Suspects’ Last Names Can No Longer Be Published. What to Do About It?

09.12.2025

Last fall, the Supreme Court made a ruling that significantly changes the approach to the public disclosure of individuals suspected in criminal proceedings. The Court recognized that the name of a suspect or accused cannot be published until the final conviction comes into legal force. This rule applies even in high-profile cases, cases of public interest, or those involving well-known figures.

In such cases, involving people like Oleksandr Dubinsky or Oleksiy Chernyshov, nicknames understandable to Ukrainians—such as Buratino or Che Guevara—can be used. After all, these nicknames appear in evidence submitted by law enforcement to the court.

But what should be done when cases are less high-profile and the individuals involved have no nicknames?

The Supreme Court decision in question relates to the former acting first deputy head of the board of “Ukrtatnafta.” He sued the publication Dzerkalo Tyzhnia, demanding the removal of an article that mentioned he had been placed in custody after being charged with manipulations related to the payment of UAH 605.9 million in excise taxes. The media only reported the facts.

The Supreme Court recognized that the right to a name is part of private life and must be protected. However, unlike lower courts, which required the media to remove the entire publication, the Supreme Court ordered only the removal of the name, emphasizing that media can report on investigations without mentioning specific last names. It is worth noting that, according to European court practice analyzed by the public initiative Holka, journalists can name the suspects.

Currently, the Verkhovna Rada is working on amendments to the Civil Code, initiated by Speaker Ruslan Stefanchuk, which could change the legal framework. If not, civil society and the media have already learned how to navigate such bans.

What are the risks for investigations and public oversight?

After the Supreme Court decision, anti-corruption investigations are at the highest risk. Media will be able to report on corruption, schemes, or proceedings, but will no longer be able to name the individuals involved. This complicates oversight of law enforcement and deprives society of an important tool for exerting pressure.

For example, in cases like “Mindichgate” or those involving advisors to the Office of the President, publicity was key. The public learned who was involved and could demand accountability. If the suspect’s name is fully prohibited, such cases will become much less transparent, potentially opening the door to abuses and delayed investigations.

Moreover, it is often investigative journalism that turns most corruption schemes into real criminal cases. Journalistic investigations frequently precede official verdicts by years.

According to the logic of the Supreme Court, society should not know the names of individuals involved in procurement or reconstruction schemes until the court issues a final verdict. Considering the pace of the Ukrainian judicial system, this could allow corrupt officials to remain in office “incognito” for years, while the media would be forced to refer to them as “Official T.” or “Businessman K.,” reducing public resonance and pressure on law enforcement.

Why did this situation arise?

Formally, such a ban existed in the law for a long time. Part 7 of Article 296 of the Civil Code allows limiting the use of a person’s name in the context of criminal proceedings. Judges relied on this law when making their decisions. The only permitted compromise is the use of initials—for example, media would write “Ruslan L.” instead of the full name.

Previously, this article was often applied by plaintiffs together with demands to declare information false and require its retraction, making journalistic investigations more difficult because media had to prove falsity.

For instance, former Irpin mayor Volodymyr Karpliuk sued the Prosecutor General’s Office over a news broadcast stating he failed to appear for a notification of suspicion. Both the Pechersky District Court and the appellate court sided with the former mayor, but the Supreme Court overturned these rulings.

Courts also often applied the principle of proportionality, balancing Article 296 of the Civil Code with Article 29 of the Law of Ukraine “On Information,” which allows dissemination of socially necessary information even if it concerns private life when the public’s right to know outweighs harm from disclosure.

Such an approach aligns more closely with EU practice, where the presumption of innocence must be assessed in context (see Daktaras v. Lithuania). The European Court of Human Rights emphasizes the distinction between statements that a person is suspected of a crime and statements that they committed it (see Bemer v. Germany, Nesťak v. Slovakia).

Nothing prevents authorities from providing information about the progress of criminal investigations, as this is protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Alain de Ribemont v. France). The Court also considers that public figures have a higher tolerance for criticism due to their public role (Axel Springer v. Germany, Lingens v. Austria, Oberschlick v. Austria).

Now, the Supreme Court has effectively imposed a ban on publishing information about a suspect. Even mere reporting on procedural actions without violating the presumption of innocence is restricted. The Court explicitly stated that public interest does not justify naming a suspect before conviction.

What should be done now and by whom?

To strike a balance between privacy and publicity, legislative changes are needed. The Civil Code, adopted in 2003, does not consider important factors: the person’s status, public interest, or the nature of the crime. The law should allow naming individuals in cases of public interest, including corruption, abuse of power, budget embezzlement, or illegal actions by officials.

It would also be logical to allow publication if a court or government body has officially disclosed the name. Publication must be responsible: media should clearly indicate the person’s status—“suspect” or “accused”—remind about the presumption of innocence, and rely only on official sources. This is how the European Court of Human Rights operates, assessing proportionality and public interest instead of imposing absolute bans.

Currently, with the speaker launching a major project to recodify the Civil Code, it is the perfect moment for these reforms. If lawmakers fail to implement changes, civil society and media already know ways to navigate the law. This applies not only to criminal cases, where nicknames like “Che Guevara,” “Buratino,” or “Ali Baba” are widely understood.

During the 2019 presidential elections, Mustafa Nayem reported exit poll data using alcohol nicknames—“Zebrovka” for Volodymyr Zelensky, “Chocolate Liqueur” for Petro Poroshenko, “Widow Clicquot” for Yulia Tymoshenko—allowing the media to inform citizens creatively while complying with the law.

Знімок екрану з сайту РБК

How did media navigate this situation?

How did Dzerkalo Tyzhnia handle the Supreme Court decision?

They removed the official’s full name and replaced it with “…”, but added a note at the end:
“Following the Supreme Court ruling of 10.09.2025 in case № 757/19417/23, the mention of Ruslan Lyapka has been removed from this publication.”
Thus, journalists complied with the court while safeguarding freedom of expression.

It is worth noting that during the war, the Verkhovna Rada passed laws seen by international partners as having a “chilling effect” on free speech, including bans on publishing a lawyer’s name alongside their client. Violations carry administrative liability.

Additionally, a draft law under second reading may further restrict journalistic activity regarding registry data (project 10242).

Specially for “Glavcom”

This material was produced as part of the “Recharge UA” project. It is supported by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).