In this publication, we consider the key success of the lawyers in the case of challenging the wrongful action of the Head of the Prylutsky District Territorial Center for Staffing and Social Support.
If you are looking for a TCC lawyer to protect your rights, the story we will tell you can be a model for understanding how lawyers can effectively help you in solving your legal issues.
Recently, a client of the “Kasyanenko and Partners” law office was faced with the fact that he was served with an illegal summons, which declared an administrative penalty for committing illegal actions. However, thanks to deep knowledge in the field of protection of citizens’ rights and the presence of irrefutable evidence, the lawyers managed to get the court to cancel the unfair decision.
By virtue of the principle of presumption of innocence, which is enshrined in Art. 62 of the Constitution of Ukraine and operates in administrative law, the guilt of the person being prosecuted must be proven by proper evidence, and not based on assumptions, all doubts about the guilt of the person being prosecuted are interpreted in his favor. Unproven guilt equals proven innocence.
The consultation of a TCC lawyer proved its value when a violation of the client’s rights was proven before the court.
Situations where the intervention of a military lawyer is necessary are often related to the rights and obligations of persons subject to the activities of military authorities. And this case was no exception. The principle of the presumption of innocence was ignored, and that is why the legal measures taken were necessary to cancel the imposed fine.
In light of the often encountered illegal subpoenas, it is important to remember the possibility of protecting your rights. The legal precedent established in this case provides strong arguments in the fight against administrative abuses and emphasizes the importance of timely seeking legal assistance.
In the case of annulment of an illegal decision or if you need additional advice or legal support, please contact the law office “Kasyanenko and Partners”. With us you will find effective solutions and protection of your rights.
To successfully challenge an illegal decision of the Territorial Communication Center (TCC), the lawyer will need several documents and arguments confirming inaction, procedural violations, or deficiencies in the drafting of the decision. Here is a list of documents that can be used for appeal:
- A copy of the protocol on an administrative offense, which must indicate the date, place, and time of the hearing of the case as an object for appeal.
- Notification or other documentary evidence confirming the lack of proper notification of the date, time, and place of the case hearing.
- Evidence of the relevant legal process, where the representative of the defendant was unable to confirm the notification of the proceedings.
- A copy of the contested resolution, indicating errors in it, such as the absence of information about the place of the offense and the specific part of the article under which the prosecution was held.
- Materials of the administrative offense case, provided by the defendant, with an analysis of the lack of evidence of notification.
- Evidence of refusal to receive mail (if it exists).
- Minutes of court hearings where relevant violations of procedural legislation were witnessed.
- Legal expertise or opinion confirming procedural violations during the case review.
- Copies of legislative acts regulating the procedure for conducting administrative review and drawing up protocols (in particular, the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses of the Criminal Procedure Code).
The preparation of these documents and their analysis should be carried out in a complex manner, taking into account all the nuances of the case.
Consultations of a lawyer throughout Ukraine
+380672399388
Content of the court decision
In substantiation of the claims, PERSON_1 refers to the fact that on August 21, 2023, the head of the Prylutsky District Territorial Center for Recruitment and Social Support of PERSON_2 issued Resolution No. 3/62/SSP on the application of an administrative sanction in the form of a fine of 3,400 hryvnias for committing an administrative offense under Article 210-1 of the Criminal Procedure Code, namely for violation of part 3 of Article 22 of the Law of Ukraine “On Mobilization Training and Mobilization”. He found out about the existence of the resolution only on December 26, 2023, after receiving information about the opening of some enforcement proceedings against him. From Diya’s application, he found out that there is a resolution No. 3/62 in the case of an administrative offense to charge him a fine for UAH 6,800.00 in favor of INFORMATION_1. On December 28, 2023, he received a response to the inquiry, from which it became clear to him that on August 21, 2023, he was prosecuted for the fact that on August 20, 2023, he allegedly refused to receive a summons to appear on August 21, 2023, at 09:00. 00 min., to the Third Department of the Prilutskyi RTCC and SP, for which a fine for UAH 3,400.00 was imposed under Article 210-1 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He states that he categorically disagrees with the resolution, as his address and date of birth were not specified in the summons. PERSON_1 was not summoned at all for consideration of the decision, his rights were not explained to him, and the case was considered in his absence.
The court also takes into account the fact that the notification of the date, place, and time of the hearing of the administrative offense case was indicated in the protocol on the administrative offense dated August 21, 2023, namely at 11 a.m. 00 min. August 21, 2023, in office No. 1 (a.s. 62, return -63). However, the report on the administrative offense was drawn up in the plaintiff’s absence, the next day. The representative of the defendant Burlak R.V. could not confirm the fact that PERSON_1 was informed, at least orally, about the day, place, and time of the hearing of the administrative offense case.
In addition, the resolution does not contain information about the place where the offense was committed, it is not specified under which part of Article 210-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure PERSON_1 was brought to administrative responsibility.
Along with this, the court examined the materials of the administrative offense case provided by the defendant and found no evidence in them to confirm that PERSON_1 received the decision on the administrative offense earlier than he indicated in the statement of claim, or that he refused to receive the mail.
To the copy of the envelope sent by PERSON_1, which was returned to the Third Department of the Prylutskyi RTCC and SP without delivery to the addressee, a certificate from a post office employee with the note: “after the expiration of the storage period” (a.s. 67, return, 68) was added to the copy of the envelope available in the case file. Such a certificate cannot serve as confirmation of the fact of serving PERSON_1 with a resolution on an administrative offense.”
https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/117700373
