Failure to Contact the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centre to undergo Military Medical Commission repeatedly — Formerly 'Limited Fitness' Face a Fine of UAH 17,000

In the reviewed case, the man argued that he was not required to undergo a repeat medical examination without receiving a summons or referral. The Second Administrative Court of Appeal disagreed: Law No. 4235-IX imposed on such citizens the obligation to independently contact the military commissariat or use the electronic cabinet to obtain a referral for the medical commission, so the absence of a summons does not exempt from fulfilling this obligation.

The appeal upheld the decision to impose a fine of UAH 17,000 on the conscript who, by June 5, 2025, did not undergo a repeat medical examination after the legislative cancellation of the "limited fitness" category.

Case Circumstances

The plaintiff challenged the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centre's decision to hold him administratively liable under Part 3 of Article 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, which fined him UAH 17,000 for violating mobilization preparation and mobilization legislation.

As established by the courts, the man was previously recognized as unfit for military service in peacetime and limitedly fit during wartime. After legislative amendments, he was obliged to undergo a repeat medical examination by June 5, 2025, to determine fitness for military service, but he did not do so and did not contact the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centre or use the electronic cabinet to obtain a referral for the military medical commission. According to the Unified State Register of Conscripts, Reservists, and Military Personnel, this obligation was not fulfilled, after which the police were requested to bring the man to the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centre, where an administrative offense protocol was drawn up against him.

The court of first instance denied the claim. The man appealed this decision.

Plaintiff's Arguments

In the appeal, the plaintiff stated that he did not receive a summons or referral for the repeat military medical examination and therefore was not obliged to undergo it. In his opinion, such an obligation arises only after a proper summons and delivery of the relevant referral.

He also indicated that he had updated his personal data in advance via the "Reserve+" app, so the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centre had the opportunity to send him a summons. Additionally, the plaintiff claimed he was not properly notified about the administrative offense hearing, that his signature on the protocol was allegedly forged by another person, and that the decision was made after the expiration of the administrative liability period.

Appeal Court's Conclusions

The panel of judges rejected these arguments and agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance.

The court noted that after the entry into force of Law No. 4235-IX, citizens aged 25 to 60 who were recognized as limitedly fit for military service before the entry into force of Law No. 3621-IX were obliged to undergo a repeat military medical examination by June 5, 2025, to determine fitness for military service. The law provided two ways to fulfill this obligation: independently contact the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centre or use the electronic cabinet of conscripts, reservists, and military personnel to obtain a referral for the medical commission.

The panel emphasized that this obligation arose directly from the law and was not dependent on the delivery of a summons, as Law No. 4235-IX explicitly required such citizens to independently contact the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centre or use the electronic cabinet to obtain a referral for the military medical commission. Therefore, the absence of a delivered summons is not grounds for exemption from liability for failure to fulfill this obligation.

The court also noted that after the expiration of the statutory deadline, the obligation did not cease. A person who failed to fulfill it remains in a state of ongoing violation until the legal requirement is met. According to the court, any other interpretation would effectively encourage evasion of the legally prescribed duty and nullify the purpose of the legislative changes.

Why the Court Rejected Other Arguments

The appeal court also disagreed with the arguments about the expiration of the administrative liability period.

The panel noted that for offenses under Article 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses during a special period, administrative penalties may be imposed within three months from the date of detection but no later than one year from the date of the offense. The court observed that the moment of detection is when an authorized person establishes all elements of the administrative offense, which is procedurally documented by drawing up a protocol. In this case, the protocol was drawn up on October 16, 2025, and the fine decision was issued on October 30, 2025, within the legally prescribed period.

The court also rejected the claim of a forged signature on the protocol. The panel noted that the case materials contain no evidence of signature forgery. Instead, in case 639/3690/26, there were written explanations from the plaintiff himself and a signed memo explaining procedural rights. In his handwritten explanations, the man stated that he did not undergo the medical commission by June 5, 2025, because he "was not aware."

Court Decision

The Second Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and left the decision of the Novobavarsky District Court of Kharkiv unchanged.

Thus, the fine of 17,000 hryvnias under Part 3 of Article 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses remains in force. The court confirmed that for citizens who were recognized as limitedly fit for military service before the entry into force of Law No. 3621-IX, Law No. 4235-IX imposed the obligation to independently contact the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centre or use the electronic cabinet to obtain a referral for a repeat military medical examination, and the absence of a summons alone does not exempt from liability for failure to fulfill this obligation.

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 updated on the most important events.