On October 31, this year, the HACC at first instance found former head of the State Fiscal Service Roman Nasirov guilty of abuse of office that caused UAH 2.02 billion in damage to the state. However, the court refused to order Nasirov to pay almost UAH 45 million in damages to the injured party — Ukrgazvydobuvannya.

Where did the UAH 45 million in damages come from?

This amount — nearly UAH 45 million — reflects the sum that the State Fiscal Service recovered from the state-owned Ukrgazvydobuvannya to cover tax debts unlawfully granted in installments by Nasirov to companies controlled by Onyshchenko.

There is no doubt that the state-owned enterprise suffered significant losses from this scheme: even after Nasirov left office, Ukrgazvydobuvannya continued to be forced to make these payments.

Why did the HACC refuse the civil claim against Nasirov?

The decision stems from several legislative provisions. Specifically, the Civil Code, the Tax Code, and the Law of Ukraine on Public Service provide that harm caused by a public official is NOT compensated by the official personally, but by the state. The court therefore emphasized that, in essence, it is the state that bears responsibility for failing to exercise proper oversight and control over the actions of its agents (public officials).

In other words, the key point for the court was that Ukrgazvydobuvannya filed the claim against the wrong defendant. Instead of suing Nasirov, the plaintiff should have brought the claim against the state — but it did not. This is the legal basis on which the HACC rejected the civil claim.

Judicial practice in similar cases

Errors in identifying the proper plaintiff or defendant are not uncommon. One example is the refusal to award damages to the State Property Fund in a case concerning nearly UAH 9 million in losses caused by the former head of PJSC Kherson CHP. The entity entitled to compensation was the CHP itself, not its shareholder, the State Property Fund.

However, our review of the HACC’s previous practice did not reveal any comparable case where the court refused compensation on the grounds that the state — rather than the individual defendant — should be the one to pay damages.

On the contrary, there have been instances where the HACC allowed similar claims — for example, in the case against former head of the Vinnytsia State Geocadastre Yurii Kozak, who was ordered to reimburse the Cabinet of Ministers almost UAH 12 million for illegal privatization of especially valuable state lands. In that case, unlike in Nasirov’s, the state itself was the injured party, not a separate business entity.

Should the state pay for corrupt officials?

In practice, the state indeed pays first for the unlawful acts of its officials, ensuring fast and guaranteed compensation. Afterward, it has the right to demand that the responsible official reimburse the money — a so-called regress claim.

Yet the effectiveness of this compensation mechanism remains uncertain. For this reason, a case has been submitted to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which must answer several key questions, including:

1. Can the state directly act as a civil defendant in criminal proceedings when a duty to compensate for damage caused by its officials arises?
2. May a court, in its verdict against an official, impose an obligation to compensate damages on a specific state body?
3. Is it possible to impose joint liability for compensation on both the accused official and the state?

The answers will directly influence the final decision of the HACC Appeals Chamber regarding Ukrgazvydobuvannya’s civil claim against Roman Nasirov.

This material is prepared by the Transparency International Ukraine team