Supreme Court: SBU Information on Russian Citizenship Is Sufficient Grounds for Dismissal of a Civil Servant

The Cassation Administrative Court within the Supreme Court considered whether a state body could dismiss a civil servant based on information from the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) confirming the civil servant's Russian citizenship.

In case 480/7731/22, the Supreme Court ruled that information from the SBU, establishing a civil servant's Russian citizenship, constitutes sufficient legal grounds for dismissal under Article 84 of the Law of Ukraine "On Civil Service." The Court clarified that the law does not mandate an official investigation or other additional procedures before dismissal in such instances.

The Supreme Court stressed that the appointing authority bears the responsibility for confirming a civil servant's foreign citizenship. In this case, this duty was fulfilled by obtaining official information from the SBU, which, by law, is a specially authorised state security body with the necessary powers to uncover such facts.

Case Circumstances

The plaintiff had served as Head of the Main Department of the State Service of Ukraine on Food Safety and Consumer Protection in the Sumy region since 2017.

In November 2022, the State Service received a letter from the SBU reporting that the official had obtained a Russian Federation passport in 2014. The letter included printouts from Russian information resources, such as data from the "Russian Passport" database, information from Russian migration and tax service websites, and a copy of the application for the Russian passport.

Based on this information, the State Service issued an order to dismiss the official under paragraph 2 of part one of Article 84 of the Law of Ukraine "On Civil Service," citing the established fact of holding foreign citizenship.

The former head of the department challenged the dismissal, asserting that he had never acquired Russian citizenship or received a Russian passport. He also claimed that the documents attached to the SBU letter were not admissible evidence, specifically stating that the signature on the Russian passport application was not his.

Decisions of the Courts of First and Appeal Instances

Both the Sumy District Administrative Court and the Second Administrative Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the plaintiff.

The courts concluded that the SBU letter contained information about the probable possession of Russian citizenship, but this information required verification by the State Service. They found that the defendant had failed to provide proper and admissible evidence of the plaintiff's foreign citizenship and had not taken any steps to verify the information received from the SBU.

Consequently, the courts annulled the dismissal order, reinstated the plaintiff, and awarded him average earnings for the period of forced absence. The appellate court also partially granted the claim for reimbursement of legal fees, awarding UAH 10,000.

Supreme Court's Position

The Cassation Administrative Court disagreed with these conclusions.

The Supreme Court noted that Article 84 of the Law of Ukraine "On Civil Service" imposes a mandatory obligation on the appointing authority to dismiss a civil servant found to hold citizenship of another state. Such dismissal must occur within three days of establishing this fact.

The Court emphasized that the law does not require an official investigation or other additional procedures before a dismissal decision is made.

The key issue in the cassation review was whether the information received by the State Service from the SBU was sufficient to establish that the civil servant held foreign citizenship.

The Supreme Court concluded that, in the circumstances of this case, the information received from the SBU, confirming the plaintiff's Russian citizenship, constituted sufficient legal grounds for the dismissal decision.

The Court reiterated that, according to the Law of Ukraine "On the Security Service of Ukraine," the SBU is a special state body authorized to detect instances of Ukrainian citizens acquiring citizenship of other states as part of its counterintelligence activities and other functions related to ensuring state security.

The Cassation Administrative Court also referred to its established practice in cases No. 0940/1503/18, No. 640/4337/19, No. 260/1146/18, and No. 640/19582/21, where a similar approach was formulated.

According to the Supreme Court, the courts of first and appeal instances erred in concluding that the information received from the SBU was insufficient to establish the fact of the plaintiff holding Russian citizenship. Given the established circumstances, the State Service's approach was predictable and complied with legal requirements, as the dismissal decision was based on official information received from a competent state authority.

Supreme Court's Decision on Legal Fees

The Supreme Court separately reviewed the appellate court's ruling that awarded the plaintiff UAH 10,000 for professional legal assistance.

The Court noted that an additional court decision on the allocation of court costs is derivative of the substantive case decision. Since the cassation review resulted in the final refusal of the claim, there are no legal grounds for compensating the plaintiff's legal fees.

Therefore, the Supreme Court annulled the appellate court's ruling in this part and denied the claim for reimbursement of legal fees.

Thus, the Supreme Court upheld the cassation appeal of the State Service, overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appeal instances, and denied the claim to annul the dismissal order, reinstate the plaintiff, recover average earnings, and compensate for legal fees.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua, follow SUD.UA on Google News , and join us on VIBER, WhatsApp, Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the important events.