The Lutsk City and District Court of Volyn oblast dismissed the claims by the Lutsk City Dental Polyclinic director Lyubov Yakovchuk, who sued the media outelt Konkurent and demanded 100 thousand hryvnias of compensation for moral damage.

The ruling was passed on 3 March 2026 and posted on the website of the Unified Register of Court Rulings.

The trial has been dragging on since 2023 and involved a linguistic examination.

As reported earlier, Lyubov Yakovchuk sued Konkurent in 2023 for 100 thousand hryvnias in moral damages. The plaintiff also demanded that information reported by the news outlet be declared misleading and the team be ordered to take the news articles down and publish a retraction.

The disputed news stories were released between 19 September and 21 October 2023:

  • “Scandalous Lyubov Yakovchuk becomes Lutsk Dental Polyclinic director (photo)”;
  • “Scandal at Lutsk Dental Polyclinic: incompetent ‘admin’ hired instead of manager”;
  • “Lutsk Dental Polyclinic plans to relocate dentists: what problems this poses to doctors and patients”;
  • “Lutsk Dental Polyclinic charges combatants for free services (photo)”;
  • “Lutsk Dental Polyclinic diretor holds her position illegally”. 

The court concluded that these articles were critical and contained the team’s personal assessments and beliefs regarding Lyubov Yakovchuk. According to the court ruling, the linguistic expertise confirmed that critical statements regarding the dental polyclinic director were presented as value judgments.

Specifically, the court said that one factual statement from the 19 September 2023 news story, “As a reminder, the appointment of a new medical director, Lyubov Yakovchuk–Kachmar, sparked a scandal among the staff of the municipal dental polyclinic” does not constitute dissemination of misinformation about the plaintiff. Several conflicts with the clinic’s staff did occur after the plaintiff was appointed and as a result of her work, which the article discusses.

The court added that the limits of permissible criticism regarding the dental polyclinic director as a public figure are considerably wider than those for a private person, and concluded that the claims for retraction of misleading information in these articles are unfounded and cannot be satisfied.