GK News 2 - шаблон joomlaВидео
md
Log in
  • Українська(UA)
  • English (UK)
  • Русский(RU)
Soldier proved illegality of allegations of state about loss of weapons and military equipment
Soldier proved illegality of allegations of state about loss of weapons and military equipment

Almost for 2 years an ex-military officer tried to prove his innocence, being charged for the loss of arms, military equipment and property of a military unit located in ATO zone. And finally he succeeded to assert his rights in court.

In the beginning of 2015 Dmytro addressed the public reception office of the МАRТ NGO. At that time he together with the lawyer underwent two trials about recognition the order of his dismissal from military service as illegal and its cancellation.

The lawyers of the МАRТ NGO identified the case as strategic for the continued support by Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union.

Causes of accusations by state bodies were the events of May 31, 2014. Illegal combat groups of the self-proclaimed LPR seized the military unit in Luhansk, where Dmytro served as a Deputy Commander of the military unit on work with personnel. The military unit was located in a residential house next to other houses and children's playgrounds.

Subsequently the military command initiated an official investigation on the fact of the loss of weapons, military equipment and property of the military unit. Obviously, the circumstances of the case were not considered. Therefore, after investigation the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine issued a decree on the deprivation of Dmytro of his military rank and dismissing from military service.

The soldier couldn’t bear such a disgrace and filed a statement of claim in court about recognition the order of dismissal as illegal and its cancellation. On November 7, 2014 the district administrative court of Kiev issued a decree that granted Dmytro’s claim.

However, the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine filed an appeal that was upheld by the Kyiv appeal administrative court on 14 January 2015.

The decision of the Kyiv administrative court of appeal revoked the resolution of the district administrative court of Kyiv.

In turn, with the hope to achieve justice, Dmytro filed a cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine.

On February 9 of this year the Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine considered the complaint and adopted a resolution on the partial cancellation of the resolution of the Kiev appellate administrative court and referring the case to the Kyiv appeal administrative court to fully ascertain the circumstances of the case.

The basis for this decision was that during the trial the court of appeal received the unheeded proof – a letter from the Chairman of the Commission on investigation, which had essential importance for the proper resolution of the case.

The Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union directed Amicus curiae (Advisory opinion) to the court, in which the expert Arkady Bushchenko stated the arguments and the evidence the court had to focus on with a relevant analysis of international law and practice of the European Court of Human Rights.

On March 10, 2016 the Kyiv appeal court issued an order to remain the appeal complaint of the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine without satisfaction and remain the decision of the district administrative court of Kyiv without changes.

The legal rationale for the court's decision was the fact that at the time of the adoption of the order of dismissal the leadership did not take into account the circumstances of the offence, its consequences, the soldier’s previous behavior, as well as length of service, level of Dmitro’s knowledge and his achievements during military service.

Finally, after a long legal battle the soldier restored his rights.

*The hero's name was changed for ethical reasons.

Leave a comment

Make sure you enter the (*) required information where indicated. HTML code is not allowed.

ufpdcclapkhpgugsplDOCUSPACEРесурсний центр ГУРТМережа правового розвитку