A court in Odesa overturned the denial of compensation for a destroyed house in the Kherson region

The court ruled in favor of a resident of the Kherson region and overturned the denial of compensation for her destroyed home. Now, the Tyahynska Rural Military Administration must reconsider her application for compensation for her destroyed home.

This is stated in the ruling of the Odesa District Administrative Court.

The plaintiff is the owner of a house in the village of Lvove in the Tyahynska community. According to her, it was destroyed by Russian shelling. In early 2023, she and her family fled to Odesa.

In November 2024, the woman submitted an application through “Diyu” for compensation under the “e-Restoration” program. On March 3, 2026, the commission denied her claim “due to false information.” By an order dated March 23, 2026, the head of the Tyahynska Civil-Military Administration (CMA) upheld this decision.

The SVA explained the denial based on the following circumstances:

• According to the State Tax Service, a store owned by a female sole proprietor operated at the home address from April 2019 to May 2023;
• village residents stated in their testimonies that goods were sold in the house;
• the property certificate lists a room with an area of 40.9 square meters, but satellite images show no such part of the building.

The plaintiff contested this. According to her, the building is residential, and its status has never been changed.

The court noted that the commission’s decision did not specify which data was unreliable or on what evidence it was based. The specific reasons for the denial were provided only in response to a lawyer’s inquiry.

According to the court, the information from the State Tax Service does not prove that the residential building became non-residential. The court viewed the residents’ testimony critically, as it was not supported by sufficient evidence. The woman’s title to the property is registered and has not been challenged by anyone, and she attached only official documents to her application.

The court granted the claim. It overturned the commission’s decision and the order of the head of the State Tax Service in this regard and ordered a reconsideration of the woman’s application. The State Tax Service must also pay her 1,064.96 UAH in court fees.

The court’s decision may be appealed.

Ірина Глухова