Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
Head of the Freedom of Speech Committee lost the appeal to the journalist: what the ruling means in the Krukova case
Kyiv Court of Appeal 7 in October considered the case based on the claim of journalist Svitlana Kryukova against member of parliament, head of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Freedom of Speech Yaroslav Yurchyshyn, for the protection of honor, dignity, and business reputation. According to the claimant, the appeal ended in her favor. The dispute was sparked by a post by the deputy on Facebook in which he called the journalist a "collaborator".
What is known about the decision
Kryukova reported the appeal outcome on her Telegram channel. According to her, the court ordered Yaroslav Yurchyshyn to publicly apologize. "Otherwise a criminal case will be opened," the journalist wrote. This was also reported by RBK-Ukraine.
Her lawyer Oleksiy Shevchuk, who sharply urged the deputy to comply with the court decision and emphasized possible criminal-legal consequences if the verdict is ignored, confirmed the decision in favor of the journalist.
At the same time, as of the time of publication, the full text of the appellate court ruling, available to the public, including in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions, had not been published. Therefore, the content of the decision is known from the words of the plaintiff and her representative. It is the full text that will allow determining to what extent the appellate court left in force or changed the first-instance decision and in what form the respondent must restore the violated rights of the claimant.
Where the dispute originated
The subject of the claim was Yurchyshyn's post on Facebook in which he applied the term "collaborator" to Kryukova. According to the journalist, these expressions appeared after personal sanctions were imposed against her.
In March 2026 of the year, the first-instance court found the information spread by the deputy to be unreliable and obliged him to refute it in the same Facebook profile where the post was placed. In addition, a court award of 2422,40 hryvnias in court costs was awarded to the claimant. Kryukova stated at the time that the refutation should be published within five days. The defendant appealed the decision to the appellate order.
Comment of a lawyer: the decision can be enforced already now
Vladimir Klimenko, adviser to the Advocates Association "Strategic Advocacy," notes that the full text of the decision is not yet available, but legally it already has mandatory force.
"So far we do not see the appellate court decision in open access — the meeting took place only on 7 October, i.e., yesterday. But if we proceed from the fact that the decision has already been made, then after consideration in the appellate court it has entered into force, and it can be submitted for enforcement," the lawyer explains.
According to the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the appellate court ruling takes effect from the day it is issued. Further appeal is possible only in the Supreme Court.
"Of course, the member of parliament retains the right to appeal this decision cassationly, but this does not suspend its execution. If the decision is not complied with, measures provided by the Law on Enforcement Proceedings may be applied. And, of course, criminal liability may arise for intentional non-execution of the court decision," notes Vladimir Klimenko.
This refers, in particular, to mechanisms of enforcement under the Law of Ukraine 'On Enforcement Proceedings' and to Article 382 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which establishes responsibility for intentional non-execution of a court decision that has entered into force. It should be noted that the cassation appeal itself does not suspend execution: only the Supreme Court can suspend it with a separate procedural ruling.
Not the first won case
According to Vladimir Klimenko, the dispute with Yurchyshyn was not very resonant, but it became Kryukova's second won case of a similar nature.
"Previously she sued a blogger Lachenkov, who has a large Telegram channel — and also under very similar circumstances: regarding collaboration, 'Russian world,' etc. In that case, the court also confirmed that expressions used against her as a 'collaborator' and a 'supporter of the Russian world' were unfounded," the lawyer recalls.
In April 2026 the court found the information spread in the Telegram channel 'Lachen writes' by blogger Ihor Lachenkov to be demeaning to the journalist's honor and dignity, and fined him 1 hryvnias for moral damage and 2422,40 hryvnias for court fee. Kryukova announced this on Facebook. The symbolic amount of moral damages in such cases usually indicates that for the plaintiff the key is the legal recognition of the unreliability of the disseminated information, not monetary compensation.
Context: sanctions and a suit to the Supreme Court
Kryukova's reputation defense cases unfold against the backdrop of her own challenge to sanctions. In 2025, a presidential decree was issued implementing the decision of the National Security and Defense Council on personal sanctions against the former deputy editor-in-chief of the publication 'Strana' for a term of 10 years. In March 2025 year the journalist filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court to cancel this decree; a final decision in this case has not yet been published.
It is important to distinguish these proceedings: decisions in cases on defense of honor and dignity pertain to specific statements about specific persons and are not an assessment of the legality of sanctions to be given by the Supreme Court.
Position of the parties
StopKor editorial team contacted Svitlana Kryukova to comment on the appellate court decision and her further steps to enforce it.
"At the time of publication, StopKor has not received a response from Svitlana Kryukova. The material will be supplemented after its receipt."
The editorial team is also ready to publish Yaroslav Yurchyshyn's position on the appellate court decision if it is provided.
Earlier StopKor reported that Kharkiv Regional Economic Court judge Tetyana Denysyuk in August 2026 declared a monetary gift of 4,467 million UAH, with the source listed as citizen Stanislav Denysyuk. Earlier in her declaration she noted the right to use a Mercedes-Benz GLS 450 D 2024 year, valued at over 5,5 million UAH, with Irina Denisyuk listed as the owner. The declaration of the judge also includes apartments valued and sized, cash, and more than 1,3 million UAH in salary for 2025 year.
Document: PDF proof of the original version of the news item "Апеляція на боці журналістки: суд підтримав Світлану Крюкову у спорі з нардепом Юрчишиним". It records the publication content at the moment of the first scan, the preservation date and the source: СтопКор.
