The law firm “Barristers” has signed a memorandum of cooperation with the public organizations “Caucasian Union” and the “International Institute for Caucasus Studies” with the aim of providing legal support to representatives of the Caucasian diaspora in Ukraine.
According to the company’s statement, the signing of the document is a response to the challenges faced by people from the Caucasus, who have been fighting against Russian aggression for the past decades. As noted by Yurii Radzievskyi, a partner at “Barristers,” the lawyers specialize in criminal legal defense, particularly in cases involving politically motivated persecution.
“From 2014 to 2022, there were already cases in Ukraine of detentions and extraditions of fighters of Caucasian origin at the request of the Russian Federation. We will not allow such practices to continue,” he emphasized at a press conference at the “Interfax-Ukraine” agency on Thursday.
Another partner at “Barristers,” Oleksii Shevchuk, stated that supporting the peoples of the Caucasus is part of a broader struggle for freedom. “A free Caucasus is an alliance of independence fighters who stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukrainians in defending the right to be free. We publicly declare our support for this struggle,” he said.
The head of the “Caucasian Union” NGO, Dzhabrail Mirzoev, emphasized the importance of legal assistance, particularly in the context of repression and political persecution. “This team of lawyers will help save the lives of many fighters,” he declared.
In turn, the head of the “International Institute for Caucasus Studies,” Kostiantyn Salii, underlined the role of an independent academic platform that will allow Caucasian researchers to work freely and publish truthful materials. He also noted the importance of protecting scholars and activists from accusations of “extremism” by the Russian Federation: “In Ukraine, one can prove their case relying on lawyers who know how to defend.”
Participants in the initiative believe that the signed memorandum will become an important milestone in the protection of the rights of representatives of the Caucasian peoples under the ongoing Russian aggression.
Since the beginning of 2025, Ukraine’s judicial system has shown some progress in the introduction of new technologies, but there are delays in the consideration of cases and the enforcement of court decisions, according to Vitaliy Chayun, a lawyer at the Barristers law firm.
“The war has affected all aspects of the functioning of the courts, from the physical safety of judges to citizens’ access to justice. Despite this, the courts continue to operate, adapting to the conditions of martial law and the requirements of European integration reforms. In the first half of 2025, the judicial system showed some progress in the implementation of new technologies and reforms, but faced a number of problems, such as delays in the consideration of cases and difficulties in the enforcement of court decisions,” he told the Interfax-Ukraine news agency.
Chayun recalled that in 2024, 5.3 million cases were submitted to courts of all instances and jurisdictions, of which 4.4 million were considered by the courts.
“Approximately one million cases remain unresolved. This indicates a significant burden on the judicial system, especially given the conditions of martial law and staff shortages. It can be assumed that the number of cases in 2025 will remain high, given the growth in 2024 and the continuation of martial law,” he said.
Chayun noted that in the first half of 2025, Ukraine’s judicial system “continues to adapt to the conditions of war and reform in preparation for EU accession,” and among the main trends in the work of the judicial system is the introduction of remote court hearings, which allow hearings to be held without the physical presence of participants.
“This is especially important in wartime, when many citizens are internally displaced persons or live in combat zones. Given these challenges, the development of remote court proceedings is becoming a priority task, the implementation of which will ensure the effectiveness of court proceedings and procedural economy,” he said.
In addition, Chayun drew attention to the problem of filling judicial vacancies: in 2025, it is planned to appoint 1,800 judges to local courts, 550 to appellate courts, and 25 to the High Anti-Corruption Court. However, due to the length of the appointment procedures, “the judiciary has been ‘bled dry’ for many years.”
Chae also noted the processes of modernizing court IT systems and creating new specialized courts.
Commenting on the length of proceedings in Ukrainian courts, the lawyer pointed out that they “remain one of the key problems.” “Cases can be delayed for years due to a lack of funding for basic needs such as stamps, envelopes, and stationery necessary to send correspondence to parties to the proceedings,” he said.
