The Court Has Confirmed the Legality and Patriotic Nature of the ALLATRA Movement’s Activities in Ukraine

On February 25, 2026, the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal (Kyiv, Ukraine) confirmed the legality of activities of the Public Association “ALLATRA International Public Movement” and established the absence of legal grounds for its ban and forced liquidation. 

By a ruling adopted following consideration of the administrative case No. 640/362/23, appeals by the Central Interregional Directorate of the Ministry of Justice in Kyiv and the Security Service of Ukraine have been dismissed, and the decision of the court of first instance has been upheld. 

The ruling entered into force on the day of its adoption, is final and not subject to cassation appeals (paragraph 2, Section 5, Article 328 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine).

The court ascertained there was no relevant and admissible evidence that could justify the ban on the public association’s activities. The court also declared inadmissible the submitted expert opinions against ALLATRA and established the interest and bias of the expert as well as violations of procedural requirements upon the expert opinions preparation.

The Court Confirmed the Patriotic Nature of ALLATRA's Activities in Ukraine

During the case consideration, the court also assessed the evidence submitted by the defendant and confirmed the actual content of the public association’s activities. In particular, materials retrieved from online sources were examined, which had been prepared by a specialized state-owned institution, and the admissibility of which had been previously confirmed by judicial practice of the Supreme Court of Ukraine. Based on the results of their analysis, the court has ascertained:

“Moreover, the defendant submitted a report on the results of retrieving and investigating the content of web pages, compiled by the State Enterprise “Center for Competence of the Internet Address Space,” dated May 16, 2024, No. 150/2024-ZV, the materials in which confirm patriotic activities of the Public Association “ALLATRA.” 

Thus, the court not only found no signs of any illegal activities of ALLATRA in Ukraine, but also established the availability of evidence confirming the patriotic nature of its activities.

The Court Established that Activities of the ALLATRA Movement in Ukraine Comply with its Charter 

The court examined provisions of ALLATRA’s Charter and determined the nature of the public association's activities. The court's ruling says:

“According to the Charter of the Public Association “ALLATRA,” approved by the decision of the founding meeting (Minutes No. 50/1-33 of May 24, 2017), major areas of the association's activities include, in particular: coordination of activities of the Movement participants in various countries; organization of international coordinative events; development and implementation of initiatives aimed at improving human life, development of international solidarity, cultural and moral values; organization of events aimed at strengthening peace and solidarity among nations, as well as preparation of ideological materials to enhance public awareness and reinforce moral and spiritual values.” 

At the same time, the court pointed out the lack of evidence that ALLATRA's activities were conducted outside the framework of its Charter:

“Yet, the claimant and the third party have not presented the court with appropriate and admissible evidence that would refute that the Public Association “ALLATRA” carried out its activities solely within the framework and in accordance with the provisions of its Charter.” 

The Court Recognized Expert Opinions Regarding ALLATRA as Inappropriate and Inadmissible Evidence

An essential part of the claimant's arguments was expert opinions attached to the case file, including:

• Comprehensive forensic psychological and linguistic assessment No. 9260/23-61/9261/23-36 by Kyiv Research Institute of Forensic Examinations, dated June 27, 2023;
• Expert opinions by the Private Scientific Institution “Center for Economic and Legal Research,” dated August 10, 2022 and October 14, 2022;
• Religious studies conclusions by the candidate of historical sciences I.A. Kozlovsky and candidate of theology K. Moskalyuk. 

The Court of Appeal carried out a detailed legal assessment of these materials and concluded that they have no evidentiary value.

1. The court established the interest and bias of expert I. Kremenovska 

With regard to the expert opinion authored by I. Kremenovska, the court has explicitly stated:

“The court has established that the author of the expert report has a negative attitude towards the defendant and is interested in terminating his activities because since 2015 she has been publicly referring to her activities in relation to ALLATRA on the website «Вільне слово» (“Vilne Slovo”) where she published four articles which, in their content, indicate the expert’s bias.”

