The Supreme Court on 20 October 2026 finally dismissed a man’s claim seeking more than 100 255 550 000 UAH in non‑pecuniary damages and 3 224,78 UAH in material compensation after border guards refused to allow him to leave Ukraine for Canada.
Attempt to cross the border on 8 July 2024
The man attempted to cross the border at the «Luzhanka» checkpoint on 8 July 2024 and claimed that he had arranged to depart for permanent residence (PR). Departure for permanent residence (PR) means changing one’s place of permanent residence to another country, and a person subject to military registration is someone who must be registered for military service.
Border guards denied him passage because he lacked documents that would confirm lawful grounds for a person subject to military registration to leave during martial law. The plaintiff asked the court to declare the refusal unlawful and to recover the stated amounts as moral and material compensation.
Decisions of the first‑instance and appellate courts
The Zakarpattia District Administrative Court in January 2025 dismissed the claim, and in April 2025 the appellate court left that decision unchanged. The courts established that the claimant had not provided the required documents to cross the border.
In particular, there was no confirmation of removal from the military register in connection with departure for permanent residence abroad and no proper passport stamp issued in the prescribed manner. These findings formed the basis for rejecting the claim at both levels of jurisdiction.
Ruling of 20 October 2026
In its ruling of 20 October 2026 the court noted that a passport stamp indicating departure for PR or registration on the permanent consular register alone does not entitle a person subject to military registration to leave Ukraine during martial law. To cross the border, documents are required that confirm the relevant legal basis, including a military registration document and the confirmations of the right to depart provided for by law.
The court also explained that the right to defer mobilisation and the right to cross the state border are distinct legal issues, and having one ground does not automatically mean the other exists. The restriction on departing during martial law was found to be justified by national security and defence needs.
The cassation appeal was dismissed, the decisions of the first‑instance and appellate courts were left unchanged, and the refusal to allow departure was declared lawful. The ruling came into force upon adoption and is not subject to appeal.