According to Chayun, the delays affect “all types of cases, including economic cases, which are often complex due to the large number of documents and parties involved.” He recalled that between January and April 2025, 59,400 cases were pending in courts of various instances against the State Tax Service for a total amount of UAH 413.8 billion. At the same time, 6,900 cases worth UAH 78.7 billion were considered, of which 2,300 cases (including non-property disputes) worth UAH 44.4 billion were in favor of the State Tax Service, and 4,600 cases worth UAH 34.3 billion were in favor of taxpayers.
“Although there is no accurate data on the timing of economic cases in the first half of 2025, delays persist due to court overload and limited funding. It is expected that filling judicial vacancies and modernizing IT systems in the future will help speed up the consideration of cases, but in the first half of 2025, no significant improvements were achieved, and the shortage of personnel in the judicial system only exacerbates negative trends,” the lawyer emphasized.
He also drew attention to a number of problems with the enforcement of court decisions. “The enforcement of court decisions remains one of the most acute problems of the judicial system, as more than half of court decisions remain unenforced. In 2025, a new law on the digitization of enforcement proceedings and the implementation of a strategy to improve the work of the enforcement service are planned to be adopted. This demonstrates the state’s recognition of the existing problems in this area. However, during 2025, problems with the enforcement of court decisions are likely to persist due to the insufficient effectiveness of the enforcement service and a lack of resources,” the lawyer said.
“The Ukrainian judicial system showed gradual progress in implementing reforms in the first half of 2025, but delays in the consideration of cases, limited access to justice due to financial and technical problems, and difficulties in enforcing court decisions remain significant challenges. Lawyers are forced to adapt to these conditions, which requires additional efforts to protect their clients’ rights. Further reforms and support from the state and international partners are critical to ensuring effective and fair justice in Ukraine,” he concluded.
A special tribunal to investigate the crimes of Russian aggression against Ukraine complements the existing mechanisms of justice, becomes a critical step for the establishment of the rule of law in international relations and ensuring the inevitability of punishment for serious international crimes, said Victoria Zagoruy, attorney at Barristers.
Commenting to Interfax-Ukraine on the legal aspects of the establishment of the special tribunal, she noted that “the tribunal is a temporary international judicial body (ad hoc) established for a specific purpose: to investigate and prosecute those responsible for committing this key crime.” The statute of the special tribunal specifies that the “crime of aggression” means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution by a person in a position to exercise effective control over or direction of the political or military activities of a State of an act of aggression which, by its nature, gravity and scale, constitutes a clear violation of the UN Charter.
“The need to create such a body is due to the so-called jurisdictional gap in international law. The main obstacle to the investigation of the crime of aggression in national courts or the International Criminal Court is the immunity of senior officials (head of state, government, foreign minister), which protects them from foreign jurisdiction during their tenure. The special tribunal, which will act on behalf of the international community and is being created under the auspices of the Council of Europe, is designed to overcome this immunity,” the lawyer emphasized.
Zagoruy noted that “this mechanism will allow to bring to justice the top leaders of the aggressor state, regardless of their current status.”
In addition, the mechanism of the special tribunal provides for direct and indisputable jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, which allows prosecuting the leadership of the Russian Federation, despite the fact that the Russian Federation is not a party to the Rome Statute.
The special tribunal will also have international legal personality, rather than the status of a hybrid or national structure, and will provide for the possibility of in absentia proceedings, which “allows justice to be done even if the accused are not physically present in the courtroom” and means that “amnesty granted to any person under the jurisdiction of the special tribunal is not an obstacle to prosecution.”
“This is extremely important because it prevents national or third-party amnesties from obstructing justice for the crime of aggression. Thus, the establishment of the Special Tribunal is a historic step that clearly establishes accountability for senior officials for the crime of aggression, completely disregarding their personal immunities,” she said.
Commenting on the relationship between the special tribunal and the International Criminal Court (ICC), Zagoruy noted that “these are different but complementary institutions. In particular, the ICC has jurisdiction over four major international crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.
Ukraine has recognized the ICC’s jurisdiction over crimes against humanity and war crimes committed on its territory by submitting two applications under Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute. This allows the ICC prosecutor to investigate and prosecute these categories of crimes.
At the same time, the ICC’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression is limited. According to the Kampala Amendments to the Rome Statute, the ICC can only consider this crime if the aggressor state and the victim state are parties to the Rome Statute and have ratified these amendments, and if the case is referred to the ICC by the UN Security Council.
