A booked employee was not allowed to travel abroad due to lack of permission from his manager: the court found the refusal unlawful

The Lviv District Administrative Court found the refusal of border guards to cross the state border to an employee of a critical enterprise who had a valid reservation and was going on vacation unlawful. The court found that the legislation does not provide for a mandatory separate permission from the head of the enterprise for such a trip.

This is case No. 380/619/26.

The plaintiff has been working as a Category I engineer at LLC “Operator of the Gas Transportation System of Ukraine” since April 2025. The enterprise is classified as critical, and the employee has a reservation and a deferment from military service until November 24, 2026.

In December 2025, the employer granted the man 14 calendar days of annual leave.

On December 13, he arrived at the Mostyska checkpoint, intending to leave for Poland.

What documents did the man show at the border

To cross the border, the employee provided:

a foreign passport;
an electronic military registration document with information about the reservation;
an employer’s order on granting leave;
a certificate in the OK-7 form;
a return travel document.

Despite this, the border guards refused the man permission to leave Ukraine.

One of the reasons was the lack of permission from the head of the enterprise to travel abroad. The decision also noted the failure to confirm the purpose of the trip during the inspection.

The man went to court, considering such requirements illegal.

Does a booked employee need a manager’s permission

The Lviv District Administrative Court partially satisfied the claim and overturned the border guards’ decision to refuse to cross the state border.

The court drew attention to the fact that the Rules for Crossing the State Border by Citizens of Ukraine do not contain a direct requirement for a booked employee to provide a separate permission from the head of the enterprise to travel abroad during vacation.

In addition, the standard form of the order to grant leave does not require the mandatory indication of the country in which the employee plans to spend his vacation.

An important argument was also the letter of the Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine dated December 5, 2025. It stated that the legislation does not establish the form of permission from the head of the enterprise for an employee to go abroad on vacation.

The court saw a pattern in the border guards’ decision

The court also drew attention to how the decision to refuse was drawn up.

The document did not clearly indicate which document the man lacked and what legal norm established the obligation to provide it.

In addition, the decision contained wording that referred to persons accompanying people with disabilities, although such circumstances did not apply to the plaintiff.

In the court’s opinion, this indicates a patterned application of the grounds for refusal.

The court also did not find sufficient justification for the border guards’ claim that the man allegedly did not confirm the purpose of his trip.

As a result, the decision to refuse to cross the border dated December 13, 2025 was declared unlawful and canceled.

The man was not awarded 20 thousand hryvnias in moral damages

At the same time, the court did not fully satisfy the plaintiff’s claims.

The man requested, in particular, to recover 20 thousand hryvnias in moral damages, but this part of the claim was denied.

The court concluded that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of moral suffering and a causal connection between them and the illegal refusal to cross the border.

The court collected court costs from the defendant in proportion to the satisfied claims.

At the same time, the decision in a specific administrative case concerns the circumstances of this particular dispute and does not in itself mean the automatic right of any booked employee to leave: when crossing the border, the rules in force at the relevant time and the documents of a specific person are taken into account.