Publications

Journalist Kryukova vs. the President of Ukraine: for the first time, the NSDC sanctions are being tried to be canceled in court

ANALYSIS FROM

Ukrainian journalist Svetlana Kryukova recently announced that she was going to appeal the presidential decree imposing personal sanctions on her and filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court. The sanctions against the former deputy editor-in-chief of the Strana newspaper were imposed for a period of 10 years. They include the blocking of her passport, identification code, bank cards, as well as a travel ban and a number of other restrictions.

On January 19 this year, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed a decree enacting the National Security and Defense Council’s decision to sanction propagandists working for Russia, as the guarantor of the Constitution himself noted.

“I have just signed a decree that gives effect to the decision of the National Security and Defense Council on sanctions. We are blocking propagandists working for Russia, people who have sided with the enemy, and those who help Russia continue the war,” Zelensky said.

The list includes politicians Nestor Shufrych, Yuriy Boyko, Yevhen Muraiev, Oleh Voloshyn, Petro Symonenko, and Svitlana Kryukova. But Kryukova was subject to the maximum list of sanctions, as was Nestor Shufrych, including asset freezes. But only Kryukova decided to act and appeal the NSDC’s decision.

According to Kryukova, a mother of four, the sanctions effectively left her unemployed for the next 10 years, but became a motivation for her to devote a significant part of her life to this trial. She notes that the court will now become a “theater of absurdity and justice” for her, where she plans to act not as a victim but as a director. She added that she is working with a team of professional lawyers headed by Oleksiy Shevchuk, who have extensive experience in the legal field and are ready to fight against bureaucracy.

“I am appealing the decree. I will win the court case. At the same time, I will seriously and permanently enter the lives of my offenders. Not as a guest, but as a shadow,” Kryukova said.

As noted by Oleksiy Shevchuk, Kryukova’s lawyer, she became the first Ukrainian citizen to be sanctioned and go to court.

At the same time, according to lawyers, sanctions against Ukrainian citizens are nonsense from a legal point of view, as this should be done by law enforcement agencies and courts.

“Law enforcement should collect evidence of guilt and present it to the court, and the court should make a verdict based on the collected materials. Sanctions have always been applied to those who cannot be brought to justice in court, primarily to citizens of other countries or legal entities, and they were designed for this purpose. In recent years, the National Security and Defense Council has been replaced by courts, and the most important thing is that it is not so easy to appeal a decision, let alone a sanctions decree signed by the president,” says lawyer Valentyn Serkov.

As an example, he cites the appeal of M.S.L. LLC – a well-known lottery operator that was also sanctioned by the National Security and Defense Council. In this case, the Supreme Court left the appeal without consideration, referring to the conclusions formulated earlier in another case.

According to the court, the existence of a real or potential threat to the national interests, national security, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine (Article 3 of Law No. 1644-VII) is certainly an evaluative concept, and the sufficiency of the grounds to consider such a threat real or potential involves a certain margin of discretion.

When enacting the NSDC’s decision on such sanctions, the President, as the guarantor of the Constitution of Ukraine, who is given a representative mandate by the people and the authority to enact the NSDC’s decision, must independently assess the existence and sufficiency of the grounds for imposing sanctions.

Judicial control over such a decision is limited, since, on the one hand, the court cannot replace the president and make its own assessment of the reality of threats to the national interests, national security, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and, accordingly, the existence and sufficiency of the grounds for imposing such sanctions within his discretion (which would mean a violation of the principle of separation of powers). On the other hand, the court may verify compliance with the limits of such discretion and the procedure for imposing sanctions.

In general, the court of first instance, with which the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court agreed, did not find any violations of the limits of discretion by the President of Ukraine when adopting the disputed Decree. In addition, the Supreme Court ruled that sanctions are not applied as punishment, but as a measure that limits possible harmful actions.

In fact, it was Svitlana Kryukova herself who commented on the lawsuit she initiated as follows:

“After our victory – and I have no doubt about it – the court in Ukraine will become a key instance where citizens will have a chance to fight the injustice of life,” she said.

Meanwhile, on Monday, March 17, the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv ruled on Svetlana Kryukova’s lawsuit against the Spetskor media outlet regarding their statements against the journalist. The results of the hearing were reported by her lawyer.

“The Pechersk court in the lawsuit filed by my client Svitlana Kryukova against the Spetskor media outlet found that the allegations that she is “pro-Russian” are evaluative in the court’s opinion, as neither the media nor anyone else provided any facts. Therefore, it is not pro-Russian. The court dismissed the claim for refutation of facts because they do not exist, and therefore it is impossible to oblige to refute information that is subjective. The court decided that some of the information was published by reprinting from other sources, and therefore Spetskor media can only be responsible for the author’s information,” said lawyer Oleksiy Shevchuk.

He is currently preparing an appeal against the court’s decision, as both he and a number of experts believe that the statements are factual, not evaluative.

In addition, Svitlana Kryukova filed lawsuits for the protection of honor and dignity against bloggers Ihor Lachenkov, Roman Synitsyn and Yevhen Pronin. According to her, they participated in a “situational campaign” against her.

Context

Svitlana Kryukova, a former deputy editor-in-chief of the Strana newspaper from Kyiv, was placed on the sanctions list with the maximum list of restrictions. The National Security and Defense Council has previously imposed sanctions on the publication where Kryukova worked and on its editor-in-chief, Ihor Guzhva, allegedly because the site was engaged in anti-Ukrainian activities. In 2017, she posted a bail of half a million hryvnias for Igor Guzhva to release him from the pre-trial detention center. In 2021, Strana.ua was sanctioned by the National Security and Defense Council for illegal activities. In 2022, after the liberation of Kherson, Kryukova went on a press tour for journalists, allegedly from the 360 News publication. Soon after this trip, she was stripped of her accreditation. In July 2024, Svitlana Kryukova announced a break in her work due to pregnancy. In 2025, Svitlana Kryukova was sanctioned by the National Security and Defense Council. On her Facebook page, Kryukova said she would appeal the sanctions to the Supreme Court.

Author – Alla Dunina