A Brussels court has dealt a significant blow to the Polish – Belgian NGO Open Dialogue Foundation (ODF), ruling in favour of Kyrgyzstan’s Bakai Bank in a defamation case over allegations linking the lender to sanctions evasion for Russia.
The French-speaking Enterprise Court of Brussels found that ODF’s claims, published in 2023 and suggesting the bank’s involvement in schemes to circumvent international financial sanctions against Russia, were insufficiently substantiated and unlawfully damaging to the bank’s reputation.
Bakai Bank, one of Kyrgyzstan’s largest lenders, had rejected the accusations and launched legal action in 2024, arguing that the NGO’s publications crossed the line from advocacy into denigration.
The court agreed.
In a key finding, it ruled that ODF qualifies as an “enterprise” under Belgian economic law, meaning it can be held liable for damaging statements about other entities. This allowed judges to apply strict rules prohibiting denigration.
On the substance, the court concluded that ODF had made serious, targeted allegations without providing a solid factual basis, relying on secondary and unverified sources rather than concrete evidence.
While acknowledging that NGOs play a vital “watchdog” role, the court made clear that freedom of expression has limits, especially when accusations risk harming a specific institution.
“Even in matters of public interest,” the ruling stressed, claims must be backed by sufficiently verified facts.
The judges said this was necessary to correct the public record and ensure readers understand that the allegations against Bakai Bank were not adequately supported.
Instead of awarding substantial damages, the court imposed a reputational remedy, requiring ODF to publish the full judgment prominently at the top of its homepage for 30 days, without comment, failing which it will incur fines of €10,000 per day.
The court also dismissed ODF’s attempt to portray the case as a SLAPP (strategic litigation aimed at silencing criticism) finding no evidence that the lawsuit was abusive.
The ruling raises broader questions about the standards applied by advocacy groups operating in politically sensitive areas such as sanctions enforcement and financial transparency.
It also adds to a growing list of controversies surrounding the Open Dialogue Foundation.
In June 2025, ODF president Lyudmyla Kozlovska presented the case before the U.S. Congress’s Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission as an example of alleged transnational repression — a claim now undermined by the Brussels ruling.
More recently, in February 2026, the NGO found itself at the centre of a political storm in Poland. A leading YouTube channel, Kanal Zero, accused it of being involved in a coordinated smear campaign aimed at discrediting independent media, allegedly in coordination with figures linked to Prime Minister Donald Tusk. The foundation denied the allegations.
The organisation has also faced scrutiny in previous years. Multiple international media outlets have accused ODF of lobbying in Europe on behalf of fugitive Kazakh oligarch Mukhtar Ablyazov, who is accused in Kazakhstan of embezzling more than $6 billion and is wanted by the UK for giving false testimony in court.
Media reports have linked ODF to contacts with former European Parliament member Antonio Panzeri, a central figure in the Qatargate corruption scandal.
Taken together, the Brussels judgment and the surrounding controversies mark a serious reputational setback for an organisation that has long positioned itself as a defender of human rights and democratic accountability.
