Lawyers for Ukrainian MP and leader of the European Solidarity party Petro Poroshenko stated that the decision of the panel of judges of the Cassation Administrative Court of the Supreme Court to refuse to lift the sanctions was made under direct pressure, the political party’s press service reported.
In this regard, the defense is already preparing appeals to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, the European Court of Human Rights, and the UN Human Rights Committee.
As the defense announced during a briefing, two of the five judges—presiding judge Radyshevska and former head of the Cassation Administrative Court Smokovych—issued dissenting opinions, finding no grounds for imposing sanctions. Instead, the majority, consisting of judges Kashpora, Matsedonska, and Melnyk-Tomenko, ruled in favor of the government representatives. According to lawyer Ilya Novikov, the real author and scriptwriter of this case from the very beginning was Andriy Portnov, whose publications formed the basis for the charges.
The lawyers noted that the rationale for the decision to deny the sanctions is partially classified, although it contains nothing that hasn’t been previously disclosed: the sanctions were imposed based on a letter signed by Pronin, head of the State Financial Monitoring Service, and the actual “accusations” against Poroshenko were copied from a publication controlled by Portnov. The text of the Supreme Court’s decision has already been sent to Ukraine’s international partners, who are closely monitoring the case, the lawyers say.
“You see the article in the publication ‘Law and Business,’ the style is very recognizable. It was written by Andriy Portov, who was still alive and very active at the time. He foresaw that the National Security and Defense Council would impose sanctions against Poroshenko for precisely the same reason Pronin proposed them a month later,” Novikov stated.
The defense also emphasizes the absurdity of accusations of Poroshenko’s involvement in the preparation of the Kharkiv Agreements, since he did not hold government office at the time they were signed, and the document itself still appears to be in effect on the Verkhovna Rada website.
“If we now open the page on the Verkhovna Rada website where these Kharkiv agreements, officially called ‘agreements on the presence of the Russian Black Sea Fleet on Ukrainian territory,’ are posted, we see that this document remains in effect today. And even if we ignore the fact that Poroshenko was neither the initiator nor a party to this agreement, we see that the Ukrainian parliament still considers this agreement to be in effect. This is utterly absurd,” Holovan explained.
The lawyers insist that the Grand Chamber’s hearing must be held in an entirely open manner. The text of the Supreme Court’s decision has already been shared with Ukraine’s international partners, as respect for the rule of law and judicial independence remains critical to the country’s further European integration.
“European institutions, the European Parliament, and the Council of Europe have clearly stated that the absence or presence of progress will be determining factors in the question of Ukraine’s European integration. And even if we don’t hear legitimate, reasoned answers to this question from the Supreme Court, we will certainly hear them from European bodies,” Novikov said.
As reported, the Cassation Administrative Court of the Supreme Court on Friday rejected Poroshenko’s claim to lift sanctions imposed by the National Security and Defense Council. The decision was made with the dissenting opinions of two judges from the five-judge panel hearing the case. “We will definitely appeal to the Grand Chamber. But I am firmly convinced we will win at the ECHR,” the politician said.
