Ihor Smiliansky, the CEO of Ukrposhta JSC, has officially filed a lawsuit with the Kyiv District Administrative Court against the National Bank of Ukraine. The head of the state postal monopoly is demanding the annulment of the regulator's decision, under which he was deemed professionally unfit to perform the duties of a chief executive. Smiliansky himself announced this in a Facebook post on September 16, 2026, as reported by RBC-Ukraine, Delo, Slovo i Dilo, and Telegraf.
Smiliansky's Position: "The Decision Is Illegal and Biased"
In his statement, Smiliansky insists that the NBU's decision is "illegal and biased." According to him, the approach applied to the head of Ukrposhta was not used against the heads of other operating banks and financial institutions — even after those institutions received fines many times exceeding the sanctions imposed on Ukrposhta, and even in cases of violations proven by the NBU itself. "I am confident in my position and ready to prove it in court," the CEO stated, adding that he filed the lawsuit personally and is paying for legal services out of his own funds.
Vow to "Destroy the Reputation" of Pyshnyi
Particular resonance was triggered by Smiliansky's remark that the NBU "attempted to destroy his professional reputation" by deeming him professionally unfit. In response, he declared: "Now it is my turn to destroy the remnants of Mr. Pyshnyi's reputation through the courts." Thus, the conflict between the head of Ukrposhta and the head of the NBU has gone beyond the bounds of a formal administrative dispute and acquired a distinctly personal character.
The National Bank's Version
The NBU itself had previously explained that the decision on Smiliansky's professional unfitness was adopted unanimously by two collegiate bodies of the regulator back in November 2025. According to the bank, Ukrposhta caused more than 400 million hryvnias in operational damage in 2025. It was precisely this fact, the regulator claims, that served as the basis for the conclusion that the chief executive was unable to ensure proper management of the enterprise.
Context: A Suspension That Never Happened
It is worth noting that even before filing the lawsuit, Smiliansky continued to perform the duties of CEO of Ukrposhta in full, despite the NBU's demand to suspend him from his leadership role. In effect, the regulator and the enterprise under its supervision had been in a state of open institutional conflict for several months before the dispute was taken to the courts.
Contradictory Data
There are a number of significant discrepancies between the positions of the two sides. Smiliansky claims that the NBU's decision is exceptional and has no precedent in the regulator's practice, whereas the NBU emphasizes the unanimity of the two collegiate bodies and cites specific financial losses. In addition, in the initial media reports the CEO's name was recorded in two variants — "Smiliansky" and "Smelyansky" — which creates additional confusion in the public sphere. The question of whether similar measures were truly not applied to other heads of financial institutions remains a matter for the court proceedings and cannot be definitively confirmed or refuted at the current stage.
What Happens Next
The Kyiv District Administrative Court must now consider the lawsuit and determine whether the NBU's decision to deem Smiliansky professionally unfit was lawful and justified. The outcome of the case could set a precedent for the regulator's practice of applying the "professional unfitness" mechanism to the heads of supervised enterprises. For Ukrposhta, the court's ruling will determine who will in fact manage the state postal operator in the coming months.
