The issues related to increase in number of foreigners and stateless citizens who stay illegally within the territory of Ukraine are considerably relevant today, and, unfortunately, their topicality will be ever-greater in future. Currently the issue of refoulement and deportation is referred to the competence of administrative courts. So, implementing legally provided authorities, the administrative courts shall decide the public-law disputes on the claims of public bodies about adoption of measures of a coercive character provided by art. art. 288–289 of the Administrative Court Procedure Code of Ukraine according to the statutory procedural order.

Accordingly , the purpose of the present paper is a definition of topical issues of consideration by the administrative courts of proceedings on the cases on the administrative claims related to refoulement or compulsory deportation and detention of foreigners or stateless persons.

In order to achieve the purpose, the paper includes the study of opinions of scientists in the field of administrative law towards understanding and correlation of corresponding definitions (administrative legal proceedings, proceedings on the cases on the administrative claims related to refoulement or compulsory deportation and detention of foreigners or stateless persons); Regulations of the Administrative Court Procedure Code of Ukraine; provisions of other regulatory documents.

It was emphasized that the content of protection of rights and freedoms is based on the activity focused on removal of obstacles in exercise of rights and freedoms and on fight against default in correlative obligations and abuse of law.

The paper gives reasons for the fact that the liability may be incurred only for objectified behavior of person, i.e. for his/her activity or omission to act. In such a case, his/her thoughts and intention that were not implemented by him/her can not be considered as the reasons for legal assessment.

The paper also emphasizes that the protection from illegal acts, removal of their causes and conditions facilitating the administrative and delictual endeavor is beyond the scope of administrative courts. The paper gives reasons for the fact that judge’s discretion relates to the establishment of: firstly, the facts that appear to the judge to be necessary for dispute essential resolution; secondly, the way of dispute resolution; thirdly, the regulation itself that applies in this particular case.

As a result, the authors came to the conclusion that today there is a negative transformation of implementation of prospective (negative) liability of person for actions (omission to act) that were not and would never be performed by him/her, but only for thoughts and intentions. We believe, that it is not a correct practice due to the fact that it defies a principle of the administrative law presented in the form of statement that the liability may be incurred only for objectified behavior of person, i.e. for his/her activity or omission to act. In such a case, his/her thoughts and intention that were not implemented by him/her can not be considered as the reasons for legal assessment.