Publication date: 01.05.2025
Lawyer with experience working in various structures and formats.
Case summary: appeal against an administrative offense ruling.
Responsible lawyer: Tetiana Dmytrivna Kruhliak.
Case details:
The Client contacted our firm regarding a ruling that found them administratively liable under Part 4 of Article 126 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses (CUoAO) — driving a vehicle by a person deprived of the right to drive. According to this ruling, the Client was fined UAH 20,400 in favor of the state.
The basis for issuing the ruling was another decision — the decision of the Yampil District Court of Sumy Region dated October 21, 2023. By this decision, the Client was found guilty of an administrative offense under Part 1 of Article 130 of the CUoAO (driving under the influence). The court imposed an administrative penalty of UAH 17,000 and deprived the Client of the right to drive for one year.
However, an important fact was that the Yampil District Court’s decision had not yet entered into legal force at the time the ruling under Part 4 of Article 126 CUoAO was issued. An appeal had been filed against this decision and was accepted for review by the Sumy Court of Appeal. The court hearing on the appeal was scheduled for February 20, 2025.
Thus, at the time of being held liable under Part 4 of Article 126 CUoAO, the Client had not been formally deprived of the right to drive. This became the key point that allowed the ruling to be appealed.
Result:
Lawyer Tetiana Dmytrivna Kruhliak prepared a well-reasoned appeal stating that applying Part 4 of Article 126 CUoAO was premature since, at the time of the ruling, the first-instance court’s decision had not entered into legal force. She argued that deprivation of the right to drive takes effect only after the court decision becomes final, and until then, the person is considered to have a valid driving right.
The appeal was accepted for review, and the court hearing was scheduled, which gives grounds to expect the cancellation of the UAH 20,400 fine ruling. The Client is currently at the stage of defending their rights in the appellate court.
Article 126. Driving by persons who do not have the right to drive or transferring driving to such persons
Procedure for appealing an administrative offense ruling
Main stages:
- Case materials analysis.
The lawyer studied the administrative ruling, first-instance court decision, case facts, and the timeline for the decision to enter into legal force.
- Preparation of the appeal.
The appeal stated grounds for canceling the ruling: incorrect application of law, premature issuance of the ruling, violation of procedural rights.
- Filing the appeal with the appellate court.
The appeal is filed through the first-instance court, after which the appellate court opens proceedings and sets a hearing date.
- Court hearing.
The lawyer represents the Client’s interests in court, provides explanations, and presents legal arguments citing Supreme Court practice and legal norms.
- Obtaining the decision.
If the appeal is granted, the appellate court cancels the ruling, and the imposed fine is not subject to payment.
This case showed how important it is to promptly seek legal help, as even a formally issued decision may contain serious legal errors. Thanks to the work of lawyer Tetiana Dmytrivna Kruhliak, the Client has a high chance of defending their rights, avoiding an unlawful fine, and preventing an illegal deprivation of the right to drive.
If you face administrative disputes or rulings you believe are unfounded, we recommend not delaying and contacting our lawyers — we will help protect your rights at all stages of court proceedings.
