The Chief Judge of the Mykolaiv Court Privatized Her Official Apartment

Galina Podzigun, the presiding judge of the Central District Court of Mykolaiv, privatized a 117-square-meter official apartment that she had previously used as her residence, which had been provided by the Mykolaiv City Council. At the same time, the financial disclosure statements of the judge and her husband—who is also a judge—list $213,000 in cash savings, and the family owns other real estate.

This is detailed in an investigation by Nikcenter and an analysis of Galina Podzigun’s 2025 financial disclosure statement.

According to journalists, the judge was granted use of the apartment in 2009. In her 2024 declaration, it was still listed as a residence used by Podzigun, while the Mykolaiv City Council remained the owner.

In September 2025, the situation changed. According to Nikcenter, on September 10, the municipal property management department granted permission to privatize the apartment. Just one week later, according to the real property rights registry, the apartment became jointly owned by Galina Podzigun and her younger daughter, Anastasia Gavrasienko.

In the 2025 declaration, the 117-square-meter apartment is already listed as owned by the judge and her daughter. This change was one of the most notable in Podzigun’s property declaration for the year.

At the same time, journalists note that they were unable to find on the Mykolaiv City Council website a decision by the executive committee to remove this apartment from the list of official housing.

According to an analysis of the declaration, the total declared living space of the Podzigun family in 2025 was 227 square meters. In addition to the 117-square-meter apartment, two more apartments—measuring 93 and 50.6 square meters—are registered in the name of Judge Vadym Gavrasienko’s husband.

The family also owns a non-residential property measuring 180.9 square meters, which belongs to the judge’s husband.

In previous Nikcenter reports, journalists had already drawn attention to a house in Varvarivka with an area of about 180 square meters, which, according to their information, the family used. In the declaration, it remains listed as an unfinished construction project.

In her 2025 declaration, Halyna Podzighun reported $122,000 in cash, while her husband reported an additional $91,000. In total, this amounts to $213,000.

According to calculations by the Center for Public Investigations, the Podzigun family’s total savings amounted to approximately 9.11 million hryvnias. Almost all of it was held in cash, while their bank accounts contained about 84,000 hryvnias.

For 2025, Podzigun herself reported 1.76 million hryvnias in salary. Her husband, Vadym Havrasienko, received 1.43 million hryvnias in salary and 126,000 hryvnias in pension benefits. The family’s total income amounted to 3.33 million hryvnias.

Also in 2025, the family purchased a 2022 Volkswagen ID.4 for 800,000 hryvnias, according to Nikcenter.

Journalists also drew attention to the real estate owned by the judge’s adult daughters. According to the registry, since 2021, Olga Gavrasienko has owned a 60-square-meter apartment in the same building on Sadova Street where the privatized official apartment is located.

Another apartment in this building has been registered in the name of her eldest daughter, Maria, since 2022. She also owns an apartment in a new building in Odesa.

Nikcenter also analyzed Olga Gavrasienko’s social media posts, in which she showed off expensive cars. Journalists speculate that these include, in particular, a Porsche Panamera, a Porsche Cayenne, and a Mercedes-Benz; however, ownership of these cars and the sources of funds were not established in the report.

Nikcenter reached out to Galina Podzigun, asking her to explain the need to privatize her official housing and to comment on this decision in light of the family’s financial situation.

After the article was published, the judge sent a letter regarding the review of the request; however, the journalists did not receive a substantive response to their questions. In her letter, Podzigun noted that the request pertains to her private life as an individual and therefore, in her opinion, the provisions of the law on access to public information do not apply.

At the same time, the mere fact of the apartment’s privatization and the family’s possession of other real estate and savings do not in themselves indicate that the privatization was illegal. To assess the legality of the procedure, it is necessary to establish the legal grounds on which the apartment was removed from official housing status and transferred to private ownership.

Андрій Колісніченко