Contact center of the Ukrainian Judiciary 044 207-35-46
Ukraine is currently facing complex challenges. The struggle for environmental security and the restoration of the environment continues after the start of the full-scale invasion. The role of criminal jurisdiction in this process also includes bringing to criminal liability those responsible for committing war crimes and the crime of ecocide. In this context, it is crucial to unite the efforts of the legal and scientific communities and to develop a joint position with international partners in order to ensure real accountability for the devastating impact on Ukraine’s environment.
This was emphasized by Nataliia Antoniuk, Vice President of the Criminal Cassation Court within the Supreme Court, in her welcoming remarks to the participants of the roundtable discussion “Environmental Legal Public Platform: Democracy, Rule of Law, and Green Recovery”, held within the framework of the 9th Kharkiv International Legal Forum. The roundtable was also attended by Supreme Court judges Hanna Vronska and Vitalii Zuiev of the Commercial Cassation Court, and Vasyl Krat of the Civil Cassation Court.
Speaking about the assessment of the impact of Russia’s war against Ukraine on the environment from the perspective of criminal law, Nataliia Antoniuk focused on issues related to the destruction of the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant.
According to her, this is one of the most complex cases. Law enforcement authorities are faced with the enormous scale of destructive consequences and difficulties in collecting evidence and documenting the destruction due to the inability to access the affected territories. In addition to the destruction of the Kakhovka dam itself, at least 35 people were killed as a result of the explosion, many went missing, 46 settlements in the Kherson region were flooded, along with agricultural lands and forests.
Nataliia Antoniuk outlined several points that arise in the qualification of these actions under Article 438 (War Crimes) and Article 441 (Ecocide) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and which require further detailed examination.
As the judge noted, Article 56 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, concerning the protection of victims of international armed conflicts, states that dams, dikes, and nuclear power plants must not be made the object of attack. Attacks on such facilities constitute violations of international humanitarian law and the laws and customs of war. “In the context of analyzing this article of the Additional Protocol, Ukrainian legal experts, when qualifying this event under Article 438 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, must emphasize that regardless of the goals pursued by the Russian military, the destruction of such civilian infrastructure must be regarded as a war crime,” she noted.
The issue of classifying the destruction of the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant under Article 441 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine as the crime of ecocide also requires attention. This article defines several forms of committing ecocide:
According to Nataliia Antoniuk, in the context of qualifying actions under Article 441 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the task of Ukrainian legal experts is to clearly determine which specific form of ecocide was committed.
Supreme Court Judge Vasyl Krat delivered a presentation titled “Environmental Disputes in the Case Law of the Civil Cassation Court”.
He drew attention to the resolution of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court of May 25, 2022, in case No. 487/6970/20, in which the court rendered a decision in a lawsuit filed by a public organization acting in the interests of its 1,279 associated members against a company, seeking compensation for moral damages. The SC CivCC noted that the public organization is an environmental protection organization which, under the Aarhus Convention and the Laws of Ukraine “On Environmental Protection” and “On Public Associations”, as well as under its own charter, has the right to represent in court the environmental interests of individual members for the purpose of protecting violated environmental rights or eliminating violations of environmental legislation.
The speaker also analyzed the decision of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court of April 22, 2024, in case No. 279/1834/22, concerning compensation for moral damages caused by a violation of the right to a safe environment. The Joint Chamber concluded that if the person who caused the damage is identified, the burden of proof is distributed as follows: a) the plaintiff must prove the existence of damage and a causal link; b) the defendant must prove the absence of unlawfulness and fault. Moral damage caused to an individual or legal entity by unlawful decisions, actions, or omissions is compensated by the person who caused it, if that person is at fault, except in cases provided by law. The courts took into account the significant and ongoing nature of the violation, as the plaintiff had been deprived of the right to live in a safe environment for an extended period.
Vasyl Krat also highlighted several rulings of the SC CivCC in cases concerning compensation for moral damages resulting from a fire at an oil depot that lasted more than 10 days and affected residents of nearby areas.
In the decision of April 10, 2020, in case No. 616/1/18, the SC CivCC noted that issuing the contested order and concluding the contested contracts does not constitute activities that lead to destruction, damage, or pollution of the environment within the meaning of Article 293 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
The speaker also noted that the Supreme Court not only issues rulings in environmental disputes but also adopts separate judicial orders. For example, in the case concerning the Vumivskyi Forest, the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court issued separate orders drawing the attention of the Office of the Prosecutor General to the need for additional assessment of the violations established by the courts, committed by the village council regarding compliance with legislation, in particular in the areas of urban planning and environmental protection. The Court emphasized the need to take appropriate urgent measures and to resolve the issue of bringing the responsible persons to justice (separate orders of the SC CivCC of May 15, 2025, in cases No. 759/23377/20 and No. 759/23414/20).
