Ignoring requests and withholding data: How access to information Is upheld in Ukraine during wartime

Ukrainian authorities are increasingly restricting access to public information without legal justification by leaving online requests unanswered, closing state registries without explanation and withholding information of significant public interest, according to a report by the nongovernmental organisation Human Rights Platform. The NGO assessed access to public information in Ukraine’s digital environment between September 2025 and May 2026.

Photo: Unsplash

The authors of the report stress that martial law does not suspend the right of access to public information and cannot serve as a blanket justification for withholding data, ignoring information requests, restricting access to court rulings or removing information from public registries without transparent procedures. During wartime, access to public information becomes an essential safeguard for public safety, democratic oversight and trust in state institutions, they said.

“If electronic requests remain unanswered and registries are closed without explanation, the digital environment becomes an additional barrier rather than a tool for transparency,” the experts said.

The report identifies several recurring problems.

One concerns the withholding of information related to public safety. Four district administrations in Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv, specifically Sviatoshynskyi, Obolonskyi, Desnianskyi and Darnytskyi, refused to provide journalists with information about the condition and accessibility of bomb shelters.

“This example is particularly significant because it concerns information directly linked to fundamental human rights, including the rights to life, health and equal access to civil protection infrastructure,” the authors of the report highlighted.

Information about ramps, sanitary conditions, shelter capacity, floor area, access procedures and accessibility during air raid alerts is particularly important for people with disabilities, older adults, parents with children, pregnant women and others who may require additional assistance during emergencies.

The experts warned that withholding such information without sufficient justification may have a discriminatory effect by preventing vulnerable groups from determining whether they can safely use a particular shelter.

The report also cites the Defence Procurement Agency’s refusal to provide the Anti-Corruption Action Centre with aggregated data on the implementation of defence procurement contracts. The requested information was considered of substantial public interest because it concerned public spending, contract performance, and potential corruption risks.

Another growing problem is the failure of public authorities to respond to online information requests. The report highlights the Poltava City Council, which ignored three media requests concerning spending on the renovation of the Korpusnyi Park in the city.

According to Opendatabot, 2025 marked a record year for restrictions on public datasets. Among other measures, the Prosecutor General’s Office restricted access to general statistics on military-related criminal offenses.

The authors argue that between 2022 and 2026, the principal concern was not the existence of restrictions on access to individual court rulings, but the absence of a transparent, predictable and accountable framework governing such restrictions.

“Access to court rulings remains one of the most sensitive issues in the digital realm. The Unified State Register of Court Decisions is a key instrument for judicial transparency, legal certainty, analysis of case law, investigative journalism and public oversight,” the report elaborates.

It also emphasises that open data forms the foundation of public accountability, anti-corruption oversight, investigative reporting, digital services, research and economic development.

Among the most common violations, the authors identified the unlawful inaction of public authorities. Ukrainian courts have ruled against the Defence Ministry, medical institutions and local councils for failing to comply with access-to-information obligations.

The report also raises concerns about draft Civil Code legislation (Bill No. 15150), which introduces provisions on the “right to be forgotten” and “digital image.” According to the experts, these provisions could pose risks to investigative journalism, anti-corruption analysis, open data, and public oversight.

Open data expert Nadiya Babynska, founder of the annual Closed Data Conference, previously warned that the government’s proposed amendments could significantly undermine access to public information.

To provide background, in 2025, the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights received 136 complaints from journalists regarding violations of their right to information. Most came from investigative reporters who said Ukrainian authorities had ignored requests for information that clearly served the public interest.

According to Opendatabot, 2025 was also the worst year on record for government restrictions on public data, with authorities closing access to information on real estate, defence industry companies, and statistical data maintained by the Prosecutor General’s Office.

Keep up with ZMINA on X, BlueSky, and LinkedIn – and help us improve by answering a few quick questions here about our English-language coverage.