A 17,000 fine imposed by the TCC was overturned due to missed deadlines
The Cherkasy District Court overturned the Territorial Recruitment Center’s ruling imposing a fine of 17,000 hryvnias for failure to appear in response to a summons. The court concluded that this violation was not ongoing and that the Territorial Recruitment Center had missed the statutory deadline for holding the individual administratively liable.
The Cherkasy District Court of Cherkasy Oblast ruled in favor of the conscript who had appealed the fine imposed by the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center. The court ruled that the TCC’s decision was unlawful, overturned the 17,000 hryvnia fine, and dismissed the administrative proceedings.
The lawsuit concerned a fine imposed under Part 3 of Article 210-1 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses. The case involved failure to appear at the TCC in response to a summons.
How the Case Arose
As the court established, in May 2026, the man saw in the “Reserve+” app that information had been entered regarding his violation of military registration rules. The notification stated that he had failed to appear at the TCC as summoned, and that on January 15, 2026, the recruitment center had contacted law enforcement authorities to request that he be brought in.
On May 14, the man submitted a statement via “Reserve+” indicating that he did not dispute the violation and agreed to have the case heard in his absence. The following day, May 15, the head of the TCC issued a ruling imposing a fine of 17,000 hryvnias.
Why the Court Overturned the Ruling
The key issue during the hearing was whether failure to appear in response to a summons constitutes a continuing administrative offense. The court concluded that it does not.
The ruling states that such a violation is a one-time occurrence. It takes place on a specific date and time when a person fails to appear as summoned. Therefore, the time limit for imposing an administrative penalty begins precisely on that date. ““The offense provided for in Part 3 of Article 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, which consists of a person subject to military service or a conscript failing to appear when summoned to the territorial recruitment and social support center, is not a continuing offense,” the court noted.
The court pointed out the missed deadline
The court established that the Territorial Recruitment Center was aware of the man’s failure to appear no later than January 15, 2026. It was on this very day that the center contacted the police to request that he be located and brought in. However, the order imposing the fine was not issued until May 15, 2026. Thus, more than three months had passed between these dates.
Pursuant to Part 7 of Article 38 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, an administrative penalty for such an offense during a special period may be imposed within three months from the date of its discovery, but no later than one year from the date of its commission.The court concluded that this time limit had been missed.
The Territorial Recruitment Center Did Not Provide the Case Materials
During the hearing, the representative of the Territorial Recruitment Center did not appear in court. Furthermore, the defendant did not file a written response to the complaint and did not provide the materials of the administrative case that the court had requested to verify the legality of the ruling.
The decision emphasizes that it is the authority itself that must prove the legality of its actions and provide all evidence that served as the basis for holding the individual accountable.
An admission of guilt does not override the requirements of the law
Separately, the court noted that even a person’s statement of consent to being held accountable does not relieve the TCC of its obligation to prove the very fact of the administrative offense. “A person’s admission of guilt alone does not relieve the authority from the obligation to prove the occurrence of an administrative offense and the person’s guilt with proper and admissible evidence,” the ruling states.
The court also cited the case law of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, which emphasize that the principle of the presumption of innocence applies in cases involving administrative offenses, and that all doubts must be interpreted in favor of the individual.
What Decision Did the Court Render?
Following the hearing, the Cherkasy District Court ruled that the TCC’s decision to impose a fine was unlawful. The decision to impose a fine of 17,000 hryvnias was overturned, and the case was dismissed.
At the same time, this decision applies specifically to this particular case and was made taking into account its circumstances. It does not mean that other fines for failure to appear when summoned will automatically be canceled. In each case, the court separately assesses compliance with procedure, the timeliness of bringing charges, and the existence of sufficient evidence. This was reported by the Judicial and Legal Gazette.
Ombudsman Dmytro Lubinets refuted reports that the family of Nazar Daletskyi, a soldier in the 24th Mechanized Brigade, is required to return 15 million hryvnias in “death” benefits to the state; this issue has not yet been resolved. The soldier, who had been officially declared dead since September 2022, returned home during a prisoner exchange on February 3, 2026.
Earlier, Taras Podvirnyi, the Ombudsman’s representative in Lviv Oblast, noted during a session of the regional council that the soldier’s family is now required to repay the state the “death” benefit.
