A protocol is not a verdict: why, without evidence, it does not prove your guilt

Courts consistently emphasize that a record of an administrative offence is only a means of documenting an incident and an initial legal assessment by an official, and not a self‑sufficient proof of a person’s guilt.

The protocol as a procedural act, not a “verdict”

Under the Code of Administrative Offences, the protocol is a document in which an authorized officer describes the circumstances of an alleged misdemeanour, the person’s details, witnesses, place and time, and refers to the relevant legal provision.

It is only one item of evidence in the case, not a decision of a public authority or a legal act that in itself creates consequences; therefore it cannot be challenged separately in an administrative court — what may be reviewed is the ruling adopted as a result of the case examination.

The Supreme Court and appellate courts expressly state that a protocol, by itself and without additional proper and admissible evidence, cannot be treated as unconditional proof that a person committed an administrative offence.

The circumstances set out in it must be verified by other written materials, video‑ and photographic evidence, witness statements and expert opinions, and the court must assess the protocol together with the entire body of evidence.

Standards of proof: why one protocol is not enough

Article 251 of the Code provides that evidence consists of any factual data obtained in the manner prescribed by law which make it possible to establish the event of an offence and the guilt of a specific person.

Current case‑law and overviews of the Supreme Court proceed from the standard of “sufficiency and reliability”: if the fact of the event and the elements of the offence are not proven by admissible evidence, this is treated as the absence of both the event and the elements, and the proceedings must be closed.

Therefore a protocol drawn up in breach of form, without a description of essential circumstances, without references to sources of evidentiary information, or containing internal inconsistencies cannot by itself give rise to administrative liability.

Courts separately stress that where no evidence (photos, videos, reports, witness statements) is attached to the protocol, or such evidence is doubtful, there are no grounds to consider the person’s guilt proven; in that situation the proceedings must be closed for lack of the event or elements of an offence.

Case‑law: when a protocol “fails” in court

In one appellate decision frequently cited, the court noted that the protocol and the written explanations attached to it were in fact based solely on one party’s version of events; no witnesses were questioned and there was no video recording. The court held that such a construction did not meet the requirements of Article 251 and that the protocol could not serve as proper proof of guilt.

Another example is the overviews of the Bar Council and the Supreme Court concerning protocols issued by territorial recruitment centres: courts clearly indicate that evidence of the violation (extracts from registers, copies of orders, notices, etc.) must be attached to the protocol; otherwise it reflects only the official’s assumption.

This logic also applies to “typical” situations: police protocols for traffic violations, minor hooliganism, breaches of trade rules or military record‑keeping. Where, apart from the protocol form itself and the officer’s report or explanations, there are no objective data, courts increasingly side with the person brought to liability.

What this means for defence

First, a person has the right to demand that the authority which drew up the protocol provide all materials supporting the circumstances described in it: video recordings, inspection reports, witness statements, extracts from registers, inspection documents and so on.

If such materials are absent, the complaint to the court should expressly state that the protocol is merely a carrier of the authority’s position rather than proof of the offence, and should request that the case be closed for failure to prove the event and elements of the offence.

Second, it is essential to carefully check compliance with procedural requirements: who drew up the protocol, whether they had the proper authority, whether the date, place and description of circumstances are accurate, whether the person’s rights were explained, and whether all data about witnesses and victims were entered. Breaches of these requirements undermine the reliability of the protocol as a source of evidence.

Third, it is important to build your own body of evidence: written explanations, documents, photo and video materials, and witness testimony supporting your version of events. Under the applicable standard of proof, the court must assess the entirety of the evidence, not automatically give more weight to a police protocol than to other sources of information.

Balancing public interest and individual rights

The approach under which a protocol is treated as an initial legal assessment rather than a “ready‑made” proof of guilt reflects the courts’ effort to maintain a balance between the effectiveness of administrative enforcement and the protection of human rights.

On the one hand, the state retains an instrument for promptly recording violations; on the other, judicial control prevents any protocol from turning into an automatic fine or other sanction without a genuine examination of the circumstances.

In the longer term, this encourages authorities that draw up protocols to document offences more thoroughly, use video and photo recording, collect witness statements and properly compile the case file, knowing that in court they must prove not only that a protocol exists but also that the circumstances described in it are accurate.

If you face issues with challenging administrative offence rulings, analysing protocols, building an evidentiary basis or choosing a defence strategy in court, you should seek qualified legal assistance: timely advice will help you assess the evidentiary value of the materials, identify procedural flaws and effectively protect your rights.

Author – Svitlana Krutorohova, attorney at WINNER Law Firm.