Odesa Court Overturns 17,000 Hryvnia Fine for Military Registration Error

The Malynovskyi District Court of Odesa sided with a citizen who challenged a fine imposed on him by the territorial center for recruitment and social support.

According to the case file, the plaintiff said that he was illegally brought to administrative responsibility and illegally fined UAH 17,000 for moving through the territory of Ukraine without having an original military registration document.

However, the plaintiff stated that he immediately provided the TCC employees with the only military registration document he had received, his service record card, which is why he was detained by the TCC employees and held in the barracks on the TCC's territory for a day.

He was not invited to the hearing on the administrative offense report drawn up against him, and his legal requirements to participate in the hearing were ignored. He was allowed to leave the TCC, but he did not receive a copy of the decision to bring him to administrative responsibility, and only got acquainted with it during the consideration of the administrative claim by the court.

The court found that the plaintiff had been fined for violating paragraph 25 of Resolution No. 560 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, but the fined person had a service card and a copy of it in Rezerv+.

In addition, the content of the administrative offense report shows that it does not comply with Article 256 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, as it does not contain the main qualifying feature, namely that it was drawn up during the state of emergency.

The challenged resolution also fails to state that the reason for the violation is the prosecution during the state of emergency, which casts doubt on the proper statement of the fact of violation of CMU Resolution No. 560, and therefore excludes the possibility of bringing the person to administrative responsibility. The contested resolution does not contain the signature of the person who was brought to administrative responsibility, and the defendant has not provided evidence of sending it to the plaintiff.

The protocol of administrative detention was provided to the court in a form that is not readable, no other copy was provided, and it is only possible to read that the plaintiff did not agree with such actions of the defendant's employees and refused to sign.

Кирило Бойко