Court clarified the conditions for excluding a serviceman from the Military Law Enforcement Service search

The Kharkiv District Administrative Court considered a dispute between a serviceman and the Military Law Enforcement Service regarding the legality of his being on the search list after the closure of criminal proceedings and the court’s annulment of the service investigation results. The plaintiff requested to recognize the search actions against him as unlawful, to oblige to stop the search measures, and to exclude information about him from the lists and databases of the Military Law Enforcement Service.

Case circumstances

The plaintiff held the position of senior officer of the mobilization department. According to the response from the Military Law Enforcement Service, he is listed as a person who allegedly left the place of military service without permission. The basis for declaring him wanted was a report from the head of the relevant body dated July 11, 2025, and at the time of the court appeal, search measures were still being carried out against the plaintiff.

Disagreeing with these actions, the serviceman turned to the court.

Case materials No. 520/9896/26 indicate that on July 11, 2025, the head of the personnel department submitted a report about the plaintiff’s alleged unauthorized absence from the place of service. Based on this report, an order was issued to initiate a service investigation.

According to the results of the service investigation, an act was drawn up stating that from 14:00 on July 11, 2025, the serviceman was absent from the military unit, did not answer phone calls, and did not report his whereabouts.

Subsequently, by order on the results of the service investigation, the fact of unauthorized absence from the place of service and failure to appear for duty without valid reasons during martial law was confirmed. It was also decided to forward the materials to the State Bureau of Investigation due to possible signs of a criminal offense under part five of Article 407 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, to stop the payment of monetary allowance, and to deprive the serviceman of a bonus.

Based on the materials of the service investigation, the State Bureau of Investigation initiated criminal proceedings under part four of Article 408 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

At the same time, by the decision of the Kharkiv District Administrative Court dated November 25, 2025, in case No. 520/21817/25, the order on the results of the service investigation was canceled, and the relevant body was obliged to conduct a repeated service investigation regarding the verification of the fact of unauthorized absence from military service for the period from July 11 to July 18, 2025, taking into account the court’s legal conclusions.

In this decision, the court found significant procedural violations in conducting the service investigation. In particular, the order to initiate it was issued without proper justification and without considering that the serviceman was undergoing inpatient treatment, which was known to the body. Furthermore, a full and objective clarification of all circumstances was not ensured, the plaintiff was effectively deprived of the opportunity to participate in the service investigation, provide explanations and evidence, and no measures were taken to realize his procedural rights during treatment.

Later, the investigator of the State Bureau of Investigation closed the criminal proceedings by resolution dated April 6, 2026, due to the absence of a criminal offense.

After that, the serviceman applied to the Military Law Enforcement Service with a request to exclude him from the search and to stop search measures. He did not receive a response, which became the basis for filing this lawsuit.

In response to a lawyer’s inquiry, the Military Law Enforcement Service stated that no separate procedural document declaring the plaintiff wanted was drawn up. Later, the applicant was explained the procedure for his exclusion from the search.

Legal conclusions of the court

The court thoroughly analyzed the provisions of Articles 2, 3, and 8 of the Law of Ukraine "On the Military Law Enforcement Service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine," as well as the Instruction on the organization of patrol-post service by the Military Law Enforcement Service, approved by the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine Order No. 515 dated October 10, 2016.

The court noted that the Military Law Enforcement Service conducts searches for servicemen who have left military units or places of service without permission, failed to appear for duty on time without valid reasons, are hiding from pre-trial investigation bodies or courts, or are evading criminal punishment. The exercise of these powers depends on the legally established status of the respective person.

At the same time, the court noted that the plaintiff referred to the administrative court decision that annulled the results of the service investigation and the investigator’s resolution closing the criminal proceedings due to the absence of a criminal offense. According to the plaintiff, these circumstances indicated the absence of any legal grounds for his further being on the search list.

However, the court took into account the defendant’s explanation that according to paragraph 27 of section II of the Instruction approved by the Ministry of Defense Order No. 604 dated November 29, 2018, exclusion of a serviceman from the search is carried out after receiving information from the commander of the military unit about his voluntary return or detention and subsequent continuation of military service.

The court established that information about the plaintiff’s return to the military unit or continuation of military service was not received by the Military Law Enforcement Service.

Moreover, the court agreed with the defendant’s argument that the resolution to close the criminal proceedings only confirms the absence of a criminal offense but does not certify the fact of the serviceman’s return to service.

Similarly, the decision of the Kharkiv District Administrative Court dated November 25, 2025, does not refute this circumstance, as its operative part concerns only the annulment of the order on the results of the service investigation and conducting a new service investigation.

The court also noted that the plaintiff himself confirmed the fact of submitting a report on reinstatement to service only on October 1, 2025, almost three months after unauthorized absence from the place of service. Subsequently, he repeatedly expressed his intention to return to service and appealed to the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine.

At the same time, the court noted that the issue of non-consideration of reports on return to military service is the subject of another court dispute. The plaintiff only on June 15, 2026, filed a separate lawsuit recognizing the inaction regarding the non-consideration of his reports dated July 19, 2025, December 25, 2025, and June 1, 2026, as unlawful. Therefore, the relevant legal relations are ongoing.

Given the established circumstances, the Kharkiv District Administrative Court concluded that there are no grounds to satisfy the stated claims.

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.