The Supreme Court has refused to open proceedings in the case filed by MP Oleksandr Horobets over a blog post by Iryna Fedoriv about the Bilychansky Forest

The Supreme Court found Horobets’s lawsuit insignificant. The MP had decided to defend his “honor and dignity” in court following a blog post by Iryna Fedoriv, head of the civic initiative “Holka”, published on “Ukrainska Pravda”. For this reason, the Supreme Court refused to open cassation proceedings.

The Irpin City Court, where Horobets filed his lawsuit, ruled to recover nearly 7,000 UAH in court fees from Fedoriv and Ukrainska Pravda in favor of Horobets, as well as 55,200 UAH for the MP’s legal expenses and slightly over 18,000 UAH for a linguistic expert examination.

“No balls” — this expression was among those analyzed by experts, who explained to the MP that “…using the phrase no balls in relation to a man characterizes him as someone who lacks masculine strength, stability, and willpower.”

Excerpt from the linguistic expert report

The Kyiv Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the Irpin City Court and rejected the MP’s claim. Horobets was represented in court by lawyer and Irpin City Council member Yana Horodok (“Servant of the People”). Fedoriv was represented by lawyer Yuriy Melnyk within the “Svoi Lyudy” project by Bihus.info, with additional support from the ZMINA Human Rights Center.

Head of the civic initiative “Holka” Iryna Fedoriv emphasized:

“These lawsuits filed against me by MP Horobets from my district and former Irpin mayor Volodymyr Karpliuk are strategic lawsuits against public participation, so-called SLAPP suits. They are intended to pressure and intimidate. For more than 15 years, I have defended the Bilychansky Forest from illegal development as a local resident of Kotsiubynske. This is not journalism, and no grant project covers this work. It’s activism. That’s why it’s especially disappointing that in his lawsuit, Horobets used a statement from the Commission on Journalistic Ethics, which did not notify me about the meeting where Horobets’s complaint was considered and failed to properly examine all the circumstances. Even after the appellate court’s decision, despite my repeated requests, the Commission did not update the information on its website to reflect the court’s ruling and did not publish my position. It’s worth reminding that the Code of Journalistic Ethics requires completeness of information, and presenting the other side’s view is a standard the Commission itself should uphold. It’s unfortunate when politicians use such institutions for SLAPP attacks — and even more unfortunate when the Commission violates its own principles. That’s why the position of the judicial branch — the Supreme Court — is especially valuable.”

It should be recalled that in July 2025, the Supreme Court also refused to open cassation proceedings for MP Ihor Fris (“Servant of the People”), who had sued the Ivano-Frankivsk outlet “Galka” over a 2023 publication stating that the politician had not signed an appeal to strip Opposition Platform – For Life MPs of their powers. Fris, in turn, emphasized that he had authored several parliamentary appeals to the chair of the Rules Committee and the Speaker of Parliament regarding consideration of the relevant bill and the prohibition of OPZZh deputies’ participation in parliamentary work.