional examinations. Therefore, the absence of certain medical documents may be grounds for appealing the commission’s conclusion but is not a lawful reason to refuse the medical examination.

Furthermore, the case materials contained no evidence that the plaintiff requested to postpone the medical commission or took measures to undergo the medical examination after the protocol was drawn up.

Nevertheless, despite these conclusions, decision No. 4512 was also canceled by the appellate court and the case was sent for reconsideration to the Territorial Recruitment Center.

The court drew attention to the application of Article 36 of the Code of Administrative Offenses

Separately, the appellate court commented on the procedure for imposing administrative penalties.

The panel noted that the court of first instance mistakenly did not consider the provisions of part two of Article 36 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, which regulates the imposition of penalties when one person commits several administrative offenses, and the cases are simultaneously considered by the same authority.

According to the court, during the new consideration, the competent authority must take into account the provisions of Articles 33 and 36 of the Code of Administrative Offenses regarding the imposition of administrative penalties.

What the appellate court decided

As a result of the consideration of case No. 727/4204/26, the Seventh Administrative Court of Appeal canceled decision No. 4511 regarding failure to clarify military registration data and closed the proceedings in this case.

The court also canceled decisions No. 4510 regarding failure to present the military registration document and No. 4512 regarding refusal to undergo the medical commission and sent both cases for reconsideration to the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center.

The appellate court’s decision came into legal force on the day of its adoption and is final.

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