Does a police officer have the right not to go on a business trip to Donetsk region if they consider themselves insufficiently prepared — the position of the Supreme Court

The subjective assessment by a police officer of their own preparedness, the complexity of tasks, or the advisability of a business trip is not a basis for disobeying a management order. If there are no objective and documented obstacles, failure to go on a business trip during martial law may be grounds for dismissal from service. This conclusion was reached by the Supreme Court in case No. 520/23819/24, leaving unchanged the decisions of lower courts that denied the former police officer's reinstatement.

Case circumstances

A police captain serving as a senior inspector of the special police regiment of the Main Directorate of the National Police in Kharkiv region challenged the order imposing disciplinary action in the form of dismissal and the subsequent dismissal order.

The courts established that on July 8, 2024, the police officer was informed of the order to be sent on a business trip to Donetsk region under the operational subordination of one of the operational-tactical groups to perform combat (special) tasks as part of the special police unit.

During the official investigation, it was established that after being informed of the order, the police officer did not depart to the business trip location. This fact was confirmed by reports from supervisors, explanations from other police officers, a video recording of the order briefing, and other investigation materials.

The plaintiff himself did not deny that he did not go on the business trip. At the same time, he claimed that he did not refuse to execute the order but informed the management about the impossibility of its execution due to lack of necessary military and tactical training, combat coordination skills, and defensive position setup. In his opinion, these circumstances indicated objective reasons for non-compliance with the order and were not properly considered during the investigation.

Based on the investigation results, the Main Directorate of the National Police concluded that a disciplinary offense was committed and imposed disciplinary action in the form of dismissal. This sanction was later implemented by the dismissal order.

What the courts decided

The Kharkiv District Administrative Court and later the Second Administrative Court of Appeal denied the claim.

The courts reasoned that the police officer was properly informed of the management order but did not comply and did not depart on the business trip during martial law. Such actions were qualified as violations of service discipline, failure to perform official duties, and breach of the Police Oath.

The courts also noted that police officers during martial law participate in territorial defense tasks and enforcement of martial law legal regime measures, so failure to comply with the relevant order is incompatible with further police service.

Position of the Supreme Court

The Administrative Cassation Court agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts.

The Supreme Court reminded that police service is a state service of a special nature, and service discipline obliges a police officer to unconditionally execute orders issued by superiors within their authority and according to the law. During martial law, police bodies and units participate in territorial defense tasks and enforcement of martial law legal regime measures.

The court separately analyzed the plaintiff's arguments regarding the application of part two of Article 5 of the Disciplinary Statute of the National Police, which requires a police officer to inform the superior about the impossibility of executing an order.

The panel of judges noted that this provision does not create an independent basis for non-compliance with an order but establishes a mechanism for promptly informing management about objective obstacles to its execution. The mere fact of submitting a report or notification about difficulties does not relieve the obligation to execute the order and does not refute the fact of a disciplinary offense.

The Supreme Court emphasized that failure to comply with a business trip order during martial law can only be justified by the presence of objective and documented circumstances that genuinely make its execution impossible, for example, a health condition confirmed by medical documents. No such circumstances were established in this case.

The court also rejected arguments about insufficient military or tactical training. According to the panel, a police officer's subjective assessment of their own training level, task complexity, or advisability of the business trip is not an objective obstacle to executing the order, especially under martial law. Such circumstances may be relevant for organizing further service or personnel training but do not exempt from the duty to report to the business trip location.

The Supreme Court also noted that aggravating circumstances were established during the investigation, including the police officer having an active disciplinary sanction in the form of a warning about incomplete service compliance.

Supreme Court conclusion

The Supreme Court concluded that the police officer was properly informed of the business trip order but consciously did not execute it and did not depart to the service location. The absence of documented obstacles indicates a violation of service discipline and failure to perform police duties.

Under these circumstances, the Administrative Cassation Court dismissed the cassation appeal, leaving the decisions of the Kharkiv District Administrative Court and the Second Administrative Court of Appeal unchanged.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.