The Rivne Oblast Council’s address to the Verkhovna Rada proposing to introduce income and asset declarations for certain categories of journalists may run counter to Ukraine’s Constitution and create risks of pressure on the media, Institute of Mass Information lawyer Volodymyr Zelenchuk explained to Suspilne Rivne.
He said that, unlike MPs and officials, journalists do not exercise government power and do not manage state resources, so there are no legal grounds for equating them with declarants required under anti-corruption legislation.
IMI’s lawyer believes the proposed criterion for selecting journalists, “considerable impact on public opinion,” is particularly dangerous. It has no clear legal definition and could allow the authorities to decide at their own discretion which journalists have to file declarations.
Volodymyr Zelenchuk explained that the Law of Ukraine “On Prevention of Corruption” makes income declaratin mandatory for persons working in national or local government bodies or for legally equivalent categories.
It is not one’s profession making them a public figure that warrants declaration, but the person’s wielding of government power or the power to manage public resources.
READ MORE
- Rivne Oblast Council proposes introducing income declarations for some journalists
- Rivne Oblast Council supports address on income declarations for journalists
“A declaration is a tool for monitoring those who hold public power or manage public resources. The ‘fourth branch of power’ that the officials mentioned is a metaphor, not a legal status,” he said.
He also pointed out the difference between journalists and local council deputies.
“The analogy with local council deputies is flawed, because a deputy, although serving on a voluntary basis, votes on budget, land, and communal property issues. It is these powers, and not their salary, that form the grounds for declaration,” Volodymyr Zelenchuk remarked.
In support of his position, the lawyer cited ruling No. 3-r/2019 by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. In that ruling, the court found certain provisions of the law on declaration obligations of anti-corruption activists unconstitutional. According to Zelenchuk, this ruling sets the limits for extending financial declaration requirements to people who hold no government power.
Potential press freedom risks, according to IMI’s lawyer
Volodymyr Zelenchuk believes the proposed mechanism runs counter to constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and creates risks to the independence of journalism.
In his view, the phrasing “considerable impact on public opinion” poses an issue in and of itself. He says this criterion fails the legal certainty requirement, since it offers no clear understanding of exactly whom the declaration requirements would apply to.
“The ‘considerable impact on public opinion’ criterion does not meet the legal certainty requirement. Moreover, a state that compiles a list of ‘impactful journalists’ is in effect introducing their registration. The UN Human Rights Committee recognises such registration as incompatible with Article 19 of the ICCPR. Constitutional Court ruling No. 3-r/2019, which found the declaration of anti-corruption activists unconstitutional for contradicting Articles 32 and 36 of the Constitution, applies here too, and in our case Article 34 is added,” the lawyer remarked.
Zelenchuk warned that the risk of journalists facing pressure would grow if the range of persons required to file declarations is determined by the authorities at their own discretion.
“The pressure will be even stronger if the requirement to declare income is applied selectively and the range of persons is determined by a public authority at its own discretion. All the more so if failure to declare becomes grounds for criminal or administrative prosecution or for NACP checks, and the data is made public. Such an environment would not merely have a ‘chilling effect’ but would deal an irreparable blow to freedom of expression in the country as a whole,” IMI’s lawyer said.
As an example of dangerous regulation, he cited Russia’s “foreign agent” law, which obliges journalists, among others, to report on their finances. Zelenchuk also mentioned the case of Kobaliya v. Russia, in which the European Court of Human Rights found violations of Articles 8, 10, and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Declaration’s potential impact on sources protection
Another risk the lawyer pointed to is the potential disclosure of journalists’ sources of income and related data.
He said that details about payers, gifts, and bank accounts could reveal journalists’ clients, partners, and contacts. In his view, this would undermine the protection of journalistic sources guaranteed by Ukrainian law and international standards.
“The biggest risk is the disclosure of sources. A list of payers, gifts, and accounts effectively shows a journalist’s clients, partners, and contacts. This affects Article 25 of the Law ‘On Information’, the ECtHR’s case law on source protection, and EMFA Article 4,” he explained.
The lawyer also warned that criminal prosecution over inaccurate declarations could become grounds for searches and equipment confiscation. Moreover, collecting the financial data of journalists and their family members would, in his view, go against the principle of personal data minimisation.
Rivne Oblast Council backed an address to the Verkhovna Rada on 6 November 2026 asking it to introduce income and asset declaration for certain categories of journalists whose work has a substantial impact on public opinion. The initiative’s author, Roman Stasiuk, admitted that he was unaware of any specific cases of considerable enrichment by journalists that could justify such a proposal.
