A 65-year-old resident of the Cherkasy region attempted to restore justice and hold accountable the employees of the Territorial Center for Recruitment and Social Support who caused significant harm to his health.
As stated in the court case materials, on the evening of March 20, 2025, a 65-year-old resident of the city of Kaniv, Mykhailo L., was returning home.
Suddenly, a car stopped near Mykhailo L., from which unknown individuals got out, identifying themselves as employees of the TRC and SS, and requested him to present his military registration documents and identification.
However, Mykhailo L. did not have the relevant documents with him, so he asked them to call the police to verify his identity.
Instead of police officers, another group of TRC employees arrived at the scene.
A constructive conversation did not occur — TRC representatives started beating Mykhailo L., striking him on the face and body, then shoved him into a vehicle, and forcibly took him to the building of the TRC and SS.
In the TRC building, Mykhailo L. was held until his identity and real age — 65 years (mobilization in Ukraine is possible up to 60 years) — were clarified.
The next day after returning home, Mykhailo L. felt unwell and went to the local hospital. Specifically, he complained of a severe headache.
After a medical examination, the on-duty doctor informed Mykhailo L. of the need for hospitalization in the hospital.
Mykhailo L. was found to have:
- closed traumatic brain injury
- brain concussion
- contused head wound
- chest injury
- cervical spine injury
- high blood pressure
Mykhailo L. was hospitalized until March 27, 2025.
However, it was only on May 7 that Mykhailo L. decided to contact the police with a report of the crime committed against him.
The police reacted somewhat strangely to the citizen’s report — the report of a criminal offense was accepted, but no criminal proceedings were registered, and thus no pre-trial investigation was initiated. The man was not even interviewed as a victim.
Mykhailo L. repeatedly contacted the district police department to inquire about the fate of his report, but he received verbal responses that "the inspection is still ongoing."
Finally realizing that no result would be forthcoming, the man contacted the Smila District Prosecutor’s Office, but his complaint was redirected to another prosecutor’s office — the Cherkasy Specialized Prosecutor’s Office in the Defense Sector of the Central Region, where he was informed of the lack of authority to resolve his issue.
Only on June 23 did Mykhailo L. appeal to the Kaniv City District Court of the Cherkasy region with a complaint against the police investigator’s inaction regarding the failure to enter information about the criminal offense into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations.
However, it turned out that the citizen had already violated the ten-day deadline established by the Criminal Procedure Code for filing complaints about the actions or inaction of an investigator or prosecutor (Article 304 of the CPC).
The investigating judge of the Kaniv City District Court on June 26 stated in his ruling that, as the 10-day period for appealing the investigator’s inaction had already ended on May 19, the complaint was subject to return to the complainant. The court also declined to reinstate the procedural deadline for appealing the investigator’s inaction regarding the failure to enter information about the criminal offense into the URPI.
Mykhailo L., with the help of a lawyer, decided to challenge the decision of the court of first instance and appealed to the Cherkasy Court of Appeals.
Explaining the reasons for missing the ten-day deadline for appeal, Mykhailo L. stated that he missed the deadlines due to poor health and a depressed moral state. He also noted that he tried to resolve the issue through communication with the police and prosecutor’s office but was unsuccessful.
Mykhailo L. added that the investigating judge of the Kaniv City District Court took a formal approach to analyzing the situation, failing to account for exceptional circumstances that hindered the timely submission of the complaint, notably the severe physical and psycho-emotional condition of the applicant.
However, the appellate court still indicated that the reasons for missing the deadline to appeal the investigator’s inaction could not be considered valid, as Mykhailo L. had more than enough time for the appropriate appeal.
"The reasons provided by the complainant for missing the deadline cannot serve as grounds for reinstating the deadline in such a case, as citing illness prior to the filing of the crime report and at the district police department after the expiration of the appeal period for inaction is not a valid reason for missing the deadline in the understanding of the CPC of Ukraine.
The panel of judges also considers the established practice of the ECHR, stating that a party involved in the trial process is obligated to reasonably inquire about the proceedings of their case, conscientiously utilize their procedural rights, and consistently perform procedural duties, as one of the criteria of ’reasonableness of the term’ is the behavior of the applicant. A participant in the case is obliged to demonstrate a willingness to participate at all stages of the trial and to make maximum use of all means of domestic law for expediting the hearing procedure (’Chirico v. Italy’)," stated the ruling of the appellate court.
Thus, on July 16, the Cherkasy Court of Appeals left Mykhailo L.’s appeal without satisfaction and the ruling of the investigating judge of the court of first instance unchanged.