“Since neither Ukraine nor the Russian Federation has ratified the Rome Statute and the amendments on aggression, and the Russian Federation, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, has a veto, the ICC cannot independently prosecute this particular crime. This creates the very jurisdictional gap that the ad hoc tribunal is intended to fill. It will not duplicate the work of the ICC, but will complement it, providing comprehensive coverage of crimes committed during the aggression,” explained Zagoruy.
She emphasized that the ICC investigates war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide committed on the territory of Ukraine, and this applies to specific actions: the killing of civilians, torture, deportations, destruction of civilian infrastructure, etc. Both ordinary perpetrators and their commanders may be held responsible for them.
At the same time, the special tribunal will focus exclusively on the crime of aggression, i.e., the very fact of planning, preparing, initiating and waging a war of aggression. The responsibility for this crime lies solely with the highest political and military leadership of the aggressor state.
Zagoruy also noted that the interaction between the Special Tribunal and the ICC will be based on the principle of ne bis in idem (no one can be punished twice for the same act), which is fundamental in international law.
“A person cannot be convicted twice for the same crime. However, the same person may be convicted of different crimes. For example, an official can be convicted by a special tribunal for the crime of aggression (for ordering to start a war), and the same official can be convicted by the ICC for crimes against humanity (for example, for the policy of deporting children) or for war crimes (for orders to indiscriminately shell cities),” the lawyer explained.
She noted that the ad hoc tribunal may enter into agreements or practical arrangements with the ICC to ensure the effective exercise of their respective jurisdictions. In particular, whenever a person subject to an ICC arrest warrant is detained in ICC detention centers, the special tribunal will prioritize the proceedings before the ICC.
“The activities of the courts will be coordinated to ensure comprehensive justice and full accountability for all categories of international crimes. By focusing exclusively on the crime of aggression, the tribunal aims to bring to justice the top leadership of the Russian Federation, those responsible for the decision to start the war. For victims of the war who suffered from specific crimes, such as the destruction of property or illegal detention, the national courts of Ukraine and the ICC remain the mechanisms of justice, which are already actively working to document and investigate these crimes,” Zahoruy emphasized.
Legislative initiatives to compensate industrial investments through taxes (draft laws 13414 and 13415) will require a transparent mechanism for applying for and controlling the targeted use of funds, said Taras Onyshchenko, lawyer at Barristers Commercial.
“These draft laws promise to be a ”historic step” in stimulating investment, in particular, in the construction of new industrial facilities. The initiative envisages the introduction of a mechanism for partial compensation of investment costs through tax benefits, which is a common and successful practice in the European Union. At the same time, there are certain challenges and implementation risks that will require careful attention,” he toldInterfax-Ukraine.
Among the positive expectations from the adoption of the draft law, Onyshchenko mentioned, in particular, a significant stimulation of economic growth, “since the proposed investment compensation mechanisms can significantly reduce risks and increase the profitability of projects, encouraging investment in the manufacturing sector.”
“The successful experience of the EU shows the effectiveness of such instruments, which can help both attract new capital and return investments that have been withdrawn or relocated. In addition, new and modernized production facilities will inevitably lead to the creation of new jobs and employment growth. Compensation for equipment costs will stimulate the introduction of modern technologies and increase the competitiveness of Ukrainian products on the global market,” he said.
At the same time, Onishchenko emphasizes that for the effective implementation of the proposed mechanisms, “it will be important to carefully calculate the potential fiscal impact on state budget revenues, especially in the short term.”
“For successful implementation, it is necessary to develop the most transparent, efficient and non-bureaucratic mechanism for submitting applications, reviewing them, verifying expenditures and monitoring the targeted use of investments, as the complexity of the procedures may offset all the benefits of compensation. It is also crucial to have clear definitions, in particular, the definition of “processing industry” and “equipment according to the UKTZED” to avoid ambiguities and abuses,” he said.
In addition, the lawyer believes that it is necessary to “ensure synergy so that the new mechanism complements, rather than duplicates or conflicts with existing investment support instruments.” Onishchenko reminded that Ukraine already uses a number of instruments to support business and investment. These include the Affordable Loans 5-7-9% program, grants for processing up to UAH 8 million, benefits for participants in industrial parks, and state support for “projects with significant investments” (from EUR 12 million), which is provided under a separate law. In addition, there is a system of investment insurance against military and political risks.
