In Pervomaisk, a Policeman Fined a Man for Public Intoxication, but the Court Annulled the Ruling

In Pervomaisk, a policeman fined a man for being intoxicated in a public place. The court annulled the ruling and closed the administrative offense case.

This was reported by PN with reference to the decision of the Pervomaisk City District Court of Mykolaiv region.

According to the case materials, in July the man filed a claim with the court. He stated that he only learned about being held administratively liable after he received an email notification about the seizure of his funds in connection with an opened enforcement proceeding.

The case concerns a police officer’s ruling dated 19 May 2026 of the year, by which the man was fined 51 hryvnias for being intoxicated in a public place.

In particular, it is noted that at about 18:00 the man, together with an acquaintance, was on the premises of the Pivdennyi garage cooperative in Pervomaisk. After a remark about speed, the driver of the car got out of the vehicle and assaulted him, including hitting him on the leg with a bat. The man called the police, but the inspector issued a ruling against him for committing an offense.

According to the plaintiff, he was not informed about being held administratively liable, his rights and duties were not explained to him, and he was not informed about the possibility of using legal assistance or appealing the ruling.

Moreover, the man emphasized that the ruling did not state why the territory of the garage cooperative should be considered a public place. The law enforcement officers did not provide documentary evidence that he was in a state of alcoholic intoxication.

The court agreed with the plaintiff’s arguments.

“The garage cooperative, on whose territory the offense against PERSON_1 occurred, and which, according to the contested ruling and the police’s version, is where the administrative offense allegedly took place, is not a public place, since its territory and premises are not intended for free access by outsiders but are private or collective holdings of the cooperative’s members,” the court stated.

The court also noted that the police did not provide proper evidence to justify issuing the ruling.

“Since the defendant in the case is an authority exercising governmental powers but did not provide adequate evidence to confirm the lawfulness of the police officer’s actions in issuing the ruling to hold the plaintiff administratively liable, the court concludes that the plaintiff’s claims are justified and deems it necessary to grant the claim in full,” the court stated.

Thus, the court annulled the police officer’s ruling and closed the administrative offense case.