29.12.2025
On the evening of December 26, 2025, Ukrainian Distribution Grids JSC (UDG) published a statement on its official website titled “Dismissed Supervisory Board of UDG Blocks Open Competition.” This statement mentions my name and presents far-fetched assessments and assumptions regarding my actions and motives. The statement contains many generalizations, as well as hints at alleged external coordination or influence on the media.
I believe it is right to establish a simple fact: I am solely responsible for my own actions and the decisions I made within the scope of my authority as a member of the UDG Supervisory Board. If the management of UDG has concrete facts regarding specific individuals, they should be properly documented and submitted to the competent authorities. Mixing general accusations “about everyone” in one text while mentioning my surname alongside them is incorrect and appears to be an attempt to blur the lines of responsibility.
There is another very important point. This statement by UDG contains personal assertions and assessments, yet it was released without the signature of a responsible person. As a result, it is unclear whom to address on the merits: is this the position of the head of UDG, the press service, or the text of an “advisor” who decided to speak on behalf of the company? For a state-owned company, such an addressless presentation is, at the very least, incorrect.
I am not a proponent of communicating via public statements. However, when a state-owned company publicly calls a citizen of Ukraine a “figure in corruption scandals” without a court verdict, and labels my right to apply to the court as “sabotage,” I consider it right to provide an answer.
I sought legal protection as a citizen of Ukraine for two simple reasons.
First, the decision to terminate the powers of the Supervisory Board members was made in the context of a general political personnel decision following public resonance surrounding certain state-owned energy enterprises. At the same time, no claims were made against me personally—let alone substantiated suspicions or proven facts of corruption. In such a situation, a “batch” dismissal without an individual assessment of performance and without an explanation of reasons is clearly unfair and creates the impression that “scapegoats” were simply appointed.
Second, the approach was selective: personnel decisions regarding supervisory boards were not applied systemically to all state companies, but selectively. It is this selectivity that creates the greatest risk to my business reputation—when society and the market are effectively offered to interpret the dismissal as a performance evaluation and a “black mark,” even though there are legally and factually no grounds for such conclusions. That is exactly why I filed an application to secure the claim (interim measures) and will file the lawsuit on the merits within the statutory deadlines. Applying to the court is not an “attack” or “sabotage,” but the only civilized and honest mechanism for defense in a state governed by the rule of law.
The statement by UDG management asserts that my demands are “unequivocally” aimed at blocking the open competition. Objective fact: The court, in making its ruling, did not prohibit the execution of competition activities. Instead, the court partially applied interim measures—specifically regarding the actions of UDG itself. In particular, the court decided to take measures to secure the claim by prohibiting Ukrainian Distribution Grids JSC from taking actions to conclude civil law contracts with new members of the supervisory board, registering changes to the personal composition of the supervisory board in the Unified State Register (USR) or other registers, and holding the first meetings of the new composition of the supervisory board until the case is resolved on the merits and the court decision enters into legal force.
This is important: it is not about “blocking the competition,” but about the temporary current preservation of the rights of a citizen of Ukraine so that irreversible actions do not occur prior to the consideration of the case on the merits. This is the standard and civilized logic of securing a claim. The court did not ban the holding of the competition or the activities of the Commission. Therefore, the assertion “Kostrytsia blocks the open competition” is a media label that does not correspond to the actual content of the court ruling.
UDG management writes that the “attempt to stop the order is illegal” and that “Kostrytsia and his lawyers couldn’t not know.” Let me explain: in the process of defending rights, a party has the right to request various measures for securing a claim, and the court evaluates their admissibility and proportionality. The court satisfied part of the demands and rejected part. This is a normal, civilized process. Turning a legal discussion into statements like “you couldn’t not know” is no longer about the law, but about unprofessionalism and a banal desire to attach a label.
The statement by UDG management voiced the thesis that I was “elected in the backrooms (couloirs) and without the application of open procedures.” My answer: I was appointed as an independent member of the Supervisory Board based on the results of a competition organized with the participation of the Kyiv School of Economics, within the framework of a memorandum with the Ministry of Energy of Ukraine. At that time, this was the exact procedure applied as a competition, and no other procedure existed at that time. To now cast doubt on the legitimacy of the entire procedure means denying the work of the Supervisory Board itself over the past 2 years, all decisions of which were recognized by the Company.
The statement by UDG management mentions “millions of hryvnias paid monthly… to members of supervisory boards.” I do not know which specific “millions” their statement refers to in general, but regarding me specifically, the fact is simple: My remuneration as a member of the Supervisory Board was 50,000 UAH per month. This is not “pennies,” but it is definitely not “millions.” In state corporate governance, such remuneration is unlikely to surprise anyone—and it is certainly not evidence of any violations or abuses.
The text by UDG management contains many general hints: “participants in corruption scandals,” “appointees,” “kept in the shadows,” “convenient management.” Next to this is my surname. The position is simple: if the company has evidence of offenses, it is their duty to contact law enforcement agencies, not to conduct public “preliminary verdicts” on the pages of the company website. Internal investigations are an internal tool of the company, but public accusations of specific people without court decisions are something else entirely. This looks like informational pressure. I will also publicly repeat: I am not ashamed of any decision made as part of the Supervisory Board. All decisions were made collegially, within the scope of authority, with positions recorded and protocols kept. If UDG management believes otherwise—let them speak the language of documents in the procedures established by law.
UDG management talks a lot about “transparency” and “open procedures.” Then let’s look at the practice. The announcement regarding the selection of a new Supervisory Board was published on Dec 17, 2025, at 20:59, and the deadline for submitting documents was until Dec 24, 2025, at 18:00, with further selection in the interval of December 24–31. I will say quite cautiously: such tempos and calendar correlate very poorly with “best practices of corporate governance.” Because integrity, independence, interviews, and conflicts of interest are not quick “tick-boxes” and definitely not a story of “making it in time between the holidays.” Therefore, when I am accused of “backroom dealings,” while simultaneously being offered a hyper-speed selection of candidates—it looks, to put it mildly, contradictory.
After my dismissal, a wave of publications appeared with headlines like “Corruption in Energy Sector, All Members of UDG Supervisory Board Dismissed,” etc. I reached out to editorial offices with a request to add my comment—some media reacted correctly and published my position. Then I stopped spending time on this because the court is the right place to establish facts. At the same time, I cannot help but notice: when similar materials appear synchronously and with similar wording, the question naturally arises—who exactly is setting the tone for such a presentation and why? But what matters is something else: a public campaign that designates “guilty parties” overnight is not about cleansing, but about manipulation.
The main thing is to calmly return to the legal field. I respect UDG’s right to a position, but I expect the same respect for my right to legal defense. For me, the topic of “exchanging statements” is closed here. From now on—only within the framework of the process and the law. And I will defend my reputation because it is done honestly, transparently, and in a civilized manner: in court.
