ECHR Declares Former Head of the Kyiv Circuit Administrative Court Pavlo Vovk’s Application Inadmissible

Today, the European Court of Human Rights published its decision of January 13, 2026, declaring Pavlo Vovk’s application against Ukraine inadmissible. The applicant complained that his rights had been violated as a result of NABU’s publication of materials from the criminal investigation concerning him in 2019–2020, and further alleged that the criminal proceedings against him as a whole were pursued with ulterior motives.

This ECHR decision allows us to emphasize several important points. First, Pavlo Vovk did not exhaust domestic remedies, in particular by not using the possibility of bringing a civil claim regarding the alleged violation of the presumption of innocence and dissemination of false information. Second, the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that any ulterior motives in NABU’s actions prevailed over the legitimate aim of informing the community about efforts to combat corruption in the judicial system.

Background of the case

Pavlo Vovk, former President of the Kyiv Circuit Administrative Court (“the KCAC”), challenged the actions of the NABU, which in July 2019 and July 2020 published detailed materials on its official website and YouTube channel concerning the criminal investigation into him and other KCAC judges. These publications included audio recordings and transcripts of intercepted conversations involving the applicant and other judges, infographics describing an alleged “organized criminal group,” statements that Pavlo Vovk had “organized the issuance of knowingly unjust judicial decisions,” and allegations of a “seizure of State power” through control over the HQCJ.

The applicant alleged that the actions of law enforcement authorities violated his right to the presumption of innocence (Article 6 § 2 of the Convention) and his right to respect for private life (Article 8), and that they were driven by hidden motives of retaliation and pressure on the judiciary (Article 18). He also complained about the lack of an effective remedy (Article 13).

Key Findings of the ECHR

Failure to exhaust domestic remedies

The principal reason the Court declined to examine the case was that Pavlo Vovk failed to use an appropriate remedy at the national level. The ECHR explained in detail why the complaint to the State Bureau of Investigation filed by the applicant was not an effective remedy for this type of alleged violation.

The Court noted that the applicant complained to the SBI about the actions of NABU officials under a range of provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine; however, none of them concerned, as such, a violation of the presumption of innocence or defamation. Instead, Vovk should have brought a civil claim for the protection of his honor, dignity, and business reputation.

The ECHR referred to its previous case law, in which it has regarded civil remedies as potentially effective in similar situations. 

Somewhat indirectly, the ECHR also addressed the legal basis for publishing the recordings. The Court stated that, in the present case, formal authorizations for the disclosure of material from the relevant criminal case files were issued in accordance with the rules of criminal procedure, and the disclosure was carried out by NABU officials openly and publicly (para. 93). While this cannot be read as a full assessment by the ECHR of the substantive grounds for disclosure, the Court nevertheless pointed to the procedural compliance of the disclosure process. This is relevant in the context of cases concerning the dismissal of judges based on materials obtained through covert investigative actions, including Pavlo Vovk.

No evidence of ulterior motives

As regards the complaint under Article 18 of the Convention, Pavlo Vovk argued that both the criminal proceedings and the publication of their materials were driven by ulterior motives. The ECHR indicated that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of such motives.

With respect to the publication of the recordings, the Court found that, given the nature of the case and Pavlo Vovk’s position, there was a legitimate reasons to inform the community about it. The ECHR stressed that such criminal proceedings are of public interest, and providing the community with information about such cases pursues the legitimate aim of preventing disorder or crime within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (para. 119).

In arguing ulterior motives, the applicant referred to the background of a 2016 criminal case concerning suspected unlawful enrichment, KCAC judgments not in NABU’s favor, and allegedly critical statements by a former President and a former Prosecutor General regarding the KCAC. However, the ECHR noted that the investigation into the Euromaidan events, within which the intercepted materials were obtained, was initiated by the Prosecutor General’s Office in cooperation with the Security Service of Ukraine, not by the NABU. Moreover, at that time there was “a certain degree of antagonism” between NABU and the PGO (paras. 121–123).

The ECHR also observed that the applicant was not personally involved in the KCAC cases he cited as possible motives. The Court found no indication of any link between those judicial decisions and the impugned publications or their subject matter (para. 124).

***

The ECHR decision underscores the community’s legitimate interest in the provision and availability of information about criminal proceedings, and that the functioning of the judicial system is a matter of public interest. Importantly, the ECHR stated that, in this context, authorizations to disclose materials from the relevant criminal case files were granted in accordance with the rules of criminal procedure, and the disclosure was carried out by the NABU openly and publicly. These findings are important not only for the work of the NABU and the SAPO, but also for disciplinary proceedings in which such materials were used. 

Proceedings before the High Anti-Corruption Court in the case against KCAC judges have been ongoing for more than three years, accompanied by numerous abuses by the defense. In March 2025, the High Council of Justice dismissed Vovk from judicial office for a disciplinary offense described as “actions undermining the authority of judicial office and the judiciary.” He is currently appealing that dismissal to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, with the hearing to continue April 9.