Article 631 of the Civil Code of Ukraine (CCU) regulates the term of the contract—that is, the period during which the parties may exercise their rights and must fulfill the obligations ...
20Oct
Article 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses Explained Simply: What This Article Is About
Article 210-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (CAO) establishes administrative responsibility for violations of the legislation on defense, mobilization training, and mobilization. That is, the article itself does not contain a complete list of prohibited actions. To determine whether a violation has occurred, it is necessary to establish a specific duty of the citizen provided by another law or regulatory act and to find out precisely what the failure to comply entailed.
This is an important detail. Having a ruling or even just a reference to Article 210-1 of the CAO does not replace the establishment of the fact of the offense and the person’s guilt. During the case review, the authorized official must clarify whether an offense was committed, whether a particular person is guilty, and whether they are subject to liability. This is directly provided for by Article 280 of the CAO.
You can check the current text of the provision in the current version of the CAO on the website of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
How Article 210-1 Differs from Article 210 of the CAO
These articles are often confused, although they regulate different violations. Article 210 of the CAO relates to violations by conscripts, those liable for military service, and reservists regarding military registration rules. Article 210-1 of the CAO has a broader subject — violations of legislation on defense, mobilization training, and mobilization.
Therefore, it is important that the ruling shows not only the article number. It must be clear which specific legal requirement the person violated.
What Grounds May Lead to Liability under Article 210-1 of the CAO
One of the most common practical cases relates to a citizen’s duty to appear upon proper summons. Mobilization legislation establishes corresponding obligations for citizens, and the CAO defines responsibility for their violation.
Situations in which the question of applying Article 210-1 of the CAO can arise include:
- Failure to appear upon proper summons without valid reason, if the law imposed an obligation on the person to arrive at a specified time and place.
- Non-fulfillment of another legally established obligation in the mobilization sphere, if administrative responsibility is provided for such a violation.
- Violations of mobilization legislation by officials, for whom Article 210-1 provides separate, higher fines.
At the same time, every case requires establishing specific circumstances. Failure to appear, notice of reasons for absence, mode of notification, presence of supporting documents, and the content of the relevant obligation all have legal significance. This is why a commentary on Article 210-1 of the CAO cannot be reduced to the phrase “did not come – automatically fined.”
What Fine Does Article 210-1 of the CAO Provide
In 2024, the article’s sanctions were substantially changed by Law No. 3696-IX. For calculation of administrative fines, one non-taxable minimum income of citizens equals 17 UAH.
The following amounts are provided for citizens:
- for violations in normal conditions – from 300 to 500 non-taxable minimums, i.e., from 5,100 to 8,500 UAH;
- for repeated violation within a year, if the person was already held administratively responsible for that violation – from 500 to 700 non-taxable minimums, i.e., from 8,500 to 11,900 UAH;
- for violations during a special period – from 1,000 to 1,500 non-taxable minimums, i.e., from 17,000 to 25,500 UAH;
For officials, the sanctions are higher. During a special period, they range from 2,000 to 3,500 non-taxable minimums, i.e., from 34,000 to 59,500 UAH.
As of September 22, 2026, Ukraine is undergoing general mobilization – its term extended from August 2, 2026, for another 90 days. Therefore, the practically relevant sanction for a citizen is for violation during a special period – 17,000–25,500 UAH.
Who Imposes Fines under Article 210-1 of the CAO
Cases under Articles 210 and 210-1 of the CAO fall, among others, under the competence of Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centers. On behalf of these centers, the heads of the respective territorial centers have the right to consider such cases and impose administrative penalties. For certain categories of those liable for military service and reservists, the law assigns competence to the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) or the Foreign Intelligence Service.
Thus, a case under Article 210-1 of the CAO is not necessarily initially reviewed by a court. The authorized body may issue a fine ruling within the competence prescribed by the CAO.
Is a Protocol Always Drawn up?
No. The law provides a special exception.
During a special period, a protocol under Article 210 or 210-1 may not be drawn up if the person, without valid reasons, did not appear upon summons or did not report the reason for absence, was properly notified of the date, time, and place of summons, and the authority has supporting documents of the summons receipt. A separate procedure without protocol is also provided when the person themselves submits a statement not disputing the violation and agrees on case consideration without their presence.
The absence of a protocol in cases provided by law does not mean the citizen loses the right to defense or appeal against the ruling.
What Rights Does a Citizen Have under Article 210-1 of the CAO
Article 268 of the CAO establishes the procedural rights of a person subjected to administrative responsibility. These apply during the consideration of cases related to mobilization legislation.
A citizen has the right to:
- familiarize themselves with materials of the administrative case;
- provide explanations regarding the circumstances of the event;
- submit documents and other evidence;
- file petitions and statements;
- use legal assistance from a lawyer or another legal specialist in cases provided by law;
- use interpreter services if necessary;
- appeal the issued ruling;
These rights are practically significant if the person disagrees with the fact of the violation, the notification method, presented evidence, or other case circumstances.
Is It Possible to Pay 50% of the Fine?
