For crossing the state border of Ukraine during martial law, a conscripted citizen must present not only a passport but also documents confirming exemption from mobilization – SC AdmCC

During martial law, a Ukrainian citizen subject to military service whose close relative was killed while performing tasks to ensure national security and defence, as well as repelling and deterring Russian armed aggression, must present at passport control not only their passport but also relevant supporting documents, such as a military ID with a mark of exemption from mobilization or a certificate from the Territorial Centre of Recruitment and Social Support (TCRSS) confirming exemption from mobilization.

This conclusion was made by the Administrative Cassation Court of the Supreme Court.

In the case under review, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine regarding their refusal to allow the plaintiff to cross the state border and the temporary restriction of their departure from Ukraine due to the absence of documents confirming the grounds for travel abroad. The plaintiff stated that his father, a serviceman, had died from a shell fragment wound while performing tasks to ensure national security and defence, as well as repelling and deterring Russian armed aggression in Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Therefore, according to Article 23 of the Law of Ukraine “On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization”, he is not subject to conscription for military service.

The court of first instance partially granted the plaintiff’s claims, recognizing the decision to deny crossing the state border of Ukraine as unlawful, since the respondent did not take into account circumstances related to the death of the plaintiff’s father. The appellate court overturned the first-instance ruling and denied the claim, stating that the plaintiff had not provided documents proving deferment or exemption from military service during mobilization. In addition, military registration documents confirming such exemption or deferment were not submitted, therefore the decision to deny the plaintiff permission to cross the state border of Ukraine was deemed justified, within the authorities of the respondent, and based on applicable law.

The Administrative Cassation Court of the Supreme Court left the plaintiff’s cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the appealed decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.

The Supreme Court noted that, in order to travel abroad, the plaintiff should have provided a document confirming that he is not subject to conscription during mobilization due to his father’s death while performing tasks to ensure national security and defenсe, and repelling and deterring Russian armed aggression in Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

This could be either: a military ID of the conscripted person with the relevant mark (or a temporary certificate) as one of the main documents confirming military service obligations, or a certified certificate from the district Territorial Centre of Recruitment and Social Support, which officially confirms that the person belongs to a category of Ukrainian citizens exempt from restrictions on leaving the territory of Ukraine.

The plaintiff did not provide any documents confirming the right to cross the state border of Ukraine under the martial law regime, neither at the border nor during the court proceedings.

Resolution of the Supreme Court of 11 August 2025 in case No. 640/21967/22 (proceedings No. K/990/12183/24) - https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129450885.

This and other legal positions of the Supreme Court can be found in the Database of Legal Positions of the Supreme Court - https://lpd.court.gov.ua.