Legal summary
October 2023
Konichenko v. Ukraine (communicated case) - 57699/22
Article 2 of Protocol No. 4
Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4
Freedom of movement
Article 2 para. 2 of Protocol No. 4
Freedom to leave a country
Imposition of ban on travelling abroad for male citizens aged 18 to 60 following the full-scale invasion of the territory of Ukraine by the Russian Federation: communicated
Article 14
Discrimination
Imposition of ban on travelling abroad for male citizens aged 18 to 60 following full-scale invasion of the territory of Ukraine by the Russian Federation: communicated
On 24 February 2022, following the full-scale invasion of the territory of Ukraine by the Russian Federation, martial law was imposed in Ukraine and a general mobilisation announced. They were both extended by Parliament on a number of occasions and are still in place.
By a letter of 28 February 2022, the Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the Council of Europe informed the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, for the purposes of Article 15 of the Convention, of the introduction of martial law in Ukraine. In that letter and in subsequent letters extending the validity of the measures taken, Ukraine derogated from the rights enshrined in the Convention for the duration of the state of martial law.
On the day of the imposition of martial law, the Head of the State Border Guard Service (“the SBGS”) sent a letter to all bodies of the SBGS ordering that all male citizens aged 18 to 60 years be banned from travelling outside Ukraine for the period of martial law. That ban is not applicable to persons who were not subject to call-up for military service during mobilisation, which included individuals bringing up a child or children under the age of 18 on their own. On 29 March 2022 the ban was formalised by a government resolution.
The SBGS refused to allow the applicant on three occasions – 3 March, 26 May and 21 September 2022 respectively – to leave the territory of Ukraine with his two-year-old son and, on the last one, also with his seventeen-year-old daughter. In respect of the second and third attempts the refusals were based on a lack of grounds to leave as the applicant had failed to provide the relevant documents authorising him to cross the border under martial law. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged the lawfulness of the latter two refusals.
The applicant complains that the restriction on his travelling abroad during times of war was in breach of his right to liberty of movement under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4. He further alleges, relying on Article 14 of the Convention, that the ban on leaving the country is discriminatory since there has been no ban on women travelling abroad.
Communicated under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.
(See also communicated case of Kuzmenko v. Ukraine and 1 other application, 16877/23 and 29499/23)
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
To access legal summaries in English or French click here.
For non-official translations into other languages click here.