Presentation by Vasyl Krat – https://court.gov.ua/storage/portal/supreme/prezentacii_2025/Prezent_Ekolog_sporu.pdf.
Addressing the topic “War and the Environment: How Ukraine Is Shaping Its Response to Ecocide”, Hanna Vronska focused on the definition of ecocide as large-scale environmental destruction that may cause an ecological catastrophe and pose a threat to future generations. She outlined the evolution of the concept of ecocide—from its emergence in the 1970s as a response to wartime environmental crimes in Vietnam, to the presentation in June 2021 of a draft legal definition by the independent expert group of the Stop Ecocide Foundation, which describes ecocide as: “an unlawful or wanton act committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment”.
At the international level, she noted, work is ongoing to include ecocide among the crimes prosecuted under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Ukraine is actively contributing expertise to this initiative. At the same time, existing international treaties—particularly the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions (Articles 35 and 55)—already contain prohibitions on methods and means of warfare that may cause serious, widespread, and long-term harm to the natural environment. In Ukrainian legislation, responsibility for ecocide is established in Article 441 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Her presentation also addressed the challenges of identifying and documenting environmental damage. Hanna Vronska distinguished between direct, indirect, delayed, and long-term damage, emphasizing the cumulative effect of multiple impacts that together create a new level of threat to ecosystems. As an example, she referred to the “environmental funnel effect”, in which the simultaneous pollution of water and soil and the destruction of forests lead to irreversible changes. Such damage is often not immediately visible and requires special approaches to proving causation. She stressed that nature, as a closed system, may lack the ability to recover under conditions of large-scale wartime damage.
In evaluating environmental damage, the speaker also pointed to regulatory frameworks: numerous methodologies approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and the Ministry of Environmental Protection of Ukraine define the algorithms for calculating damages. Hanna Vronska placed particular emphasis on the Methodological Guidelines for Assessing Damage to Natural Reserve Fund Sites, which, unlike other methods, provide for compensation not only for recoverable damage but also for irreversible losses. These methodologies form the basis of the evidentiary framework for future claims in both national and international jurisdictions. They are publicly accessible to specialists and have practical significance for procedural work.
During her presentation, the judge also referred to principles of damage compensation.
In conclusion, Hanna Vronska called for a broader view of environmental crimes than the approach provided by the Criminal Code of Ukraine. She emphasized the principle of intergenerational justice, according to which the environment must be preserved for future generations in a safe and livable condition.
Presentation by Hanna Vronska – https://court.gov.ua/storage/portal/supreme/prezentacii_2025/Prezent_Viina_dovkillya_ekotcud.pdf.
Vitalii Zuiev delivered a presentation titled “Current Issues in the Supreme Court’s Case Law in Resolving Land Disputes”, focusing on case law related to the use of land of the water fund. The judge drew attention to the legal status of hydraulic structures as an integral part of water bodies, particularly ponds, and the implications of this interpretation for the acquisition and termination of land rights. He noted that court practice proceeds from the position that transferring such lands into private ownership contradicts the requirements of the Land Code of Ukraine. He also highlighted the Supreme Court’s legal positions regarding limitation periods in cases concerning the recovery of water fund lands: such claims are considered negatory claims, and the general limitation periods do not apply to them.
The speaker also spoke about cases involving restrictions on citizens' access to water bodies and their use under the guise of fishing activities on the basis of the developed regimes. Vitalii Zuiev noted that in practice, there is often a substitution of lease relations and the existing legal order in this sphere under various legal constructions (special water use permits, joint activity agreements, biomelioration contracts, etc.). He cited examples of Supreme Court decisions in which such agreements were declared invalid due to the lack of legal grounds or exceeding the permitted scope of use. The judge also emphasized the need to take into account the designated purpose of land, particularly in the context of Article 120 of the Land Code of Ukraine, which regulates the transfer of land rights in connection with the transfer of rights to immovable property located on such land.
In the final part of his presentation, Vitalii Zuiev stressed the necessity of considering the public interest and environmental protection, which must prevail in resolving such disputes. He noted that existing case law should form a predictable and stable position to limit abuses in the use of water and shoreline lands. The presentation also addressed certain evidentiary issues, particularly related to the origin and authenticity of documents used by parties to justify their right to use or possess land of the water fund.
_03_03.png)