Head of the Committee on Freedom of Speech Yaroslav Yurchyshyn: “You’ll Have to Pay for Judicial Pressure”

Telling about a dubious procurement, opposing development, or disclosing information about a public official’s wealth — and receiving a lawsuit demanding millions in compensation. For a person without a team of lawyers, even the prospect of such a case can be a reason to refrain from public criticism. And if the matter has already reached court, a victory after several years won’t restore time and resources spent on defense.

SLAPPs — strategic lawsuits against public participation — are designed to exhaust the opponent. The danger is that the pressure tool becomes the court process itself. The consequences are felt not only by the defendant: other journalists and residents, watching the case, may decide not to raise such topics. Society loses information needed to monitor the authorities and the use of public funds.

30 in September 2026 of this year, a draft law No. 16117 “On the protection of persons participating in public life from evidently unfounded lawsuits or abuse of the judicial process” was registered in the Verkhovna Rada. The document, which is currently being worked on in the committee, is intended to give courts special mechanisms to counter such pressure. Its preparation is connected with Ukraine’s alignment with European standards: 2024 year of EU adoption of the anti-SLAPP directive 2024/1069.

At the same time, a discussion has arisen around the proposed changes. Will journalists and activists obtain factual immunity from liability? How to distinguish an attempt to silence a person from a conscientious defense of reputation?

We talked with the head of the parliamentary committee on freedom of speech, one of the authors of the document, Yaroslav Yurchyshyn, about whom the draft would protect, by what criteria judges will be able to recognize pressure, and why merely enacting a law will be insufficient.

— Mr. Yurychishyn, what prompted the anti-SLAPP bill now? What problem does it aim to solve?

— The abuse of lawsuits against public activists and investigative journalists is a problem that Europe and the Council of Europe are already reacting to. 2024 year EU adopted a directive providing mechanisms for early dismissal of clearly unfounded lawsuits against public participation.

Ukraine, which survived the hard nineties, lost Georgiy Gongadze and today defends democracy with a weapon in hand, should be among the countries actively protecting journalists’ rights.

One story illustrating the need for such protection is the fate of Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia. She investigated corruption, including work on the Panama Papers, and faced numerous court prosecutions. After her murder 2017, her family still had to participate in court proceedings.

We propose giving courts a tool that will allow identifying abuses earlier. So that journalists and activists do not spend years proving that they do their work and report information of public importance. And so courts are not flooded with such cases.

— How big is this problem in Ukraine? Can you already name the number of such lawsuits?

— For now we can talk only about estimates. We do not have a legislative definition of SLAPP, and therefore no established mechanism for counting. Introducing such a definition is one of the basics that the bill should provide. It is needed for judges and monitoring organizations.

At the moment, we can talk about dozens of cases. When we start analyzing them more systematically, the number may grow. Merely drawing attention to the problem already prompts journalists and public activists to assess lawsuits against them: do they have SLAPP characteristics?

This concerns, in particular, legal disputes around investigations by ZN.UA, Bihus.Info, Slidstva.Info, materials by Mykhailo Tkach, and regional media. However, I’m not ready to give an exact total number right now.

— Why might such a suit be especially dangerous for regional media?

— Large editorial offices may have their own lawyers or the ability to seek help from specialized organizations. If we’re talking about a small regional publication, it may simply stop writing on a certain topic to avoid a lawsuit.

Then local residents will not receive important information. In other words, the consequences go beyond a specific editorial or journalist.

— Critics say the bill will create immunity for journalists and activists. Who exactly should its guarantees cover?

— The bill does not provide that it can be used only by journalists or public activists. Any socially significant activity that led to the abuse of the right to sue may fall under its scope.

There are no priorities or immunities for anyone. The right to approach the court to protect honor, dignity, and business reputation remains. The liability for disseminating false information remains as well.

