The European Court of Human Rights has questioned the legality of including former head of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), Artem Sytnyk, in the public registry of corrupters, confirming serious violations of his rights to a fair trial and private life, and noting that such actions were motivated by unfair motives
On April 24 of this year, the ECHR delivered a historic decision in the case "Sytnyk v. Ukraine," stating that his inclusion in the secret registry caused him significant harm and violated his constitutional rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. The court's ruling emphasized that Ukrainian courts handling this case completely ignored crucial defense arguments, in particular that the expenses incurred by the former NABU head during his holiday were shared among friends, reducing any probable involvement in corrupt activities. According to the decision, Sytnyk’s inclusion in the registry of corrupters had a disproportionally negative impact on his private life and reputation, as this public exposure would persist further, undermining confidence in his professional reputation and personal dignity. Notably, Ukrainian legislation currently does not allow for the removal of a public official's name from the registry even after the expiration of the designated period of liability, which contradicts provisions of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, specifically the articles regarding the cessation of administrative liability after one year. Regarding the material and non-material damages Sytnyk suffered, the court recognized that by acknowledging the violation of convention rights, he received a form of restitution; therefore, it did not award additional compensation. This decision sends an important signal to Ukrainian officials and law enforcement agencies about the inadmissibility of abusing laws for political or personal purposes. The history of this case began in 2019, when Artem Sytnyk lost an appeal in the Rivne Court of Appeals after losing his case in the Sarny District Court, which found him guilty of an administrative violation during a vacation in Rivne region. The Security Service of Ukraine and the Prosecutor General's Office drew up protocols, reportedly because during his vacation, paid for by others and without declaring the amount, he violated restrictions concerning receiving gifts, allegedly causing the state financial damage of 25,000 hryvnias. Sytnyk himself disputed these accusations, calling the administrative protocols unfounded and expressing doubt about the neutrality of the judges involved. Later that year, in December, his name appeared in the so-called “corruption register” under relevant article—Part 1 of Article 172-5 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses—for allegedly violating the procedure for receiving gifts. This became one of the grounds for official charges and subsequently for inclusion in blacklists, including public discreditation at the level of state institutions. The current ruling of the ECHR is not only a legal verdict on the illegitimacy of actions taken by Ukrainian courts and authorities in this case but also a strong signal from the international community that values the rule of law and rejects persecution based on political motives. From now on, any unjustified interference in the private life of officials, especially within the framework of anti-corruption efforts, is subject to significant criticism and social condemnation. The court’s decision in Europe holds weight and could potentially put an end to political and legal speculation surrounding this resonant case.