The Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal ruled that the mere refusal to receive a call-up is not a violation of the mobilization law. Reservists and persons liable for military service must report at the time and place specified in the call. At the same time, the law does not require that a person necessarily accept a summons to the CMC.
In August 2024, the MCC drew up a report against the man for violating the requirements of Article 22, paragraph 1, of the Law «On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization» on 9 August 2024, as he refused to accept the «military» call-up for 9 August 2024. On August 15, the head of the TCC issued a fine.
The man asked the court to recognize this decision of the MCC as unlawful and cancel it. The Obolonsky District Court of Kyiv considered the case and dismissed the claim by its decision of December 26, 2024. Thus, the TCC’s fine remained in force. But the man filed an appeal.
The Court of Appeal sided with the plaintiff.
An analysis of the legislation shows that reservists and persons liable for military service are obliged to appear at the place and time specified in the summons. At the same time, the current legislation does not contain any provisions on the obligation of a person to receive a summons to appear before the relevant MCC and JIC.
However, the case file, the protocol and the contested resolution do not contain information that the plaintiff failed to appear at the summons of the TCC, failed to comply with the decision to undergo a medical examination to determine fitness, failed to provide buildings, structures, vehicles or other property in the prescribed manner, as required by law.
Thus, a person’s refusal to receive a summons is not a violation of the obligations provided for in the law. Thus, the reference to the plaintiff’s violation of Article 22(1) of Law No. 3543-XII is groundless. No information was provided on any other violations by the plaintiff of any other provisions of the legislation on defense, mobilization preparation and mobilization.
The court also noted that the TCC was not even able to provide any evidence that the summons had been prepared, attempted to be served, or that the plaintiff had refused to accept it. The defendant provided neither the summons itself, nor the act of refusal to receive it, nor the relevant video recording. Therefore, the panel of judges concluded that the defendant’s claim that the plaintiff had refused to receive the summons was unfounded.
In addition, the court additionally noted that it was impossible to determine the type of summons that the plaintiff allegedly refused to receive. The fact is that the concept of «military summons» is not defined in the law, so it is groundless to refer to the refusal to receive it at all.
Thus, the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the Obolon District Court of Kyiv and issued a new court decision. The court satisfied the claim, declared unlawful and canceled the decision of the TCC to impose a fine for refusal to receive the summons.
To recap,«Reserve+» now indicates a specific date when you need to appear at the HLC to save time. And soon, fines from the TCC can be paid online in «Reserve+» And at a discount.
Source: Judicial and legal newspaper