Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
The Kyiv Court of Appeal 7 of October examined a case brought by journalist Svitlana Kryukova against Member of Parliament, head of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Freedom of Speech Yaroslav Yuryshyn in defense of honor, dignity, and business reputation. According to the plaintiff, 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 ruling
Kryukova reported the result of the appellate review in her Telegram channel. According to her, the court ordered Yaroslav Yuryshyn to publicly apologize. “Otherwise, a criminal case will be opened,” the journalist wrote. This was also reported by RBK-Ukraine.
Her lawyer, Oleksiy Shevchuk, confirmed the decision in favor of the journalist and, in strong terms, urged the deputy to comply with the court’s ruling and emphasized possible criminal-legal consequences in case of disregard.
As of the time of publication, the full text of the appellate court’s decision in open access, including in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions, had not been published. Thus, what the decision contains is known from the plaintiff and her representative. The full text will allow establishing to what extent the appellate court left or changed the first instance ruling and in what form the respondent must restore the rights violated against the plaintiff.
Origin of the dispute
The subject of the suit was Yuryshyn’s post on Facebook in which he used the term “collaborator” toward Kryukova. According to the journalist, these statements appeared after personal sanctions were introduced against her.
In March 2026 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 published. In addition, in favor of the plaintiff, the court recovered 2422,40 hryvnias in legal costs from Yuryshyn. Kryukova reported that the refutation was to be published within five days. The respondent challenged the decision on appeal.
Comment by a lawyer: the decision can be executed already now
Counsel Vladimir Klimenko of the Law Firm “Strategic Advocacy” notes that the full text of the decision is not yet available, but legally it already has binding force.
“So far we do not see the appellate court’s decision in open access — the hearing took place only on 7 October, i.e., yesterday. But if we proceed from the fact that the decision has been made, then after review by the appellate court it has entered into force, and it can be submitted for execution,” the lawyer explains.
According to the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the appellate court’s decision becomes legally binding on the day it is issued. Further appeal is possible only in the Supreme Court.
“The member of parliament certainly retains the right to appeal this decision in cassation, but that does not stop its execution. If the decision is not complied with, measures provided by the Law on Enforcement Proceedings may be applied to him. And, of course, criminal liability may arise for deliberate non-execution of a court decision,” notes Vladimir Klimenko.
This concerns, in particular, enforcement mechanisms under the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” and Article 382 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which establish liability for intentional non-execution of a court decision that has entered into force. It should be noted that a cassation appeal itself does not suspend enforcement: only the Supreme Court can suspend it by a separate procedural ruling.
Not the first won case
According to Vladimir Klimenko, the dispute with Yuryshyn was not very high-profile, but it has become Kryukova’s second won case of a similar nature.
“Earlier she sued blogger Lachenkov, who has a large Telegram channel — and also under very similar circumstances: about collaboration, ‘Russian world,’ etc. In that case, the court also confirmed that the expressions used against her — ‘collaborator’ and ‘supporter of the Russian world’ — are unfounded,” the lawyer recalls.
In April 2026 year, the court found the information published in the Telegram channel “Lachyn writes” by blogger Ihor Lachenkov to be degrading to the journalist’s honor and dignity, and ordered him to pay 1 hryvnias in moral damages and 2422,40 hryvnias in court fees. Kryukova reported this on Facebook. The symbolic amount of moral damages in such cases typically indicates that for the plaintiff the key was the legal acknowledgment of the unreliability of the disseminated information rather than monetary compensation.
Context: sanctions and the appeal to the Supreme Court
Kryukova’s reputation protection proceedings unfold against the backdrop of her own challenge to the sanctions. In year 2025, a presidential decree activated the NSDC decision imposing personal sanctions on the former deputy editor-in-chief of the publication “Country” for a term of 10 years. In March 2025 year the journalist filed a suit with the Supreme Court to annul this decree; a final decision in this case has not yet been published.
It is important to distinguish these proceedings: rulings in the defamation cases concern specific statements by specific individuals and are not an assessment of the legality of the sanctions that the Supreme Court must deliver.
Position of the parties
StopKor’s editorial team appealed to Svitlana Kryukova to comment on the appellate court’s decision and her further steps toward its enforcement.
“As of the time of publication, the journalist’s response had not been received by the editorial team. The material will be supplemented after it is received.”
The editorial team is also ready to publish Yaroslav Yuryshyn’s position on the appellate court’s decision if it is provided.
Earlier StopKor reported that judge Tetiana Denysyuk of the Kharkiv Commercial Court in August 2026 declared a cash gift of 4,467 million UAH, with the source indicated as citizen Stanislav Denysuk. 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, owned by Iryna Denysyuk. The declaration also includes real estate valued and area, 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: NARDEP 24.
