Ukrainian Court Delivers Historic Victory for Democracy: ALLATRA Movement Confirmed Legal, Patriotic, and Fully Lawful
The court ruling we want to discuss with you reveals both the absurdity and the power of democratic legal systems.
It is absurd that a slanderous media campaign can result in the legal persecution of a reputable organization and even lead to court proceedings. However, a true democracy possesses the power to restore the truth, even when it is obscured by the filth of slander, defamation, and labeling.
On February 25, 2026, the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal in Kyiv issued a landmark ruling. This is strong message for human rights defenders, legal scholars, and freedom of speech advocates across the world. The court confirmed, definitively and without possibility of further appeal, that the activities of the Public Association “ALLATRA International Public Movement” in Ukraine are fully legal, fully compliant with Ukrainian law, and of patriotic orientation. The attempt to ban and forcibly dissolve the movement — biased and based on fabricated expert opinions and manipulated evidence — was rejected in its entirety.
⚖️ What the Court Actually Decided
Officially, the case began in 2022 when the Central Interregional Directorate of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, prompted by a letter from the Security Service of Ukraine, filed an administrative lawsuit seeking to ban and forcibly liquidate the ALLATRA movement. The unofficial story behind the scenes began years ago, but it will be discussed further in the article.
So, the Kyiv District Administrative Court first rejected the lawsuit on April 4, 2025. The appeal was filed then. On February 25, 2026, the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal reviewed all evidence, considered all arguments, and reached the following conclusion, which I quote directly from the official court ruling1:
“The Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence that the ALLATRA Public Association was founded and operates in violation of the requirements of the current legislation of Ukraine, or that its leaders and members acting on behalf of the association, engage in
anti-Ukrainianinformational and propaganda activities aimed at fosteringpro-Russiansentiments, or supportterrorist activities.”
The ruling proving legality of ALLATRA entered into legal force on the day of its adoption. It is final and not subject to cassation appeal, as confirmed under Paragraph 2, Part 5, Article 328 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine2. This matter is closed.
🇺🇦 The Court Confirmed: ALLATRA’s Activities Are Patriotic
This is not simply a verdict proving the absurdity of conviction — it goes further. The court examined documented evidence of ALLATRA’s actual online activities, verified through a state institution’s report (the State Enterprise “Center of Competence Address Space of the Internet,” report No. 150/2024-ZV dated May 16, 2024). Based on this verified state-level report, the court explicitly recorded in its ruling:
“The materials confirm that the ALLATRA Public Association conducted activities of a patriotic orientation.”
The court also reviewed ALLATRA’s Charter, noting that the association’s stated goals include developing international solidarity and cultural values, organizing events aimed at strengthening peace and solidarity among nations, and raising public awareness about moral and spiritual values. No evidence was found that the movement operated outside the boundaries of that Charter.
🔍 How the “Expert” Opinions Were Exposed as Fabrications
The lawsuit was built almost entirely on five “expert” opinions submitted by the plaintiff. The court examined each one and rejected all of them. The reasoning is precise and damning.
Expert Opinion No. 1 — Bias Confirmed by the Court
The first “expert” opinion was authored by I. Kremenovska. Here we would like to remind you that the case has a gloomy unofficial side in addition to the official court proceedings. The court established that this individual had been publicly campaigning against ALLATRA since 2015 — years before being engaged as an “independent expert.” She published four articles on the website “Vilne Slovo” (Free Word) expressing her negative attitude toward the movement and described her coordination with law enforcement agencies toward shutting it down. The court found:
“The author of the expert opinion has a negative attitude towards the Defendant and is interested in the termination of its activities… the content of the materials indicates the expert’s bias.”
In addition, the expert opinion failed to comply with basic procedural requirements under Article 104 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine — it did not contain a statement that it was prepared for court submission, and it did not include a warning to the expert about criminal liability for a knowingly false conclusion. The court rejected this opinion entirely.
