Portnov, the “Svinarchuks,” and “Servants” Sue Journalists: Can Parliament Protect Freedom of Speech?
Politicians frequently use lawsuits to pressure activists, journalists, and the media. They typically resort to a few classic tactics: finding a “loyal judge,” waging a war of attrition, or putting a massive price tag on the truth. The latter happens when the amount claimed in a lawsuit contains many zeros. Even if a politician’s chances of winning are slim, forcing a journalist or editorial team to pay years of legal fees and find the funds for court costs can be a crippling challenge. Under such conditions, both the journalist and the editorial board will often weigh not just how to write, but whether to write at all. This is how self-censorship takes root. Activists, who often lack institutional support, are even more vulnerable here than journalists.
This pressure tactic already has a name: SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). The European Union has developed legislation to block this phenomenon. Journalists and international partners are demanding that similar norms be introduced in Ukraine.
In December, a working group met to draft legislative mechanisms to counter SLAPP attacks. A new draft law could appear as early as January or February of the new year. However, Yaroslav Yurchyshyn, Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Freedom of Speech, notes that finding enough votes in the Verkhovna Rada could be difficult. A number of politicians, including Members of Parliament, actively use this very tool to pressure journalists.
Some of the most glaring examples of such lawsuits are the cases initiated against journalists by Andriy Portnov, former Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration under Viktor Yanukovych.
Portnov demanded that the CHESNO Movement remove his name from the Register of Traitors. The politician included the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) as a co-defendant, which allowed him to have the case heard in the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv. Had the NGO been the sole defendant, the lawsuit would have been heard by the Podilsky District Court. In other words, there was an artificial change of jurisdiction to ensure the lawsuit landed exactly where he wanted it.
It is worth recalling that the Pechersk District Court has repeatedly sided with the former MP—he won a first-instance case against Hromadske over an investigation into the occupation of Crimea, as well as cases against the Anti-Corruption Action Center (AntAC) and the Schemes investigative project.
After Portnov was assassinated, Schemes investigated how he had built a caste of “loyal” judges and influenced the formation of bar associations.
Another hallmark of SLAPP lawsuits is the inflated financial burden the plaintiff attempts to impose on a journalist or editorial board. For example, in the aforementioned case, Portnov was set to receive 192,000 UAH in compensation for legal assistance in the first instance, a demand that swelled to 400,000 UAH on appeal.
The sums can be significantly larger, reaching, for example, 750,000 UAH in claims for moral damages. This is the exact amount a group of companies called “Technotorg” tried to exact from Maryana Metelska, the editor-in-chief of the online publication Volyn Online. In 2023, she reported that the company filed a lawsuit against her over an investigation into the group’s possible ties to Russia and Belarus.
Another tactic is filing multiple lawsuits against the same defendants but from different individuals. A prime example is the case of the Hladkovskys (also known as the Svinarchuks) against the Bihus.info editorial team, which exposed embezzlement in the defense sector. Initially, the lawsuit was filed by the son, Hladkovsky Jr. The plaintiff asked the court to declare the entire investigation false and have it deleted.
After the court of appeal dismissed the case, the father filed a new lawsuit. A new lawsuit means more time and more legal fees. The elder Hladkovsky, in addition to demanding the information be declared false, sought moral damages which he evaluated at two million hryvnias.
Even if the court does not satisfy these demands or award such amounts, it still creates severe financial barriers to filing an appeal. The court fee for an appeal can be substantial. For example, in the elder Hladkovsky’s case, after losing in the first instance, the appeal fee was approximately 30,000 UAH.
Another critical aspect is the duration of these lawsuits. The Hladkovsky case dragged on for over four years. During this time, three different judges presided over the first instance. Every time a judge changed, the case had to start over from scratch.
Beyond the fact that the judicial process itself can be lengthy due to overburdened courts and a lack of personnel, plaintiffs often resort to deliberate stalling tactics. This includes filing an excessive number of motions, demanding numerous expert assessments, or simply violating procedural rules.
In addition to the litigation itself, out-of-court leverage can also be a component of SLAPP attacks.
For instance, in a lawsuit filed by MP Oleksandr Horobets against the head of the public initiative “Holka,” a conclusion by the Commission on Journalistic Ethics was used as one of the MP’s key arguments in court.
