Sergiy Boyko, a lawyer for the Ukrainian Football Association (UAF), commented for the Espresso channel on the case involving UAF leaders — President Andriy Pyvovarov and General Secretary Yurii Zapyasotskyi — regarding the construction of an artificial turf manufacturing plant.

— Could you remind us, please, what is the essence of this case and why it is now being considered in Lviv?

— Regarding this case — why it was transferred to Lviv — there's a simple answer. They were looking for a court that could make an absolutely illegal decision regarding the arrest, specifically of Mr. Pyvovarov and Mr. Zapyasotskyi. Accordingly, this happened based on a decision by Deputy Prosecutor General Mustecea, who essentially pointed out that the investigative body up to that point, the National Police's Main Directorate, was actually ineffective.

Why is this decision absolutely illegal and contrary to common sense? First of all, Mr. Mustecea believes that a detective from the highest level within the National Police’s main directorate would be less effective in carrying out their duties than a district office in Lviv. With all due respect to detectives at the Lviv district office, it is obvious that the higher echelon of the investigative body, the Main Directorate of the National Police, would be more efficient.

Secondly — this case should have been investigated by NABU investigators. This issue has already been raised multiple times by defenders. Andriy Pyvovarov submitted a request over a month ago to the Prosecutor General for the case to be investigated by NABU detectives. However, all these requests remain ignored.

Everyone in the legal community — and even those who are not directly involved with law — understand that if an investigation is being conducted into alleged illegal actions committed by someone who held a position as a People's Deputy (and Pyvovarov held this position at the time), accordingly, it must be investigated by NABU detectives.

The final argument also shows that transferring to Lviv was entirely artificial. The decision to transfer to Lviv was made in early June, and the case is quite extensive — it includes nearly 600 volumes, international investigations, hundreds of interrogations, hundreds of searches... Nevertheless, within a few days, detectives from Lviv make a decision without studying the case, without physically reviewing these volumes (since materials were still in Kyiv), without reviewing the case files — they made a decision on changing preventive measures. We all understand that such an approach and this decision have nothing to do with the law and are therefore unfounded.

This is, briefly, about moving from Kyiv to Lviv...

— Two top officials of UAF are currently absent from the Football House. How does this affect the activities of UAF? What can we expect in the future?

— This actually doesn't impact the activities, as UAF is a civic organization and the relevant staff members carry out tasks that are required by the civic organization. We see this from our athletes' statements — for example, about the successful performance in the European youth championship. At the same time, I want to draw attention to the fact that such pressure on the leadership of UAF, specifically Andriy Pyvovarov and Yurii Zapyasotskyi, could negatively impact Ukrainian football on an international level. Currently, Russia is actively discussing the topic of excluding Ukraine's sole voice in UEFA, as Mr. Pyvovarov is a member of the UEFA Executive Committee. This fabricated criminal case can have negative consequences for Ukraine on the international football stage.

— When it was announced about changing the preventive measure for Andriy Pyvovarov, the previously deposited bail was transferred to the state's revenue. Can this be returned?

— The decision regarding the change of preventive measures concerning our client and the transfer of the bail to state revenue will currently be appealed. We have gone through the appellate instance, now we are preparing a cassation appeal. This decision will also be challenged before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), as there were obvious violations that occurred at both first and second instances in Lviv courts — these cannot be ignored.

Such legal actions will be taken, we aim to have this decision annulled, accordingly, the bail should be returned, and the decision on changing it should also be annulled.

— There was information about the arrest of Andriy Pyvovarov's property. What is the situation with this?

— Regarding the arrest of property, the situation is as follows. After changing the preventive measure in Lviv, no arrests were imposed.

At the end of 2022, there was another wave of discrediting Andriy Pyvovarov in the media, which was certainly related to his re-election to the UEFA Executive Committee. During this time and while reviewing all documents — specifically regarding the Pechersk Court in Kyiv — a request for the arrest of Andriy Pyvovarov's property was denied.

However, after some time, we found out that another decision on the arrest of his property appeared — from the same court. This is absolutely illogical! As it had been decided not to impose an arrest before and then suddenly there was another decision. Currently, this decision is being appealed as it is a manipulation, and it's yet another clear manifestation of the fact that this entire case is pressure — including in terms of property seizure.

— Regarding the pressure and persecution — we remember there were many media materials, video and text materials. If Pyvovarov considers himself innocent, — are there any lawsuits against journalists for defamation?

— As far as I know, such lawsuits exist, but I cannot comment on them correctly because I am defending my client in the context of a criminal investigation. Therefore, I cannot comment here due to lack of information about work in this direction.

— Finally, what do you see as the nearest prospects for this case?

— Regarding this case, I certainly see the annulment of the preventive measure currently in place, which absolutely does not correspond to its purpose or the circumstances of the case. And generally — closing this case due to the absence of any signs of wrongdoing, as there are indeed no such signs at present. No damage was inflicted, the artificial turf manufacturing plant was built and is functioning.

Moreover, all services mentioned by the prosecution side — for example, that some money was allegedly stolen... This does not correspond to reality. The defense has conducted several economic expert reviews which confirm the legality of UAF leadership's actions and the correctness and absence of any abuse during this process. As a result, this case must be closed!