- May 5, 2026
- 2:48 pm
- Brief news
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine denied the first secretary of the Ukrainian embassy in Israel, Zoryan Kis, the recognition of his same-sex partner, Timur Levchuk, as a “family member” for a long-term diplomatic mission. Formally, this is a procedural matter, but in essence, it is no longer just a personnel issue for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Source – public movement “All Together!“ May 4, 2026.
The story became notable because it involved several themes at once: Ukrainian family law, the status of diplomats, a court decision on de facto marital relations between two men, and the practical question of whether a partner of a diplomatic service employee can obtain rights associated with spouses.
For the Israeli audience, this topic is particularly sensitive. The case involves a Ukrainian diplomat working in Israel, meaning the Ukrainian legal dispute is directly tied to Kyiv’s diplomatic presence in the Jewish state.
What the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine decided
According to published information, Zoryan Kis requested permission to take Ukrainian citizen Timur Levchuk with him on a long-term mission as a “family member.” As a legal basis, he referred to the decision of the Desnianskyi District Court of Kyiv on June 10, 2025.
It was this decision that established the fact of living together as a family and de facto marital relations between Kis and Levchuk.
However, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine refused.
In the official response, the ministry referred to the current legislation on diplomatic service. In particular, Article 2 of the Law of Ukraine “On Diplomatic Service,” which mentions the possibility of accompanying an employee on a long-term mission by family members, including “the other spouse.”
The key point of the Ministry’s position is the interpretation of the term “spouses.” The ministry’s response stated that this term refers to a marriage registered in the civil status registration authority between a woman and a man, after which they acquire the status of wife and husband.
In other words, the Ministry did not expand the concept of family for the purposes of diplomatic service beyond the direct norm of the law.
Why the court decision did not change the ministry’s position
The main question of this story is why the court’s decision on de facto marital relations was not sufficient grounds for the Ministry.
The Ministry explained this quite strictly: even the fact of living together as a family established by the court does not create the rights and obligations of spouses. Moreover, the response emphasizes that this applies to both a man and a woman living without a registered marriage and a same-sex couple.
That is, the Ministry effectively divided two levels.
The first is that the court can establish the fact of living together as a family.
The second is that such a fact in itself is not equal to a registered marriage and does not automatically grant access to the status of a spouse within the framework of diplomatic service.
That is why, according to the department’s position, the presence of a court decision regarding Levchuk and Kis does not create grounds for Timur Levchuk to be sent to a long-term mission as a family member of a diplomatic service employee.
How the case of Kis and Levchuk developed
The story itself did not begin in 2026. Zoryan Kis, an employee of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, went on a long-term official mission to Israel in 2024. After that, the question arose about the status of Timur Levchuk as a person who could accompany the diplomat as a family member.
The Ministry refused, citing current legislation.
Then Levchuk appealed to the Desnianskyi District Court of Kyiv. Initially, the court refused to open proceedings, and the appellate instance supported this decision. Later, the Supreme Court returned the case for reconsideration.
On June 10, 2025, the Desnianskyi District Court of Kyiv established the fact of Levchuk and Kis living together as a family, indicating de facto marital relations.
After that, the public movement “All Together!” tried to challenge the decision. The Kyiv Court of Appeal opened proceedings but closed the case on September 10 on formal grounds: the organization did not participate in the first instance and was not a party to the dispute.
On October 20, the movement filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. On November 4, cassation proceedings were opened, and on February 25, the court left the appeal unsatisfied. In March 2026, it became known that the Supreme Court of Ukraine effectively upheld the previous procedural situation, rejecting the appeal on formal grounds.
For readers of NANews — Israel News | Nikk.Agency, this story is important not only as a Ukrainian legal conflict. It shows how Ukrainian court decisions, diplomatic service norms, and the work of the Ukrainian embassy in Israel can intersect in one case, causing a wide public resonance.
Why this became a politico-legal signal
Formally, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine did not decide on the recognition or non-recognition of same-sex relationships in general. The department responded to a narrower official request: can a specific citizen be sent abroad as a family member of a diplomatic service employee.
But the public effect was much broader.
For supporters of the traditional understanding of marriage, the Ministry’s position appears to confirm that the current norms of Ukrainian legislation remain unchanged: marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, and spousal rights arise only after state registration of marriage.
For supporters of changing family legislation, this case, on the contrary, demonstrates a legal deadlock. The court can establish the fact of living together, but it does not give a person the practical status of a spouse where the law explicitly requires a registered marriage.
What is important for Israel
The Israeli audience views this story through a separate lens. Ukraine is at war, its diplomats work abroad under constant pressure, and Israel remains one of the important platforms for Ukrainian diplomacy, humanitarian ties, and public communication.
Therefore, the dispute around Zoryan Kis and Timur Levchuk goes beyond a personal story.
It shows how complex family status issues become when they transition from internal Ukrainian law to international diplomatic practice. Especially when it comes to a long-term mission, possible state support, documents, official guarantees, and the status of an accompanying person.
Here, the general word “family” is not enough. For the state, legal definitions are important, and for society, how these definitions apply to real people.
What remains open
At the moment, the position of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine seems unequivocal: the judicial establishment of the fact of living together as a family does not create the rights and obligations of spouses and does not provide grounds for sending a diplomat’s partner on a mission as a family member.
At the same time, the court decision of the Desnianskyi District Court of Kyiv continues to be an important precedent in public discourse. It did not replace marriage but became a legal fact around which activists, lawyers, government bodies, and public organizations now argue.
The main intrigue is whether Ukraine will change legislation in this area or whether state bodies will continue to rely only on the current definition of marriage.
For now, the Ministry’s response shows: in the diplomatic service of Ukraine, the decisive factor remains not the fact of living together, but a registered marriage as defined by law.