Appellate court orders MP Yurchyshyn to apologise to journalist Kryukova

On 7 October, the Kyiv Court of Appeal concluded the review of a lawsuit filed by journalist Svitlana Kryukova against Ukrainian People's Deputy and Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Freedom of Speech, Yaroslav Yurchyshyn. The conflict between the parties arose following a post on the social network Facebook, where the politician referred to the media worker as a "collaborator" ("колаборантка"). According to the plaintiff, the appellate instance sided with her.

Details of the court ruling

Svitlana Kryukova announced the outcome of the appellate review in her Telegram channel. The journalist noted that the court ordered Yaroslav Yurchyshyn to issue a public apology. "Otherwise, a criminal case will be opened," she wrote. Similar information was confirmed by the plaintiff's lawyer, Oleksiy Shevchuk. The lawyer strongly urged the People's Deputy to comply with the court's requirements and emphasised the potential criminal-law consequences of ignoring the verdict.

As of the time of writing, the full text of the appellate court's ruling has not yet been published in open access, including in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions. Therefore, the details of the decision are known exclusively from the statements of the plaintiff and her representative. Only the full document will clarify to what extent the appellate court upheld or modified the first-instance decision, as well as in what specific form the defendant must restore the violated rights.

Causes of the dispute

The subject of the judicial challenge was Yaroslav Yurchyshyn's post on Facebook, in which he used the term "collaborator" ("колаборантка") regarding Svitlana Kryukova. According to the journalist, these statements appeared after personal sanctions were imposed on her.

As early as March 2026, the first-instance court deemed the information disseminated by the deputy false and ordered him to refute it in the same Facebook profile where the controversial post was published. In addition, 2,422.40 UAH in court costs were recovered from Yaroslav Yurchyshyn in favour of the plaintiff. As Kryukova reported at the time, the refutation was to be published within five days. However, the defendant appealed the decision in the appellate procedure.

Legal consequences for the defendant

Volodymyr Klymenko, an advisor at the "Strategic Advocacy" Bar Association, draws attention to the fact that although the full text of the decision is not yet available, from a legal perspective it already has binding force.

"We do not yet see the appellate court's decision in open access — the hearing took place only on 7 October, that is, yesterday. But if we assume that the decision has already been made, then after the review by the appellate court, it has entered into legal force and can be submitted for enforcement," the lawyer explains.

In accordance with the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, an appellate court ruling enters into legal force from the day of its adoption. Further appeal is possible only in the Supreme Court.

"The People's Deputy, of course, retains the right to appeal this decision in cassation, but this does not suspend its enforcement. In the event of non-compliance with the decision, measures provided for by the Law on Enforcement Proceedings may be applied. And, of course, criminal liability for the intentional non-enforcement of a court decision may arise," notes Volodymyr Klymenko.

This refers, in particular, to the mechanisms of compulsory enforcement under the Law of Ukraine "On Enforcement Proceedings" and to Article 382 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which establishes liability for the intentional non-enforcement of a court decision that has entered into legal force. It is worth noting that a cassation appeal itself does not suspend enforcement: only the Supreme Court can suspend it by a separate procedural decision.

History of previous lawsuits

According to Volodymyr Klymenko, the dispute with Yurchyshyn was not overly resonant, but it became the second case of a similar nature won by Kryukova.

"Previously, she sued blogger Lachenkov, who has a large Telegram channel, — and also under very similar circumstances: regarding collaboration, the 'Russian world', etc. And in that case, the court also confirmed that the use of the expressions 'collaborator' and 'supporter of the Russian world' towards her is unfounded," the lawyer recalls.

In April 2026, the court deemed the information disseminated in the Telegram channel "Lachen writes" by blogger Ihor Lachenkov to be one that humiliates the honour and dignity of the journalist, and recovered 1 UAH in moral damages and 2,422.40 UAH in court fees from him. Kryukova reported this on Facebook. The symbolic amount of moral damages in such cases usually indicates that for the plaintiff, the key factor is the legal recognition of the falsity of the disseminated information, rather than monetary compensation.

Context: sanctions and lawsuit to the Supreme Court

Kryukova is conducting reputation protection disputes against the backdrop of her own challenge to the sanctions. In 2025, a presidential decree brought into force a decision of the National Security and Defence Council (NSDC) to impose personal sanctions for a period of 10 years on the former deputy editor-in-chief of the publication "Strana". In March 2025, 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 concerning the protection of honour and dignity relate to specific statements by specific individuals and do not constitute an assessment of the legality of the sanctions, which the Supreme Court must provide.

Comments from the parties

The editorial office contacted Svitlana Kryukova with a request to comment on the appellate court's decision and her further steps regarding its enforcement. As of publication, no response from the journalist had been received. The material will be updated upon receipt of her response.

The editorial office is also ready to publish Yaroslav Yurchyshyn's position on the appellate court's decision if provided.