Forced expulsion of foreigners and stateless persons

1. Collective expulsions are prohibited.
2. No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

Article 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 
Text as of April 2026

Based on research and human rights practice, the following problems can be distinguished in Ukraine:

  1. Excessive concentration of powers in one body. The State Migration Service (SMS) concurrently detects violators, decides on deportation, and enforces the decision. To appeal an administrative decision, a person submits their appeal to the same authority that issued it. This breaches the principle of impartiality and undermines the fundamental requirement for the presence of a legal remedy for a violated human right.
  2. Abolition of judicial oversight over forced expulsion. Law No. 2952-IX, dated February 24, 2023, conferred upon the State Migration Service (SMS), the State Border Guard Service (SBGS), and the Security Service of Ukraine (SSU) the authority to decide on forced expulsion without prior judicial review. This directly contradicts Article 124 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which establishes that justice is administered exclusively by the courts. This is also contrary to Article 13 of EU Directive 2008/115/EC on return, which requires access to an effective remedy before a competent judicial or administrative authority. Statistical data show a drastic rise in expulsions and a decrease in return decisions, suggesting cases are not being assessed on a case-by-case basis.
  3. The risk of expulsion without proper consideration and the absence of a mechanism to monitor fundamental rights at the border. Some documented cases show that border guards did not inform individuals of their right to seek protection. The decision to refuse entry takes effect immediately and remains in force during any appeal. Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1356 on screening mandates that Member States set up an independent mechanism to oversee fundamental rights during screening and border processes. FRA has developed specific recommendations for such mechanisms (2024). Ukraine does not have any similar mechanism. Furthermore, in 2025, Ukraine extradited two people to Russia who intended to join the Armed Forces of Ukraine: one of them died after detention in Russia, while the other faced serious criminal charges. This issue raises valid concerns about adherence to the principle of non-refoulement as outlined in Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the ECHR.
  4. Lack of individual consideration of cases. Decisions regarding expulsion are often made formally and typically do not consider the individual’s personal circumstances, such as health, family connections, or risks in the country of return. Courts primarily focus on verifying adherence to formal legal norms rather than evaluating the substance of the situation.
  5. Limited alternatives to detention. Ukrainian legislation (Article 289 of the Code of Administrative Proceedings) offers only two options for immigration detention: surety or bail. Unlike the EU, which prioritizes milder measures such as mandatory visits to authorities, place-of-residence restrictions, and electronic monitoring, detention is used only as a last resort when other, less restrictive options are not appropriate for the particular situation. The lack of these alternatives results in detention being used as the default rather than as a measure of last resort, thereby violating the principles of proportionality and necessity. This, among other factors, results in overcrowding in detention centers for foreigners and worsens their security and living conditions.
  6. Lack of free legal aid for illegal migrants. Foreigners in Ukraine without proper documents are not eligible for free legal aid. This essentially denies them the chance to properly appeal expulsion or return decisions or to legalize their status. They often do not have access to an interpreter.

What Ukraine needs to do during its accession to the EU to improve the situation:

  • Restore judicial oversight over expulsion decisions. The Verkhovna Rada should revoke the parts of Law No. 2952-IX that eliminated the requirement for mandatory judicial review before expulsion decisions. Every decision on forced expulsion must be subject to independent judicial review in accordance with Article 13 of Directive 2008/115/EC on return and Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR.
  • Distinguish between the control, authorization, and executive functions of state authorities in relation to migration policy. The body responsible for detecting a violation should not both decide and execute it at the same time. An independent mechanism should be established to allow appeals of expulsion decisions outside the SMS.
  • Introduce mandatory individual consideration of each case. The decision to expel or allow return should consider personal circumstances, including health, children, family ties, the child’s best interests, and potential risks in the country of return. Formal verification of compliance with the law is insufficient. The procedure and mechanisms for this assessment must be defined, and the decision should specify the circumstances that support or refute particular findings.
  • Expand the list of alternative preventive measures to detention. Detention should be a measure of last resort. Amend Article 289 of the Code of Administrative Proceedings to introduce additional alternative measures to detention, such as place of residence restrictions, electronic monitoring devices, and personal commitments or obligations to appear before relevant authorities. These alternatives should ensure that detention is used only as a last resort, in line with EU practice and the principles of proportionality and necessity.
  • Abolish general discriminatory restrictions on Russian citizens based solely on citizenship, as outlined in Part Two of the Final Provisions of Law No. 3897-IX and Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 1232 of November 1, 2022. Replace categorical bans on Russian citizens accessing administrative services with individual security assessments to balance national security and fundamental rights.
  • Strengthen guarantees of non-expulsion. Introduce further legislative measures to prevent expulsion or extradition to countries where individuals face risks, such as Russia and Belarus.
  • Provide access to legal aid and translation. Foreigners subject to a decision on expulsion or return must receive free legal assistance and a translation of the decision into a language they understand, regardless of their legal status, in accordance with Article 12 of the Directive on return.
  • Implement independent monitoring at the border. Establish an independent mechanism to monitor compliance with fundamental rights throughout border procedures, including screening, detention, and entry refusal decisions. This mechanism should involve the Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, human rights organizations, and UNHCR.
  • Guarantee the right to seek protection at the border. Border guards should be required to inform individuals of their right to seek protection. The decision to deny entry should not be implemented right away; instead, it should allow for an appeal with a suspension of its enforcement.
  • Enforce ECtHR judgments in the following cases:
  • Groups of cases Kebe and Others v. Ukraine (immediate enforcement of a decision to refuse entry without the possibility of appeal, failure to assess individual risks of return to the host country, failure to inform in an understandable language about the decisions taken and the grounds for detention);
  • Group of cases Belozorov, Razvozzhayev v. Ukraine (forcible transfer to the Russian Federation).

For a comprehensive overview of these issues and the rationale behind our recommendations, please refer to the research section, specifically the document available in Ukrainian: Forced expulsion of foreigners and stateless persons. If you have any feedback or comments about this material, please send them to: hrmap@ccl.org.ua.

Published materials may be used provided that a mandatory link to the original source is included. @ 2026 Center for Civil Liberties.

Experts

Author picture

Right to Protection Charitable Foundation