In Odesa Region, a Border Guard Was Tried After AWOL and Illegal Border Crossing by a Military Person – Unexpected Turn in the Case

The Kiliya District Court of Odesa Region closed the proceedings in the administrative offense case against a military service member, concluding that there was no offense. The court noted that the case materials did not contain evidence of official negligence and did not confirm that the servicemember had a real opportunity to perform the actions she was accused of failing to execute.

Case Circumstances

The head of the border service department drew up an administrative offense protocol series PdRU No. 376119 dated June 27, 2026, against the military service member under part 2 of article 172-15 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses.

According to the protocol, on June 16, 2026, while on duty in a border patrol, the military service member failed to maintain constant communication with the border patrol and did not report the loss of communication, which led to the servicemember’s unauthorized departure from the military unit and illegal border crossing, thereby violating the requirements of paragraphs 3, 7, and 13 of point 5, chapter 5, section II of the Instruction "On the Service of Border Patrols of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine."

At the court hearing, the servicemember explained that on June 16, 2026, she was on duty in the border patrol. She did not receive any reports from the border patrol about loss of communication. At approximately 6:20 AM, she received information that a Sea Guard boat was drifting, after which she immediately relayed the information to the shift supervisor and informed the duty officer.

Court Decision

The Kiliya District Court of Odesa Region reviewed the administrative case No. 502/1525/26 and ruled that, according to paragraph 1, part 1, article 247 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, the proceedings in the administrative offense case should be closed due to the absence of the event and composition of the administrative offense.

The court noted that according to part 1 of article 9 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, an administrative offense (misdemeanor) is recognized as an unlawful, guilty (intentional or negligent) act or omission that encroaches on public order, property, rights and freedoms of citizens, the established order of governance, and for which administrative responsibility is provided by law.

The objective side of negligence, i.e., careless attitude to service, is the failure or improper performance of official duties due to negligent or irresponsible attitude towards them. However, if a person had no real opportunity to manifest any attitude towards their official duties, it cannot be said that it was negligent or irresponsible.

The court established that the administrative offense protocol does not contain data indicating the presence of an administrative offense in the actions of the military service member, in particular, it does not specify circumstances indicating her official negligence, what actions she was obliged to perform and how, the failure to perform which is charged against her. The case materials lack evidence confirming that the military service member had a real opportunity to perform certain duties but failed to do so due to negligence or irresponsibility.

The court referred to the legal position set out in the Supreme Court ruling dated May 21, 2021, in case No. 185/12161/15-k, according to which, when establishing negligent attitude to military service in the form of failure to perform official (positional) duties, it is necessary to establish that the accused was obliged to perform the actions, the failure of which is charged to them. A military service member can be held responsible for negligent attitude to military service only if they were not only required by their official duty to perform certain actions but also had a real opportunity to perform them properly. If the military service member was in conditions where they had no actual possibility to properly perform their official (positional) duties, responsibility for negligent attitude to military service is excluded.

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