Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeals on May 11 fully upheld an appeal by an associate of ex-Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, ruling that he was unlawfully deported from Ukraine in October. It is possible that he could now return to Ukraine, once his lawyer clarifies the legal situation.
The appeal was filed by the Saakashvili associate, Mikhail Abzianidze, against a March 29 ruling by the Kyiv Administrative District Court.
Kyiv Administrative District Court on March 29 recognized the State Migration Service’s decision to expel Abzianidze from Ukraine to Georgia in October as unlawful and canceled the decision. However, the court ruling did not allow Abzianidze to return to Ukraine and re-join his wife and daughter. The court refused to lift the travel ban on Abzianidze for unknown reasons.
The new court ruling by Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeals could be legal grounds for Abzianidze’s return, but does not state explicitly that he can return, Abzianidze’s lawyer Pavlo Bogomazov told the Kyiv Post. He said he would try to clarify the issue in the upcoming days.
In October and November, Abdizianidze and six other Georgian associates of Saakashvili were deported to Georgia by Ukrainian authorities without court warrants, with the Georgians claiming they had been kidnapped and beaten. Under Ukrainian law, forced deportation is only possible if authorized by a court.
Then Human Rights Ombudsman Valeria Lutkovska said in November that three of the Georgians had been illegally kidnapped and deported by the National Police without court warrants. The authorities denied accusations of wrongdoing, but failed to present the legal grounds for the deportations.
The authorities have so far failed to present documents for the cancelation of five of the seven Georgians’ residence permits.
Saakashvili himself, a vehement critic of President Petro Poroshenko, was deported from Ukraine to Poland without a court warrant on Feb. 12 as part of what he sees as a political vendetta by Poroshenko. Under Ukrainian law, forced deportation is only possible if authorized by a court.
Saakashvili’s detention and expulsion violated numerous laws, lawyers for Saakashvili and independent attorneys said. The authorities deny accusations of wrongdoing, claiming that Saakashvili’s deportation was legal.
Saakashvili’s lawyers have initiated a criminal case into what they see as his kidnapping by the authorities on Feb. 12. A court later ordered the police to open a case into the alleged kidnapping, and the police refused to do so initially but had to open it on April 14.
The State Migration Service said on Feb. 12 it had “re-admitted” Saakashvili to Poland because a court had found him guilty of illegally crossing the border, and because another court had rejected his political asylum application in January.
Serhiy Hunko, a spokesman for the State Migration Service, confirmed to the Kyiv Post that there was no court ruling on Saakashvili’s forced deportation from Ukraine. He claimed that no court ruling was necessary because it was a re-admission to Poland, the country from which Saakashvili came in September, and not a deportation per se.
Bogomazov and independent lawyers Roman Kuybida and Vitaly Tytych dismissed these explanations as absurd, saying that Saakashvili’s re-admission was only possible if combined with deportation, and a court ruling is necessary for that.
Re-admission without deportation is only possible on the border itself within 48 hours after a person has crossed the border, Tytych argued. Moreover, Border Guards only have authority on the border and in airports, and had no right to arrest Saakashvili in the center of Kyiv, he said.
According to the law, even if Saakashvili had been lawfully arrested with a deportation ruling, such a ruling could have been appealed against within 30 days, and deportation could only happen after the appeals court made its ruling.
The Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal on Feb. 5 rejected Saakashvili’s political asylum appeal. But his lawyers filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, and, under Ukrainian law, his deportation was illegal during this appeal stage. His residence permit from Ukraine’s State Migration Service was valid until March 1.
Moreover, Saakashvili had a legal status in Ukraine – that of a permanent stateless resident – and therefore could not be deported regardless of his asylum status, his lawyers argued. Under Ukrainian law, a person who was a permanent resident of Ukraine before being stripped of citizenship – which is what happened in Saakashvili’s case – is considered a permanent stateless resident.
Saakashvili and his supporters also argued that he could not be expelled from the country because the cancellation of his citizenship by Poroshenko in July contradicted Ukrainian and international law, the Constitution and due process, which is denied by the Ukrainian authorities. His lawyers said that his extradition or deportation was impossible before a court decided on the legality of the cancellation of his citizenship.
Halya Coynash from the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group argued that “Saakashvili was illegally stripped of his Ukrainian citizenship, and the formal grounds for his deportation are mere cosmetics.”
Tytych said that a criminal case could be opened against the Border Guards for obstructing justice by preventing Saakashvili from being tried in the coup d’etat case against him.
