Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court: Election promises cannot be the basis for a $120 million lawsuit

The issue of politicians' responsibility for promises made during elections has always sparked lively public debates. However, case No. 990/59/26 brought this discussion into the realm of an actual court process with claims amounting to $120 million. The plaintiff argued that the President’s failure to fulfill the election promise regarding "de-oligarchization" was one of the reasons for his procedural failures in civil cases and demanded compensation for damages.

Dispute with an oligarch and lawsuit against the President

The conflict began in 2017 when the plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit against a businessman who was then among the richest entrepreneurs in Ukraine. The plaintiff considered the businessman one of the Ukrainian oligarchs and sought to recover over 3.2 billion UAH in moral damages. The basis was an article published by the businessman in an American publication, which the plaintiff interpreted as propaganda for Ukraine’s capitulation and causing him moral suffering. Courts of all instances denied this claim.

After the start of the full-scale Russian invasion, the plaintiff concluded that the events of February 24, 2022, confirmed the validity of his initial claims and in 2024 applied for a review of the decision based on newly discovered circumstances. At the same time, he missed the procedural deadline, explaining this by his mobilization into the Armed Forces of Ukraine under the order of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief.

These circumstances became the basis for a new lawsuit — this time against the President of Ukraine. The plaintiff claimed that mobilization prevented him from timely submitting the application for case review based on new circumstances, which, in his opinion, deprived him of the opportunity to receive $120 million compensation from the businessman.

The plaintiff’s logic boiled down to two points. First, due to mobilization, he allegedly missed the deadline to review the case in which he demanded $120 million from the businessman. Second, the President, according to the plaintiff, failed to fulfill the promise of de-oligarchization because he did not take measures to ensure the recovery of this amount from the businessman. Therefore, the plaintiff asked to recognize the President’s inaction as unlawful and to recover $120 million from him as lost profits.

Previous court decisions

The Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court, which considered the case as a court of first instance, partially opened proceedings. The court agreed to verify whether the President properly considered the plaintiff’s appeal dated August 9, 2025, which was redirected to the Ministry of Veterans Affairs.

At the same time, the court refused to open proceedings regarding the claim about the President’s failure to fulfill the election promise on de-oligarchization. The Administrative Cassation Court reasoned that administrative courts consider disputes only regarding actions or inactions of the President as a subject of executive powers. Election promises of a candidate are not the exercise of executive managerial functions and therefore cannot be the subject of an administrative lawsuit.

Why the Grand Chamber agreed

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court upheld this conclusion and provided several key arguments.

The court distinguished between political and legal responsibility. Election programs and promises are elements of the political process, not executive decisions, so their fulfillment cannot be assessed by an administrative court.

Moreover, the Grand Chamber emphasized that during the election campaign, a person acts as a candidate, not as the President. Accordingly, their campaign statements are not decisions or actions of a subject of executive powers.

The Grand Chamber rejected the plaintiff’s reference to the principle of legitimate expectations. It explained that this principle protects expectations arising from laws, regulations, or official decisions of authorities but does not extend to political promises made by candidates during election campaigns. Such statements alone do not create a legal right to demand specific actions or payments.

The Supreme Court noted that the President is not among the subjects authorized to provide legal assistance to citizens, so his lack of involvement in the plaintiff’s civil case review cannot be considered a violation of the right to such assistance. The status of the President as guarantor of the Constitution does not mean the head of state has powers to intervene in any legal relations or resolve private law disputes.

Separately, the Grand Chamber drew attention to the content of the plaintiff’s appeal. Essentially, he asked the President to intervene in a civil case and facilitate the review of a court decision to recover $120 million in moral damages from the businessman. However, such demands exceed the constitutional powers of the head of state.

The court stressed that the head of state’s involvement in a civil process on the side of one party would contradict the principle of judicial independence and separation of powers. Resolving disputes between private individuals belongs exclusively to the competence of the courts.

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court confirmed that election promises of a presidential candidate are not the exercise of executive managerial functions and therefore cannot be subject to challenge in administrative proceedings.

The ruling effectively separates political and legal responsibility. Election programs and political slogans do not create legally binding obligations for candidates, the fulfillment of which can be demanded through the courts. Voters evaluate them during elections, not courts during administrative lawsuits.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.