Failed to appear in response to a summons: The TCC fined the man 25,500 UAH
The Regional Recruitment Center fined the man 25,500 hryvnias for failing to appear in response to a summons. The decision on the administrative penalty was issued approximately 25 minutes after the relevant report was drawn up.
The man himself disagreed with this decision. He claimed that the summons had not been properly served and that his military registration information had already been updated at that time. Despite this, the Territorial Recruitment Center imposed the maximum fine.
The conscript appealed the 25,500 UAH fine imposed by the TCC for failing to appear in response to the summons. He claimed that he had updated his military registration information in a timely manner, had not been properly notified of the summons, and pointed out deficiencies in the summons’ formatting.
The Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the Territorial Center for Recruitment and Social Support to impose a fine of 25,500 UAH on the conscript under Part 3 of Article 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses and remanded the case for a new hearing. The court emphasized that before imposing an administrative penalty, an official is required to thoroughly investigate the circumstances of the case, consider possible valid reasons for failure to appear, and properly justify the amount of the fine imposed.
Circumstances of the Case
The plaintiff challenged the decision of the Traffic Control Commission dated November 26, 2024, which found him guilty of a violation under Part 3 of Article 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, and was fined 25,500 UAH.
According to the TCC’s ruling, the man was sent a summons by registered mail via Ukrposhta, requiring him to appear on October 16, 2024, to undergo a medical examination and update his military registration information. Since he did not appear at the TCC and did not provide valid reasons for his failure to appear, he was held administratively liable.
The plaintiff, however, claimed that he had updated his military registration information as early as May 19, 2024, through the Administrative Services Center and his online account, denied that the summons had been properly served, cited deficiencies in its formatting, and noted that he had previously undergone a medical examination and had been deemed partially fit for service. He asked the court to overturn the ruling and dismiss the case.
The Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Lviv denied the claim on the grounds that, after receiving the summons, the citizen was required to report to the Territorial Military Registration and Enlistment Office but, in fact, appeared only after being brought in by police officers.
What the Court of Appeals Found
The panel of judges agreed with certain conclusions of the trial court but noted that the latter had failed to properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the unjustified imposition of the maximum fine.
The court noted that, in accordance with Article 33 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, when determining an administrative penalty, an official must take into account the nature of the offense, the identity of the offender, the degree of their guilt, their financial status, as well as any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
The panel of judges noted that, according to the case file, the plaintiff arrived at the Traffic Control Center at 9:50 a.m., while the hearing was scheduled for 10:15 a.m. In the court’s view, such a short time frame raises reasonable doubts as to the possibility of fully ascertaining all the circumstances that, pursuant to Article 33 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, are relevant to determining the type and amount of the administrative penalty. Furthermore, the panel concluded that the case materials do not indicate that these circumstances were properly established.
The Court of Appeals also noted that the respondent failed to consider whether the plaintiff had valid reasons for failing to appear before the Traffic Control Center, even though this is of significant importance for determining whether a person should be held administratively liable.
Furthermore, the court pointed out that the respondent failed to explain why the case was heard just 25 minutes after the report was drawn up and why the plaintiff was absent during the hearing after the report was drawn up.
The Court’s Conclusions
The Court of Appeals concluded that the maximum fine was imposed without proper justification, without a full investigation of all the circumstances of the case, and without adhering to the requirements of good faith and impartiality in decision-making.
In light of this, the panel of judges partially granted the appeal, overturned the decision of the court of first instance and the TCC’s ruling imposing the administrative penalty, and subsequently remanded Case No. 466/12436/24 for a new hearing before the competent authority.
However, the appellate court did not close the proceedings in the case nor did it rule on the absence of grounds for the plaintiff’s administrative liability. The court concluded only that, during the consideration of the case, the TCC had failed to ensure a thorough and objective examination of all the circumstances; therefore, the case materials must be reconsidered by the authorized body in accordance with the requirements of the law. The appellate court’s ruling took legal effect upon its announcement and is final.
This was reported by the Judicial and Legal Gazette.
The owner of the Telegram channel “Trukha” was released from the Lviv TCC.
The Ministry of Defenseand the Territorial Recruitment Center deny that they deliberately mobilized Trukha’s owner, Lavrinenko.
The Security Service of Ukraine, in cooperation with the National Police, has thwarted new schemes to evade mobilization. According to law enforcement officials, eight such schemes have been uncovered in various regions of the country, and 14 organizers have been detained. Among those involved are a bank employee, representatives of the Territorial Military Commissariat, bloggers, and individuals with prior criminal convictions.
People’s Deputy Georgiy Mazurashu stated that in Bukovina, a German citizen who had come to Ukraine to visit relatives was drafted into the army during the mobilization.
