“The Third Appeal Administrative Court confirmed the decision of the Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court, which found the actions of the State Border Service of Ukraine illegal. It is about the refusal of a citizen of Ukraine to cross the state border and the seizure of his passport of a citizen of Ukraine to travel abroad. The appellate court agreed that the DPSU officials had unjustifiably limited the person’s right to leave the country. In favor of”, — write on: ua.news
The Third Appeal Administrative Court confirmed the decision of the Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court, which found the actions of the State Border Service of Ukraine illegal.
It is about the refusal of a citizen of Ukraine to cross the state border and the seizure of his passport of a citizen of Ukraine to travel abroad.
The appellate court agreed that the DPSU officials had unjustifiably limited the person’s right to leave the country.
In favor of the plaintiff, the decision to collect monetary compensation in the total amount of UAH 191,980 was upheld. Of this amount, UAH 95,980 is compensation for property damage caused by illegal actions, and UAH 96,000 is compensation for moral damage.
Thus, the courts of two instances recognized that the state must not only state the violation of rights, but also actually compensate for the damages caused.
As reported in JSC “Barristers”, which represented the interests of the citizen, the reason for the refusal to leave allegedly was the lack of a complete package of documents for crossing the border.
Before that, employees of the DPSU seized his foreign passport, declaring that the document was “suspected of forgery”. At the same time, there was no evidence, expertise or procedural decisions of competent law enforcement agencies.
During the consideration of the case in court, the State Border Service did not provide any proper proof of the legality of its actions. Also, the border guards were unable to confirm their claims about the possible forgery of the passport either with documents or with reference to any criminal proceedings.
Instead, the lawyers of JSC “Barristers” provided a complete package of evidence, which confirmed that the citizen fulfilled all the requirements of the law for legal crossing of the border.
The court established that the actions of DPSU officials contradicted Article 33 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which guarantees everyone the right to freedom of movement and free travel outside the state.
The seizure of the passport took place without open criminal proceedings and without a decision of the investigator or prosecutor, which the court considered to be a gross violation of the procedure defined by law. Thus, the border guards actually independently took over the powers of pre-trial investigation bodies.
JSC “Barristers” noted that the adopted decision is important for the protection of citizens’ rights at checkpoints across the state border.
According to the lawyers, the court clearly demonstrated the inadmissibility of arbitrary deprivation of the right to leave Ukraine under formal or invented pretexts. Lawyers emphasized that human rights must be respected even under martial law.
It will be recalled that the Supreme Court refused to cancel the sanctions against the thief in the law from Chechnya.
The Court also sentenced the driver who caused a fatal accident on the Maidan.