The question our bill addresses is countering abuse of lawsuits. So that those with power or resources do not use the court as a mechanism to pressure other citizens. For example, after publishing information a person first receives a threat like “I’ll drag you to court,” and then — a lawsuit for a huge amount.

— Where is the line between a socially important issue and a personal conflict taken into the public space?

— To assess public interest, we can rely, among other things, on the law on access to public information. It matters whether the information concerns society or affects other people.

But ultimately the court will decide whether it is truly socially significant information or someone trying to hide a personal conflict behind an anti-SLAPP mechanism. Similarly, the court will decide whether a particular lawsuit is an abuse.

The law should give judges criteria with which they can compare the circumstances of the case. Among them are prior threats of legal action, unreasonably large claims, filing numerous lawsuits.

— But how will the anti-SLAPP mechanism work if the plaintiff relies on the current law and Supreme Court practice? Part four of Article 296 of the Civil Code limits the possibility of disclosing the names of suspects before a verdict. At the same time, Ukrainian media daily name suspects in criminal proceedings, including top corruption cases. Yet lawsuits over this arise against editors who systematically investigate corruption, among others. For example, the suspect in the so-called hacker lawyers case Dmitry Borzykh sues ZN.UA and journalist Inna Vedernikova. Doesn’t this situation create opportunities for selective pressure on the media?

— Yes, Article 296 of the Civil Code of Ukraine can under certain circumstances be used as a legal basis for SLAPP lawsuits. But it would be wrong to say that any lawsuit based on this article automatically is a SLAPP. The problem concerns ensuring a fair balance between the right to privacy and the public’s right to receive information of public interest.

Article 29 of the Law of Ukraine “On Information” provides for the possibility to disseminate information with restricted access if it is socially necessary and the right of the public to know outweighs the potential harm of disclosure. This approach is also reflected in the European Court of Human Rights practice.

If you mean the Supreme Court ruling from 10 September 2025 of the year in case No. 757/19417/23, then, unfortunately, although the court referred to Article 29 of the Law “On Information,” it did not sufficiently analyze its balance with Part Four of Article 296 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. In particular, the court did not adequately consider whether disseminating publicly important information could be an exception to the limitation on disclosing the name of a suspect.

In my view, selective was also the reference to the European Court of Human Rights practice. The Supreme Court cited Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, emphasizing the presumption of innocence, but did not sufficiently take into account the practice on balancing privacy and freedom of expression.

For example, in Axel Springer AG v. Germany, concerning publication of an actor’s name detained on suspicion of a crime, the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of freedom of expression due to the restriction on publication. The ECHR practice does not provide for an automatic ban on publishing the names of suspects; it requires evaluating the specific circumstances of the case and the public interest.

— So the anti-SLAPP law itself is not enough? Do we also need to amend Article 296 of the Civil Code?

— Yes. In my view, Part Four of Article 296 of the Civil Code of Ukraine should be changed to explicitly allow publishing the name of a suspect or accused person if the public’s right to know outweighs potential harm from disclosure. This should be done as a separate law, not mixed with the anti-SLAPP initiative.

At the same time, the anti-SLAPP mechanism can be applied if reference to Article 296 of the Civil Code of Ukraine is accompanied by other signs of abuse of the judicial process: evidently disproportionate demands for compensation, multiple lawsuits, use of the plaintiff’s resource advantage, or other actions aimed at intimidation or exhausting the defendant.

— You mentioned “diluted” filings. How can the anti-SLAPP mechanism respond to a situation when several similar lawsuits are filed against a journalist?

— No one will be prohibited from filing lawsuits. It is a legally guaranteed right. And after the law is enacted, lawsuits against public participation will most likely remain.

However, a judge will be able to consider that lawsuits of similar content and on a similar issue were filed in different jurisdictions, perhaps even abroad. This information can help assess whether the case has SLAPP characteristics and apply the early termination of proceedings.

Some plaintiffs may wonder whether to start such a process if the court has the ability to respond quickly to abuse.