Expert Opinions No. 2–5 — Copy-Paste from the Internet
The remaining four opinions, prepared by the Private Research Institution “Center for Economic and Legal Research” and two religious studies experts, were subjected to the same scrutiny. The court found that none of them were based on original, independent research. Instead, they reproduced materials that had already been published on the internet by third parties, presenting those materials as the experts’ own analysis. The court noted:
“All of the opinions were formed not on the basis of the experts’ personal research and their independent expert examination, but through the use of pre-existing materials from the Internet. The text fragments borrowed from the respective publications are repeated verbatim across all the opinions.”
Under Ukrainian law, experts are prohibited from independently collecting their own materials for an expert examination — that is considered a disciplinary offense under Article 14 of the Law of Ukraine “On Judicial Expertise.” The court dismissed all five opinions as inadmissible evidence.
🕵️ Who Is Iryna Kremenovska? The Questions That Need Answers
The court’s findings about Kremenovska’s bias are only the beginning of what needs to be examined. The Ukrainian justice system did its job — it looked at the facts and threw out her fabricated conclusions. But for investigative journalists and the public, there is a broader picture worth examining.
Kremenovska spent years publicly spreading defamation and lies, trying to manipulate law enforcement agencies into targeting a lawful civil society organization. By means of this defamation campaign, she distorted public opinion about the organization, incited hatred toward the participants, and sought to damage their relationships and social life. Her “expert” opinion was built not on independent research but on material that had been circulating online. She is one of the main orchestrators of the whole anti-ALLATRA campaign in Ukraine and ultimately numerous anti-cult activists in Europe are quoting her as an expert. The pattern here is consistent with organized information warfare: manufacture an expert narrative, attach it to a legal case, and use the state apparatus to attempt to crush a movement that promotes human values, unity and peace.
This individual definitely deserves more attention. And here is why: while attempting to label ALLATRA as a pro-Russian organization for many years — a claim proved completely false both by law and by practice — Kremenovska is hiding her own very much pro-Russian background. Unlike the fabricated ALLATRA case, her own anti-democratic activity is well-documented through her connection with Russian anti-cult activists3, posts undermining Ukrainian democracy and independency of the church4, and even such atrocity as dog-hunting. But this will be a focus of another thorough investigation.
A Word About Ukraine’s Justice System
Something must be said clearly: this ruling is proof that Ukraine’s judicial system works.
Ukraine is a country at war — fighting for its sovereignty, its territory, and its democratic values. In that context, it would have been easy for courts to let pressure and propaganda do the work of evidence. They did not. Two courts — the Kyiv District Administrative Court and the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal — examined the evidence with rigor and integrity, applied the law correctly, protected the rights guaranteed by the Ukrainian Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights, and delivered a ruling grounded in facts, not fear. They did not let slander and defamation to take over.
The judges who handled this case demonstrated exactly what an independent judiciary looks like.
This is true democracy working as it should — even under extraordinary pressure of wartime.
“The prohibition of the activity of associations of citizens is exercised only through judicial procedure.” — Article 37, Constitution of Ukraine5
That principle was honored here. Fully and without compromise.
📋 Key Facts — Case Summary
Case number: 640/362/23
Court: Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal, Kyiv
Date of ruling: February 25, 2026
Outcome: Appeals dismissed. First instance ruling upheld. ALLATRA’s activities confirmed fully lawful.
Status: Final. Not subject to cassation appeal.
“Expert” opinions rejected: All five submitted by the plaintiff
Evidence confirmed by court: ALLATRA conducted activities of patriotic orientation in Ukraine
📎 Sources
- Official Court Ruling — Case No. 640/362/23, Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal, Kyiv
- Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine — Article 328
- RACIRS Agents in Ukraine — Video
- Pro-Russian Agent in Ukraine – Iryna Kremenovska of Alexander Dvorkin’s RACIRS — Video
- Constitution of Ukraine — Article 37
- ALLATRA International Public Movement — Press Releases
- ALLATRA International Public Movement — Events
For truth is as light. For the night does not like the dawn and darkness does not like the candlelight.
— TruthFocus Editorial