“However, draft laws 13414/13415 are distinguished by their comprehensiveness and accessibility, which makes them unique among existing instruments. Unlike the aforementioned programs, they offer direct compensation through a wide range of taxes, significantly reduce the entry threshold for investors (starting from EUR 100 thousand) and, most importantly, apply to existing businesses. This approach creates a more flexible and comprehensive incentive tool compared to targeted programs or incentives that are mainly focused on very large investments or have specific conditions,” the lawyer said.
As reported, draft laws 13414 and 13415 are focused on supporting the processing industry, which is recognized as a key sector for value creation and economic growth in Ukraine. Investors are expected to be able to recover a significant portion of their investment costs. These costs cover a wide range of capital investments, including the construction of utility networks and related infrastructure, acquisition, construction, modernization and technical/technological re-equipment of buildings and structures, as well as the acquisition of equipment in accordance with the UKTZED and land plots.
The compensation mechanism will be implemented through a reduction in tax liabilities for major taxes. In particular, these include income tax, import VAT on equipment, import duty on equipment, property tax, and land tax. The amount of compensation will depend on the size of the investment project. The key innovation and significant advantage of this mechanism is that it will be available not only to brand new businesses, but also to existing ones that invest in the development and modernization of their production facilities.
The initiator and co-author of draft laws 13414 and 13415, Deputy Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Economic Development Dmytro Kysylevskyi, said that the draft laws were registered jointly by 55 MPs from different factions and groups, including Danylo Hetmantsev, Andriy Motovylovets, and Dmytro Natalukha.
The draft laws No. 13414 and No. 13415 provide for amendments to the Tax and Customs Codes regarding compensation for investments through taxes.
Source: https://interfax.com.ua/news/general/1083281.html
The dissenting opinion of two judges of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court (GC SC), Oleh Kryvenda and Mykola Mazur, regarding the sanctions not supported by evidence gives grounds for appealing and canceling the decrees of the President of Ukraine on their imposition, said Oleksandr Shadrin, attorney at Barristers.
Shadrin said that Barristers‘ lawyers, who supported the case of one of the clients, received a decision of the Supreme Court, which determined the dissenting opinion of the judges on sanctions cases and the possibility of appealing the imposed sanctions. The text of the dissenting opinion has not yet been published in the Unified Register of Court Decisions.
“The bottom line is that the number of sanction cases has increased, which are actually substituted for criminal proceedings, and most of the materials are being kept secret. Therefore, the dissenting opinion of the judges is resonant in terms of a complete change in the practice of considering sanctions cases, it says that each body must act within its powers and cannot substitute criminal proceedings with sanctions cases,” Shadrin said.
The lawyer believes that “this high-profile decision of the Supreme Court to completely change the practice of considering sanctions cases in Ukraine will enable judicial appeal against presidential decrees on sanctions.
“In the context of war and widespread use of sanctions, this position forms a fundamentally new field for law enforcement and human rights protection, in particular, it reinforces the idea of the need to ensure transparency, validity and judicial control over government discretion, even in areas related to national security,” the lawyer said.
According to him, the dissenting opinion of the judges proves that even with the president’s broad discretion in sanctions policy, his actions must remain within the framework of the Constitution and the rule of law, and the courts are obliged to check whether decisions are arbitrary and sanctions are unjustified.
“In this particular case, the state did not provide adequate evidence of a threat from the person against whom the sanctions were imposed, and therefore the claim should have been satisfied. This is the first known case when the judges of the Supreme Court publicly declare the need to satisfy the appeal and lawsuit against the Presidential Sanctions Decree, questioning the unconditional nature of such a mechanism as sanctions,” Shadrin said.
According to the lawyer, the position of the two judges “may become the basis for legal discussion, public control over the activities of the authorities, a tool for protecting the rights of persons who consider sanctions against them to be groundless and unjustified, and may also be taken into account by the initiators of the sanctions to assess the prospects for their lifting.”
Source: https://interfax.com.ua/news/general/1083242.html
