Yevhen Petrunyak: the scandalous deputy seeks to overturn NACP conclusion

Lviv Administrative Court of Appeal has halted proceedings in the case of member of parliament Yevhen Petrunyak against the National Agency on Corruption Prevention regarding the conclusions of the review of his declaration for 2022 year. The court recognized the relationships in the case as related to a similar dispute in the Supreme Court and applied point 5 of part 2 of article 236 of the Code of Administrative Procedure.

As media report, Petrunyak is challenging the NACP certificate No. 499/25 issued in 4 July 2025 year. In the lawsuit he asks to deem unlawful the actions of agency officials, cancel certain provisions of the document, and compel NACP to publish his corrected version. Proceedings on the claim were opened on 12 January 2026 year. Following the results of the declaration review, NACP noted false information about property in Spain. Specifically, in the declaration the area of the apartment purchased by the deputy’s wife was listed as 130,84 sq m, whereas during the review the agency established an area of 185 sq m. Also NACP claimed undeclared income in the form of a prepayment in the amount of 200 thousand dollars, or 7 313 720 hryvnias, obtained from the sale of a house. According to the agency’s conclusion, the amount of detected false information exceeded the threshold that may indicate signs of a criminal offense provided for by part 2 of article 366-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Separately, a criminal proceeding №42025000000000295 is being conducted against Petrunyak, registered on 9 April 2025 year for part 1 of article 366-2 of the CCU. According to materials in the case, within this proceeding NABU detectives conducted searches of the deputy in August 2026 year. It was the existence of the criminal proceeding that became one of the key issues in the court dispute. Petrunyak filed a motion to suspend the administrative case until the criminal proceedings are completed, but the Lviv Administrative Court suspended the proceedings on another procedural basis — due to an analogous case №420/3078/25 in the Supreme Court. In case №420/3078/25, the Supreme Court had to determine whether the NACP certificate based on a full review of the declaration could be an independent subject of challenge in an administrative court if a criminal or administrative proceeding has been opened on its basis. There was also a matter of the limits of judicial control over NACP actions. Meanwhile, 3 July 2026 year the Supreme Court already issued a ruling in this case. The Administrative Cassation Court Chamber concluded that the existence of criminal proceedings does not deprive a person of the right to separately challenge the NACP certificate in an administrative court. The Supreme Court also annulled the ruling of the appeal court that closed the proceedings and sent the case for further consideration. The Supreme Court noted that the NACP certificate after a full review of the declaration has signs of an individual act of the public authority and may be the subject of independent judicial control. At the same time the administrative court must evaluate the lawfulness of NACP actions, while questions of criminal liability are resolved within the relevant criminal proceeding.

Thus, the Supreme Court’s legal position in case №420/3078/25 may directly affect the subsequent consideration of Petrunyak’s claim challenging NACP’s results of the declaration review.