Supreme Court Ruling in the Artem Sytnyk Case
Ukraine’s Supreme Court has delivered a final ruling in the case of Artem Sytnyk, former head of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU). The Grand Chamber overturned two 2019 decisions from courts in the Rivne region and closed the proceedings, citing the expiration of the statute of limitations for imposing administrative penalties. This outcome was made possible by findings from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which on April 24, 2025, confirmed violations of Sytnyk’s rights.
Sytnyk, who served as NABU director from 2015 to 2022, was fined 3,400 hryvnias in 2019. The Sarny District Court in Rivne Oblast found him guilty under Article 172-5, Part 1 of Ukraine’s Code on Administrative Offenses, imposing a fine and confiscation of gifts. The case stemmed from Sytnyk renting houses on the grounds of the Poliske-Sarny hunting estate twice—once in late 2018 and again in early 2019. The rental for one house over the New Year holiday cost 7,000 hryvnias, while another rental for the March holidays amounted to 10,500 hryvnias.
Review of Decisions and Dissenting Opinion
On May 27, the Supreme Court’s Grand Chamber granted Sytnyk’s lawyer’s request to review the earlier rulings, relying on the ECHR decision. The European court had found violations of Article 6 (Right to a Fair Trial), Article 8 (Right to Respect for Private and Family Life), and Article 18 (Limitation on Use of Restrictions on Rights) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Supreme Court further noted that
“the attention of state authorities in Sytnyk’s case was primarily directed not at preventing corruption in public service, but rather at a personal attack on the applicant’s moral and professional integrity.”
Three judges on the Grand Chamber filed a dissenting opinion, arguing that the case should have been sent back for a new hearing at the Rivne Court of Appeal. They stated that “closing the proceedings effectively nullified the very purpose of reviewing the case in light of the ECHR ruling,” emphasizing the need to annul the appellate court’s decision and order a fresh appellate review.
During the case’s consideration, Oleksiy Ryzhyi—the Sarny District Court judge who originally found Sytnyk guilty—was questioned as a witness in a separate criminal proceeding regarding the possible transfer of undue benefits, a factor that could have affected the impartiality of the initial trial. These developments highlight the critical importance of upholding human rights in administrative penalty and corruption-related proceedings.
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Artem Sytnyk case could have significant implications for future corruption-related cases in Ukraine. The ECHR findings that underpinned the overturning of previous rulings underscore the need for strict adherence to human rights standards in judicial processes and may influence public trust in justice institutions. Additionally, this ruling may prompt a reassessment of administrative penalty practices in corruption-related accusations to prevent potential abuses by state authorities.
As the legal landscape continues to evolve in Ukraine, the recent arrest warrant for former lawmaker Ivanushchenko highlights ongoing challenges in addressing corruption and legal accountability within the country. This case, alongside the Supreme Court's ruling on Sytnyk, underscores the complexities of Ukraine's judicial system and the implications for public officials facing legal scrutiny.