Furthermore, the court noted that these publications contained statements about cooperation with law enforcement agencies in order to “bring the Movement to justice,” which indicates that the expert's stance had been formed long before the expert report was prepared.

2. Expert reports are not based on independent research

Evaluating the expert materials submitted by the claimant, including those prepared by the Private Scientific Institution “Center for Economic and Legal Research,” the court ascertained that no independent expert research had been carried out.

The court ruling states:

“Assessing reports No. 2–5, the court notes that these documents are not based on independent research by experts, while in some parts verbatim reproduce materials that are publicly available on the Internet and authored by other individuals, but are presented in the reports as the experts’ own statements.” 

The court established that the materials used by the experts had been publicly available on the Internet even before their reports were compiled:

“It has been established that the articles containing tables and used in reports No. 1–5 were distributed on the Internet before the relevant expert reports were signed.”

The court pointed out that the submitted expert materials did not meet the requirements of the evidence admissibility and critically assessed the methodology of their preparation. Ultimately, the panel of judges made a final conclusion:

“Therefore, all conclusions were made not on the basis of personal research by the experts and their independent expert assessment, but through using already available materials from the Internet. At that, the text fragments borrowed from relevant publications are repeated verbatim in all the conclusions.”

3. Lack of convincing arguments about illegal activities

Summing up the assessment of the expert materials, the court has explicitly stated:

“In these circumstances, the court critically evaluates the research results set out in conclusions No. 2–5 and notes that the materials provided therein do not contain specific and objectively convincing arguments which would be based on appropriate evidence of any illegal activities of the Public Association “ALLATRA International Public Movement.,” and therefore sees no reason for admitting them as evidence.” 

Thus, the court ascertained:

• presence of interest and bias of expert I. Kremenovska;
• violation of procedural requirements during the preparation of expert reports;
• lack of independent expert research and verbatim replication of texts previously published on the Internet;
• lack of objective and evidentiary arguments about any illegal activities by ALLATRA.

Final Conclusions and Court Ruling

The court has come to the following conclusion:

“Therefore, the claimant has not provided evidence that the Public Association “ALLATRA” was founded and operates in violation of requirements of the current legislation of Ukraine, that its leaders and members carry out anti-Ukrainian information and propaganda activities on behalf of the association… or that they support terrorist activities.”

The Court of Appeal ascertained the correctness of the ruling of the court of first instance, stating:

“The court of first instance… objectively, fully, and comprehensively investigated circumstances that are essential for resolving the case, gave them a proper legal assessment, and made a legitimate reasoned decision with no violation of the norms of substantive and procedural law…”

The court has confirmed that there are no legal grounds for banning the Movement. The ruling of the Court of Appeal says:

“Considering all the above, the court has concluded that the claimant has not proved the existence of any legal grounds for prohibition (forced dissolution) of the Public Association “ALLATRA International Public Movement.”

The court has finally ascertained:

“Appeals… are dismissed, and the ruling of Kyiv District Administrative Court, dated April 4, 2025, is upheld.”

The operative part of the ruling states:

“The court ruling comes into legal force from the date of its adoption, is final, and is not subject to cassation appeals…”

Thus, the Kyiv City Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal has finally confirmed the legality of activities of the ALLATRA Movement in Ukraine and established the absence of any legal grounds for its prohibition and forced dissolution (liquidation). The court found no evidence of ALLATRA's illegal, anti-Ukrainian, or pro-Russian activities and pointed to the compliance of ALLATRA’s activities with the provisions of its Charter and the laws of Ukraine. At the same time, the court testified to the patriotic nature of the Movement's activities. 

The court recognized the expert reports presented in relation to ALLATRA as inappropriate and inadmissible evidence and rejected them. The court established that the author of one of the expert reports, I. Kremenovska, had been publicly expressing a negative attitude towards the ALLATRA Movement since 2015 and referring to her activities aimed at terminating its operation, which indicates a preformed negative stance and indicates the expert’s interest and bias. Moreover, the court has noted that the submitted expert reports do not contain signs of independent research and are based on materials previously published on the Internet, which deprives the reports of evidentiary power.