According to Iryna Fedoriv, the Commission held a meeting without informing her, despite being obligated to do so. Furthermore, the Commission issued a “friendly warning” and recommended that Ukrainska Pravda restrict access to her blog about Horobets. The Commission also refused Fedoriv the opportunity to publish her position.
This same decision by the Commission on Journalistic Ethics was later used by the former Mayor of Irpin, Volodymyr Karpliuk, not only in a smear campaign against Fedoriv but also as an argument in his own lawsuit against her.
It is worth noting that politicians go even further in their desire to control the information space. The aforementioned former Mayor of Irpin, Karpliuk, founded a “Reputation Protection Foundation.” In other words, corrupt politicians are capable of creating their own tools to amplify SLAPP lawsuits later on.
While situations involving national NGOs and media are usually highly public, regional cases of pressure on journalists and activists require special attention. Olena Mudra, an investigative journalist from Zakarpattya who advocates for the protection of the Carpathian Mountains, reported facing a media smear campaign and several lawsuits.
Several “dubious” media outlets published fabricated stories about her sources of income (falsely alleging she was funded by Russian money) and her family.
Olena believes these actions are directly tied to her investigations into the activities of “Wind Parks of Ukraine” LLC, which is building wind turbines in the highlands of the Zakarpattya region. She has filed a police report regarding the obstruction of her lawful professional activities and the violation of her privacy.
Ukraine is obligated to introduce anti-SLAPP legislation by 2027. This means incorporating the provisions of Directive (EU) 2024/1069 of the European Parliament and of the Council on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings, as well as the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA).
To achieve this, Parliament must amend civil and commercial procedural legislation. Primarily, this involves mechanisms that will allow courts to quickly react to the abuse of procedural rights by plaintiffs, especially when a lawsuit is clearly filed to obstruct journalistic activity or create financial pressure.
The new Ukrainian initiative, currently being drafted by MPs, will introduce several innovations. One is empowering judges to dismiss lawsuits early on if they show signs of being an abuse of the judicial process.
The draft law must outline specific conditions—some of which have been described above—that will serve as markers to identify lawsuits filed as an abuse of process against public participation.
Crucially, in cases involving public participation, the burden of proving that the lawsuit is justified must fall squarely on the plaintiff.
It is worth adding that judicial practice in this area is already developing, albeit currently only at the Supreme Court level. Earlier this year, the Court refused to open proceedings for MP Ihor Fris (“Servant of the People”), who was suing the regional media outlet Galka. The Supreme Court’s position was based on the fact that the MP’s case was of “minor significance.” This is not an isolated incident. A month later, MP Horobets was denied with the exact same wording.
Another safeguard that must be introduced is a mechanism for compensating the victims of such lawsuits.
If a journalist or activist is subjected to a SLAPP attack, they must receive compensation. This should act as a deterrent against further attempts at judicial pressure. In short, a journalist or activist targeted by such an attack should be able to count on damages.
There must also be a clear definition of a public figure, public participation, and an expanded interpretation of what constitutes the public interest.
Public figures should explicitly include journalists, publishers, media outlets and their employees, whistleblowers, non-governmental organizations, professional and creative unions, artists, researchers, academics, writers, and other individuals who disseminate socially necessary information or defend universally recognized human rights.
Oleksandr Burmahin, a member of the National Council of Television and Radio Broadcasting, explains how the draft law will be prepared for consideration in the Verkhovna Rada:
However, according to Yaroslav Yurchyshyn, Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Freedom of Speech, gathering enough votes from MPs may be a hurdle:
As a reminder, the Verkhovna Rada recently supported a law that penalizes not only journalists but any citizen who identifies a lawyer with their client. This draft law caused outrage in the journalistic community because it strips away the right to state facts—such as who acted as the lawyer for Viktor Yanukovych or Illia Kyva. (The roll-call voting of MPs on this issue can be viewed in the “Recharge UA” tool / “Recharge the Country is in Your Power”). To date, the President has not signed Draft Law 12320. A number of media outlets have called on Volodymyr Zelensky to use a “quiet veto” on this legislative initiative.
Special to Glavcom