— Even if the court quickly closes the proceeding, the publication or journalist will already have spent money on lawyers. Who will compensate these costs? And can the defendant demand compensation for the damage?

— The court will be able to apply a mechanism to secure future court costs for the defendant, including legal aid expenses. If the court finds abuse of the judicial process, it may require the plaintiff to cover the defendant’s court costs in full, regardless of the outcome.

The bill also provides the right of an injured party to demand full compensation for damages, including material and moral damages. Of course, the existence and amount of damage and the grounds for liability will need to be proven.

— What would prevent a powerful plaintiff from simply withdrawing a suit after he has achieved his goal — exhausting the editorial staff? Is there a punishment for such abuse?

— There is a separate provision for a fine for abuse of the judicial process against public participation — from 10 to 15 subsistence minimums for working-age persons. These funds will be collected to the state budget, not to the benefit of the defendant. The fine does not replace compensation for costs or damages.

Another important guarantee: even if the plaintiff decides to withdraw the suit, change its subject or grounds, or reduce the claims, this will not deprive the defendant of the right to seek protective measures, including compensation for court costs and damages. In other words, the plaintiff should not be able to use the court to exhaust a journalist or activist and then simply withdraw the suit to avoid consequences.

However, no guarantee will apply automatically simply because a suit is filed against a journalist or activist. The court must establish the relevant signs of abuse.

— And what if the court erroneously finds the suit to be abuse? Can the plaintiff appeal that decision?

— Yes, the right to appeal the first instance court decision remains. A claim that journalists cannot be sued at all does not correspond to reality.

Lawsuits can be filed. But requirements must be substantiated: that there really was false information needing refutation or correction. We are creating a mechanism to respond to abuse, while the plaintiff’s right to legal protection remains.

— If the court makes the same decision, how effective can the law be in the Ukrainian judicial system?

— A lot will depend on judges’ willingness to apply this instrument, their integrity, and the judicial practice that will develop.

One can draw an analogy with whistleblower protection. It took time for practice to form on who is a whistleblower, who can obtain the status and guarantees. It still cannot be said that this mechanism works perfectly — the discussion on its improvement continues.

Therefore we are already starting work with partners, including the Platform for Human Rights and ACREC. We plan meetings with judges, journalists, MPs and their assistants to explain the mechanism and dispel myths about supposed additional privileges for journalists.

Representatives of the Supreme Court also joined the working group. It is important that practice forms that courts of first and appellate instances can rely on.

— The Ukrainian draft is often compared with the European directive. What did you borrow, and what did you adapt to our conditions?

— European approaches create a framework, particularly regarding early dismissal of claims. At the same time, it is important to take national context into account.

We already have fairly progressive legislation on access to public information — there is something to build on. We drew on the experience of lawyers who systematically protect journalists and public activists, including the Institute for the Development of Regional Press.

Even before registration, we sent the draft to experts at the Council of Europe and OSCE and received positive feedback on implementing the basic approaches.

It was also important to consider that lawsuits can be filed not only in Ukraine. Ukrainian journalists work in international investigative teams, so the court must be able to assess situations considering similar lawsuits in other jurisdictions.

Also developed is a mechanism whereby the defendant presents arguments for signs of SLAPP, and the plaintiff must justify the absence of such signs.

— What arguments will you use to persuade colleagues in parliament to support the bill?

— First of all, this is our move toward the European Union. If we want to be members, the corresponding mechanisms will have to be introduced sooner or later.

Second argument: this protection may be needed by the deputies themselves. In the previous convocation there were lawsuits against Mustapha Nayem, Serhiy Leshchenko and others, in which I see signs of pressure on public participation.

Another important argument is to relieve the burden on the judicial system. We constantly hear about a shortage of judges and overloading with cases. It’s worth giving courts a chance to react earlier to abuse so that people do not spend years merely proving that information about a public official’s activities has public significance.