The former deputy head of the Presidential Administration of Yanukovych defended his own honor, dignity and business reputation in court.
The Pechersky District Court of Kyiv found the information discrediting the honor, dignity and business reputation of the former head of the presidential administration Andrei Portnov, which was published in the Ukrainian media, to be unreliable. Glavkom reports this with reference to data from the court registry.
We are talking about the publication “Collaborators, traitors, accomplices of Russia: on whom Ukraine has not yet imposed sanctions for confiscation of assets” authored by the public organization “Anti-Corruption Center”. In July of this year, the article was published on Ukrayinska Pravda, it was republished by Focus, and also distributed by the telegram channel of the Anti-Corruption Center. In particular, the text noted that “there are still dozens of pro-Russian figures in Ukraine whose assets could potentially be confiscated, but this cannot be done. After all, sanctions against these individuals were not applied at all.” Among a dozen people, the name of Andrei Portnov was also mentioned.
In August, a top official from the Yanukovych era filed a lawsuit through his lawyer against the mentioned Internet resources. He did not agree with the labeling of him as a “pro-Russian figure,” “collaborator,” and “traitor.” Portnov denied that he ever supported Russia's armed aggression against Ukraine or incited hatred against the Ukrainian people. He convinced: he does not own any real estate in the Russian Federation, nor is he close to friends or acquaintances of Lavrov or any other government figure of the Russian Federation (previously, the “Schemes” project reported that the family of Andrei Portnov has a number of elite properties in the Russian Federation. The property was acquired after the Revolution of Dignity and registered to his common-law wife Anastasia Valyaeva and her mother Lydia - “Commander in Chief”).
“And even if the plaintiff owned such real estate, the mere possession of real estate registered in the Russian Federation before its armed aggression against Ukraine is not a sign confirming the commission by such a person of actions aimed at harming the national security, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine , or facilitating such actions, and is not a sign of treason or collaboration,” Portnov’s defender, quoted by the court, assured.
The original explanation of the plaintiff’s defender concerned Portnov’s departure from Ukraine to Russia in February 2014. They say that during the change of power, Portnov was in the Kharkov region, and therefore Russia “was the only geographical point that could be physically reached from the Kharkov region.”
Moreover: Portnov believed that his public statements about the Revolution of Dignity, which he called an unconstitutional seizure of power, were not pro-Russian. On the contrary, “the plaintiff’s position on the need to bring to justice all those responsible, without political exception, is a sign of a patriotic state position, the defense of the Ukrainian Constitution,” the court decision says.
A representative of the Focus publication expressed counterarguments to the scandalous politician’s claim. He noted that the ex-official did not provide evidence that the phrase about his “pro-Russianness” violated personal non-property rights. The media representative added that the websites “Peacemaker” and “Wikipedia” contain information indicating certain connections between the politician and the aggressor state.
A representative of the Anti-Corruption Center made similar conclusions, noting in his response to the lawsuit: Portnov, during his career, has repeatedly directly or indirectly contributed to the interests of Russia in Ukraine
The presiding judge in this case was perhaps the most scandalous metropolitan judge in terms of decisions taken, Sergei Vovk.
Since April 2006, Sergei Vovk has been a judge of the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv. "Famous":
in 2007, he made a decision according to which almost 7 hectares of land in the center of Odessa fell into private hands. The Odessa authorities tried for a long time to return these assets, but in vain;
in 2012, a panel of judges chaired by Sergei Vovk sentenced ex-minister Yuriy Lutsenko to four years in prison for allegedly illegally celebrating Police Day in the Ukraina Palace. This process in Ukraine and in the world was recognized as politically motivated;
in 2014, Sergei Vovk was remembered for depriving an apartment and a car from the rightful owner. The prosecutor's office saw this as a “deliberately unjust decision,” but the case ended in nothing - Vovk was acquitted;
in 2019, it satisfied the claim of Andrey Portnov to recover from the state 6.8 million UAH in compensation for moral damages and legal expenses for the fact that sanctions were imposed on him in Canada. Portnov claimed that Ukraine allegedly provided Canada with false information about him.
So, Judge Vovk came to the conclusion that the media and the public organization “Anti-Corruption Center” without evidence called Andrei Portnov “a collaborator, a traitor, a pro-Russian figure who has an anti-Ukrainian position.”
As an argument, Themis cited written responses from the Security Service and the National Police of Ukraine, which stated: Portnov was never prosecuted for acts of desperation and collaboration; at the time of consideration of the case is not a suspect, accused or defendant in any other criminal proceedings.
“Thus, the information disseminated by the defendants that the plaintiff is a collaborator and a traitor, that is, a person who has committed a number of serious crimes against the foundations of the national security of Ukraine, does not correspond to reality and cannot be confirmed by any proper and admissible evidence,” said Judge Vovk.
The court also rejected as evidence the Focus publication’s links to the Myrotvorets and Wikipedia websites, “since these resources are not an official, competent source and there are no relevant links in the controversial publications.”
Separately, Judge Vovk stated: not only in Ukrainian society, but also in the world community, a unified position has been formed regarding Russia as an aggressor and terrorist country. Therefore, “the dissemination by the defendants of information that the plaintiff is a pro-Russian figure, is engaged in anti-Ukrainian activities, because of which sanctions should be applied to him, discredits the plaintiff and creates the impression of alleged support, approval or even a neutral position of the plaintiff regarding the actions that the state the aggressor commits in Ukraine and against Ukrainian citizens.”
To summarize, the court found the information in the part where Andrei Portnov was mentioned unreliable and ordered the defendants to refute it. Also, the media and the public organization must pay the plaintiff 111.3 thousand UAH (2 publications and the Anti-Corruption Center each 37.1 thousand UAH) in the form of expenses for professional legal assistance. A total of 6.44 thousand UAH of court fees were also collected from the defendants.
The decision of the Pechersky District Court can be appealed within 30 days. So far, none of the defendants to whom Portnov filed claims have publicly responded to the court decision.
At the same time, according to the “War and Sanctions” resource, which is moderated by the National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption, two countries, the USA and Canada, applied personal sanctions to Andrei Portnov. In the official explanation of the US Treasury, citing the NAPC resource, it is noted that the former deputy head of the Presidential Administration during the time of Yanukovych, Andrei Portnov, in 2019 “cultivated broad ties with the judicial and law enforcement apparatus of Ukraine through bribery.” It is noted that Portnov “was reasonably accused” of using influence on judicial decisions in Ukraine, tried to gain control over the justice system, sought the appointment of people loyal to him to senior judicial positions, and also bribed court decisions.
As Glavkom reported, in the spring of 2023, the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv fully satisfied the claim of the former deputy head of the Presidential Administration Viktor Yanukovych, lawyer Andrei Portnov, against a number of media outlets in the case of protection of honor, dignity and business reputation. Back in September 2020, Portnov went to court, demanding a refutation of information reports. In particular, it was about the fact that the editor-in-chief of the investigative journalism program “Schemes: Corruption in Details,” Natalya Sedletskaya, suspected Portnov of involvement in setting fire to the car of the film crew driver. The arson itself occurred on the night of August 17, 2020.
Judge Alexey Sokolov noted in the decision: the specified media must refute the disseminated information that mentions Andrei Portnov. After all, the court found it unreliable and violating the personal non-property rights of the plaintiff. The court decision also concerns Natalya Sedletskaya, who must refute her words on the social network. This case is ongoing on appeal.
