Key Takeaways
- • The Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi City District Court of Odesa region fully dismissed a claim by the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Odesa region seeking to recover 4,723.04 UAH in housing subsidy payments from a recipient.
- • The Pension Fund alleged that currency purchases exceeding the 50,000 hryvnia threshold under Regulation No. 848 disqualified the woman from subsidy payments for 12 months, but the court found the fund provided no admissible evidence of such purchases.
- • The woman's bank documents showed savings of 48,809.66 UAH on August 22, 2022, rising only to 48,836.27 UAH after a November 22, 2022 euro-to-dollar exchange, which the court accepted as a transit operation rather than new currency purchases.
- • The court applied Article 1215 of the Civil Code, which shields voluntarily paid social assistance from recovery absent accounting errors or bad faith, and held that the payer bears the burden of proving those exceptions.
- • The ruling reinforces that state agencies must prove eligibility violations with reliable evidence and cannot shift the risk of their own procedural errors onto beneficiaries.
Summary
The Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi City District Court of Odesa region has dismissed in full a lawsuit by the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Odesa region against a housing subsidy recipient, according to a report published by Sudovo-yurydychna gazeta. The fund had sought to recover 4,723.04 UAH, down from an original claim after two reductions, on the basis that the woman's currency transactions exceeded the 50,000 hryvnia limit set under subparagraph 4 of paragraph 14 of Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 848, which governs housing subsidies.
The dispute originated in May 2024, when the fund reviewed the woman's electronic case and identified banking transactions from August 22 to November 22, 2022 involving foreign currency and bank metals. The fund concluded that she was ineligible for subsidy for 12 months following those transactions and treated payments from January to September 2023, totaling an overpayment of 8,850.18 UAH, as recoverable. After a notice demanding voluntary repayment, the fund withheld 20% of a newly assigned subsidy, and the lawsuit was filed in September 2025.
The woman did not deny the transactions but characterized them as exchange operations. Her documents showed deposits of 663.12 euros (24,365.75 UAH) and 668.44 US dollars (24,443.91 UAH) as of August 22, 2022, a combined 48,809.66 UAH. After converting the euros into dollars on November 22, 2022, she held 1,335.47 US dollars, equal to 48,836.27 UAH at the NBU rate. She argued the funds were the same savings and never exceeded the threshold.
The court found that the fund did not prove that the defendant or other persons considered during the subsidy assignment had made purchases of foreign currency or bank metals above 50,000 UAH. The fund neither refuted the woman's calculations nor produced evidence of holdings above the threshold.
On the recovery question, the court relied on Article 1212 of the Civil Code on unjust enrichment and Article 1215, which exempts assistance and similar sums paid to individuals for subsistence from return when paid voluntarily, without payer accounting errors and without recipient bad faith. Citing Supreme Court practice, the court presumed correct calculations and good faith, placing the burden on the payer. It also referenced the European Court of Human Rights decision in Rysovskyi v. Ukraine on good governance, holding that the risk of state errors should not be borne by citizens, and a Supreme Court ruling of April 8, 2025 in case No. 753/14677/23 emphasizing the reliability and sufficiency of evidence over its volume.
The court concluded that the decisive issue was not the currency operations themselves but the absence of proper proof that they breached the subsidy conditions. The claim was dismissed in full, and the fund was denied reimbursement of its court fee.
The dispute originated in May 2024, when the fund reviewed the woman's electronic case and identified banking transactions from August 22 to November 22, 2022 involving foreign currency and bank metals. The fund concluded that she was ineligible for subsidy for 12 months following those transactions and treated payments from January to September 2023, totaling an overpayment of 8,850.18 UAH, as recoverable. After a notice demanding voluntary repayment, the fund withheld 20% of a newly assigned subsidy, and the lawsuit was filed in September 2025.
The woman did not deny the transactions but characterized them as exchange operations. Her documents showed deposits of 663.12 euros (24,365.75 UAH) and 668.44 US dollars (24,443.91 UAH) as of August 22, 2022, a combined 48,809.66 UAH. After converting the euros into dollars on November 22, 2022, she held 1,335.47 US dollars, equal to 48,836.27 UAH at the NBU rate. She argued the funds were the same savings and never exceeded the threshold.
The court found that the fund did not prove that the defendant or other persons considered during the subsidy assignment had made purchases of foreign currency or bank metals above 50,000 UAH. The fund neither refuted the woman's calculations nor produced evidence of holdings above the threshold.
On the recovery question, the court relied on Article 1212 of the Civil Code on unjust enrichment and Article 1215, which exempts assistance and similar sums paid to individuals for subsistence from return when paid voluntarily, without payer accounting errors and without recipient bad faith. Citing Supreme Court practice, the court presumed correct calculations and good faith, placing the burden on the payer. It also referenced the European Court of Human Rights decision in Rysovskyi v. Ukraine on good governance, holding that the risk of state errors should not be borne by citizens, and a Supreme Court ruling of April 8, 2025 in case No. 753/14677/23 emphasizing the reliability and sufficiency of evidence over its volume.
The court concluded that the decisive issue was not the currency operations themselves but the absence of proper proof that they breached the subsidy conditions. The claim was dismissed in full, and the fund was denied reimbursement of its court fee.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.