представники ТЦК не мають права затримувати громадян і тим паче примусово доправляти їх до ТЦК.

Legal consultations are held in any way convenient for you: ● By phone ● Personal meeting ● Video conference Free legal consultation for military personnel and their family members Contact us: Tel.: 098-792-76-78 - messengers mikhailovalawyer.kr.ua "...Therefore, representatives of the CCC do not have the right to detain citizens and, moreover, forcibly deliver them to territorial recruitment centers. Only police officers have the authority to conduct administrative detention and forcibly deliver a citizen to the CCC. Military personnel who notify those liable for military service do not have such a right. TCC employees can initiate detention only if a person is wanted for ignoring summonses, but only the police can physically detain and deliver a person. Any independent detention by representatives The CCC is illegal. Therefore, the detention of persons as a measure to ensure the conduct of cases under the Code of Administrative Offenses is within the competence of the National Police and other bodies in cases specified in Article 262 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. This list does not include recruitment centers. Article 17 of the Constitution of Ukraine prohibits the use of the Armed Forces or other military formations to restrict the rights of citizens or overthrow the constitutional order. The court draws attention to the fact that although the Law of Ukraine "On Military Duty and Military Service" does not provide for such a basis for exemption from military service as illegal mobilization, nevertheless, military service is a direct consequence of the mobilization order, and therefore, in order to effectively protect the violated right of the plaintiff and fully restore it, the obligation of military unit NUMBER_1, represented by the commander of this military unit, will be to adopt a decision to exempt the plaintiff from military service and exclude him from the lists of personnel. At the same time, the current legislation does not contain provisions that would allow a subject of government authority to act at its own discretion, to issue acts of individual action that are obviously unlawful. Regarding the appellant's arguments that the procedure for conscripting a conscript for military service upon mobilization is irreversible, that is, one that has already taken place, and recognizing the conscription procedure as unlawful will not result in the restoration of the previous position of the person who was conscripted for military service, with reference to the conclusions of the Supreme Court expressed in the resolution of 05.02.2025 in case No. 160/2592/23, the panel of judges does not take it into account, since each case has its own characteristics, its own individual circumstances, which are established on the basis of evidence. In the case referred to by the appellant, the main emphasis of the plaintiff-serviceman was on the fact that he did not pass the VLK, in the above-mentioned case the plaintiff did not appeal against an act of individual action (order of the head of the district CCC and SP on the mobilization of the plaintiff), and the actions regarding the violation committed during the procedure for conducting the VLK. The plaintiff appealed the act of individual action in the part that directly concerns him, the subject of the court hearing in this case was not the study of the procedure for conducting the VLK and/or other actions (inaction) of the district CCC and SP, that is, the cases are not identical. At the same time, the conclusions of the Supreme Court on the recognition of the conscription procedure as irreversible are not exemplary, but concern the specific case of a serviceman who almost a year later applied to the court with a claim for not passing the VLK, and therefore the panel of judges sees no grounds for taking into account such references of the appellant. Therefore, the court of appeal concludes that the plaintiff's claims are satisfied in full, and the methods of judicial protection chosen by the plaintiff are effective, appropriate and aimed at the full and final restoration of the rights and legitimate interests violated by the subject of authority..." Case №160/6554/25 You can become a sponsor and support the development of the channel by following the link below:    / @ЮРИДИЧНИЙТИЛ