Borzykh vs. ZN: why a high-profile lawsuit against the media could be indicative for Ukrainian journalism

The legal dispute between the former Deputy Chief Military Prosecutor and lawyer Borzykh and the ZN publication may become indicative for the Ukrainian media sphere. At the heart of the case are not only specific journalistic publications, but also a much broader issue: where is the line drawn between the right of the media to cover socially important criminal proceedings and the human right to the presumption of innocence, privacy and protection of reputation.

The plaintiff does not deny that he has the status of a suspect in the NABU criminal proceedings, although he considers the prosecution itself to be illegal. At the same time, his claims concern statements that, according to Borzykh’s side, go far beyond the mere notification of suspicion.

What exactly is Borzykh challenging in the publications

The lawsuit concerns 12 ZN materials. According to the plaintiff’s side, they accused Borzykh, in particular, of receiving and selling classified official information, warning clients about searches, involvement in more than 30 leaks of information and loss of evidence, leading a criminal group of lawyers, and having special connections with officials.

Certain statements, as noted in the case materials, were submitted with reference to anonymous sources. Therefore, one of the key issues in court may be the presence of a sufficient factual basis for each specific accusation.

In addition, the claims relate to the dissemination of photographs and information about the plaintiff’s family and private life.

Where did the “800 thousand hryvnias” come from?

A separate episode of the conflict was information about the amount of the claim.

Initially, ZN reported that Borzykh allegedly demanded almost 800 thousand hryvnias. At the same time, according to the plaintiff’s side, the statement of claim refers to UAH 514,335.20 in legal costs, and there is no claim for compensation for moral damage.

The editorial office subsequently corrected the information. However, the Borzykh side considers this case to be an additional argument in the discussion about proper fact-checking before publication.

What does the Borzykh side rely on

One of the plaintiff’s key arguments is part four of Article 296 of the Civil Code of Ukraine regarding the use of the name of a suspect or accused person.

The practice of the Supreme Court may also be of great importance for the dispute. In September 2025, in case No. 757/19417/23, the court concluded that the public interest and public status of a person do not cancel the restrictions provided for by law.

At the same time, the court did not demand the complete removal of the journalistic material, but ordered the removal of the plaintiff’s name from it.

This practice does not guarantee Borzykh victory, but it can become one of the important arguments during the consideration of the case.

Suspect status is not proof of all charges

ZN’s position, in particular, is based on the fact that NABU officially confirmed Borzykh’s status as a suspect.

However, the mere fact of reporting suspicion does not automatically confirm any other allegations about a person’s activities.

If the editorial office accurately reproduced the official information of law enforcement officers, its position may be strong. If its own categorical statements were added to the official version, the court will have to separately assess their factual basis.

Can this lawsuit be considered pressure on journalists

Another subject of discussion was the definition of the case as a SLAPP – a lawsuit used to pressure journalists or stop a socially important discussion.

However, the mere fact of filing a lawsuit with the media does not make it a SLAPP.

The Borzykh lawsuit identifies specific disputed claims, provides legal reasoning, the practice of the Supreme Court, and a list of evidence. There is also no separate claim for moral compensation. Because of this, the claim about the obviously groundless persecution of journalists at this stage seems premature.

What the plaintiff’s side says

The representative of the Borzykhs, lawyer Olga Ponomarenko, emphasizes that the subject of the lawsuit is not aimed at prohibiting journalists from criticizing lawyers or covering the activities of the NABU.

According to her, it is about the right of a person not to be presented to society as guilty before the conviction becomes legally binding.

The plaintiff’s side also explains the amount of over 500 thousand hryvnias in expenses by the scale of the work: the lawsuit covers 12 publications, their fixation, expert and legal assessment, preparation of materials, and court fees.

What the court’s decision may be

Both sides have strong arguments in this case.

The Supreme Court’s practice regarding the use of the suspect’s name and the need to prove specific statements that go beyond the official information of the NABU may work in the Borzykh’s favor.

On the side of ZN is the right of the media to report on socially important criminal proceedings, to quote official materials of law enforcement officers and to use confidential sources.

Therefore, the case will not necessarily end with an absolute victory of one of the parties. The court can separately evaluate each of the 12 publications and each controversial statement – for example, to demand the removal of a name or individual unproven phrases, while leaving the journalistic material itself available.

That is why this process may become important for Ukrainian media practice: the court will have to find a balance between freedom of speech and a person’s right to reputation, while