On 6 July a Kyiv district court judge granted an interim injunction that bars eight Ukrainian media organisations from publishing material about the Sukhachov family and the developer Parkovyi‑2 LLC. The order was issued after Anticorruption Action Centre (AntAC) reporter Alina Stryzhak contacted the developer for comment on a joint investigation compiled by journalists from Slidstvo.info and AntAC.

Background to the investigation

The investigation, later republished under the banner “Initiative 143”, identified 143 apartments and office spaces in Kharkiv owned by Oleksandr Sukhachov, brother of State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) chief Oleksii Sukhachov. In July 2018 Oleksandr bought 30 apartments in the IT‑Park Manufactura complex for between €800 and €1 600 each – a total of less than €35 000. Later that year he acquired a further 28 apartments for under €30 000. The journalists estimated that these purchases gave him ownership of roughly 40 % of the units in the complex.

Average market prices in Kharkiv in 2019 were around €700 per square metre. Applying those rates, the total cost of the purchases would have been measured in millions of euros, not tens of thousands. The dossier also listed properties on Heroes of Kharkiv Avenue, the city’s longest street. Many of the identified assets have since been sold or transferred, leaving only a small portion still in Sukhachov’s name.

Court order and its justification

Parkovyi‑2 LLC responded to the journalists’ enquiries by filing the interim injunction. Judge Serhii Vovk granted the order, stating that publication could cause “irreparable harm” to the company. The same judge previously sentenced former interior minister Yurii Lutsenko in 2012 in a case described by the Council of Europe as politically motivated.

Media response and collective action

Eight outlets – Ukrainska Pravda, Suspilne Schemes (Radio Svoboda), Hromadske, Dzerkalo Tyzhnia, NV, Bihus.info, Toronto Television and Slidstvo.info – republished the investigation together, describing the court order as “censorship” in a joint statement. Maksym Savchuk, editor of Slidstvo.info, asserted that the journalists have a “moral and legal right” to share the findings, noting that the ban applies only to the outlets, not to him personally.

Sevgil Musaieva, editor‑in‑chief of Ukrainska Pravda, warned that the case concerns “the boundaries of what is permissible in a democratic state”. AntAC and Slidstvo.info thanked the other organisations, calling the collective effort an “unprecedented display of solidarity”. Representatives of Ukrainian civil‑society organisations described the action as a “defiant stand for press freedom”.

Legal and international context

The State Bureau of Investigation, created in 2014 as Ukraine’s counterpart to the FBI, has not announced any internal review of the Sukhachov brothers’ property transactions. The fact that the bureau is led by Oleksandr’s brother raises questions about its independence, especially given the conflict of interest highlighted by the journalists.

Human Rights Watch and the Committee to Protect Journalists have issued statements urging Ukrainian authorities to respect journalists’ right to inform the public. The European Union, which repeatedly calls for stronger protection of media freedom in Ukraine, reiterated its support for an independent judiciary and free media as part of the country’s EU accession path. The EU’s 2024 European Neighbourhood Policy review stated that “media freedom remains a litmus test for democratic consolidation”.

Transparency International Ukraine has reported concerns about oligarchic influence over the judiciary, and opposition politicians in Kyiv have criticised the ruling party’s handling of anti‑corruption reforms following the injunction.

Further legal proceedings

Parkovyi‑2 LLC has also filed a civil lawsuit against Slidstvo.info, AntAC and Alina Stryzhak, seeking damages for alleged harm caused by the publication. The case is scheduled to be heard later in the year, and legal experts anticipate a lengthy dispute.

The injunction is described by the Kyiv Independent as unprecedented, and the European Court of Human Rights permits prior restraint only in exceptional circumstances – a threshold the Ukrainian order appears not to meet.