A court in Chernihiv has found that patrol police acted illegally during an administrative detention because they failed to notify the centre providing free legal aid. Novozavodsky District Court of Chernihiv upheld a man’s claim that his right to professional legal assistance was violated when police did not inform the Free Legal Aid Centre after his detention on Feb 11, 2026. The case focused on police procedure, not the existence of grounds for the detention itself. Police detained the man and delivered him to the territorial centre for recruitment and social support (TЦK and SP). Video from the officers’ chest cameras showed the detention began at 14:47, and that by 14:57 the man was already at the TЦK. At 15:06, he was handed over to centre staff. During the detention, the man tried to contact his lawyer, but the lawyer did not arrive. The man argued that officers did not ensure his access to legal assistance and did not notify the Free Legal Aid Centre. Police insisted they acted within their powers, saying the man called his lawyer himself and also claiming the man refused to have the centre informed. The court ruled that police had a legal obligation to inform the relevant Free Legal Aid Centre about each case of administrative detention under Article 261 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offences. Exceptions apply only when the detainee independently provides their own defence or has already requested an attorney. The court found that in this case there was only an attempt to reach a lawyer who did not come. The judges also noted there were no recorded explanations on video about the detainee’s right to receive free legal aid, and no captured refusal of that right. Even if a refusal had occurred, the court said it would not remove the duty to notify the centre, and police did not provide proof that the notification requirement was met. At the same time, the court accepted that there were valid grounds for administrative detention to draw up an offence protocol. It also found no confirmation of alleged violations during the paperwork, including warnings about the use of physical force and handcuffs. The court partially upheld the claim and declared illegal the actions of patrol officer Maksym Prystupa in the detention on Feb 11, 2026, while dismissing the request to cancel the administrative detention protocol. The decision can be appealed to the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal within ten days of its announcement.