From 2025, the CAO includes a special procedure for cases under Articles 210 and 210-1. It applies when a person does not dispute the violation, agrees to be held liable without their presence, and submits a corresponding application.
In such a case, the ruling is considered executed if at least 50% of the established fine is paid within 10 calendar days from the day the ruling enters into force. For example, if the ruling specifies a fine of 17,000 UAH, 50% equals 8,500 UAH. If the fine is not paid within 30 days from the day the ruling became valid, it is subject to enforced collection.
This procedure should not be confused with appealing. It is intended precisely for situations where the person admits the violation.
Periods for Imposing and Appealing the Fine
For Article 210-1 during a special period, a special term for imposing an administrative sanction is established. It is longer than the general terms for many other administrative offenses.
The main terms are:
- A fine may be imposed within three months from the day the violation is detected, but no later than one year from the day it was committed.
- A complaint against the ruling under the general CAO procedure can be submitted within ten days from its issuance.
- If the appeal deadline is missed for valid reasons, the law allows its restoration upon the person’s application.
The special deadline is stipulated in Article 38 of the CAO, and the appeal rules in Article 289 of the CAO.
What to Check in a Ruling under Article 210-1 of the CAO
To understand the basis for the fine, it’s insufficient to see just the label “Article 210-1 of the CAO.” You need to establish which specific violation the authority accuses the person of.
First of all, check:
- Which specific duty is established by law and indicated as violated.
- When, where, and under what circumstances the alleged violation occurred.
- What evidence supports the fact of violation and proper notification of the person if the case regards a summons.
- Whether the person held responsible is correctly identified.
- Whether the deadlines for imposing an administrative sanction are observed.
- Whether the procedure and deadline for appealing the ruling are explained.
Article 210-1 of the CAO foresees a significant fine, but administrative responsibility is linked not merely to having a complaint from the authority but to an established unlawful and guilty act. The CAO itself clearly defines an administrative offense as an unlawful, guilty act or omission for which the law establishes liability.
Frequently Asked Questions about Article 210-1 of the CAO
Article 210-1 of the CAO establishes administrative responsibility for violating Ukrainian legislation on defense, mobilization training, and mobilization. To hold someone accountable, a specific violation prescribed by legislation and the circumstances of its commission must be established.
During a special period, the fine for citizens for a violation under Article 210-1 of the CAO ranges from 1,000 to 1,500 non-taxable minimum incomes of citizens – from 17,000 to 25,500 UAH. For officials, the fine ranges from 34,000 to 59,500 UAH.
The article covers violations of legislation on defense and mobilization. In practice, liability questions may arise, for example, in cases of failure to fulfill mobilization obligations established by law or failure to appear upon proper summons without valid reason. The ruling must specify the exact nature of the violation.
Yes, under certain conditions, failure to appear upon proper summons without valid reason can be grounds for administrative responsibility. Important factors include the notification method, evidence of summons receipt, the presence of valid reason, and other circumstances of the particular case.
No. The CAO provides for cases, especially during the special period, when a case under Article 210 or 210-1 may be considered without drafting a protocol. In particular, this is possible if there is evidence of proper notification or when the person does not dispute the violation and agrees on a case review without their presence.
Cases under Article 210-1 of the CAO within the legally defined competence can be considered by Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centers. The ruling on an administrative sanction is issued by an authorized official of the respective body.
Yes. The ruling on an administrative offense can be appealed. Generally, under Article 289 of the CAO, an appeal is filed within 10 days from the date of the ruling. If the deadline is missed for valid reasons, the law provides for its restoration.
Yes, but not in every case. The special procedure applies if the person does not dispute the violation, agrees to be held responsible without presence, and the ruling is issued accordingly. If at least 50% of the fine is paid within 10 calendar days from the ruling’s effective date, the ruling is considered fulfilled.
If the specific ruling falls under the special 50% payment procedure, paying 8,500 UAH within the legal term is sufficient. The mere presence of a fine under Article 210-1 of the CAO does not automatically mean the 50% rule applies.
Such situations are possible if separate offenses are involved. Additionally, Article 210-1 provides separate liability for repeated violations within a year for which the person was already held administratively responsible. Each case must be evaluated separately considering dates, circumstances, and content of the rulings.
For offenses under Articles 210 and 210-1 of the CAO committed during a special period, an administrative sanction can be imposed within three months from the day the violation was detected, but no later than one year from the day it was committed.
First, obtain and carefully check the ruling to find out what exact violation is indicated, what evidence the authority presents, and whether the procedure was followed. The person has the right to familiarize themselves with the case materials, provide explanations and evidence, use legal assistance, and appeal the ruling according to the law.
Article 210 of the CAO concerns violations of military registration rules by conscripts, those liable for military service, and reservists. Article 210-1 covers a broader category — violations of legislation on defense, mobilization training, and mobilization.
The Law of Ukraine on the Legal Regime of Martial Law is the Law of Ukraine dated May 12, 2015, No. 389-VIII. It defines what martial law is, who and how it is introduced, what additional powers ...