The Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi City-District Court of the Odesa Region reviewed a civil case initiated by the Main Directorate of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Odesa Region against a recipient of a housing subsidy, seeking the recovery of funds allegedly overpaid. The legal action was prompted by the results of a review of the woman’s banking transactions. The Pension Fund contended that she had purchased foreign currency exceeding 50,000 hryvnias, thereby forfeiting her eligibility for the subsidy. The defendant, however, maintained that she had merely converted her own existing savings from euros into dollars, without increasing the total amount of funds she held. The court dismissed the claim, finding that the Pension Fund failed to provide proper and admissible evidence that the conditions for receiving the housing subsidy had been violated.
Circumstances of the Case
The woman was a recipient of a housing subsidy, granted in accordance with the *Regulation on the Procedure for Granting Housing Subsidies*, approved by Resolution No. 848 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. In May 2024, during a review of her electronic file, the Pension Fund identified information regarding banking transactions conducted between August 22 and November 22, 2022. The verification process revealed a discrepancy involving the purchase of foreign currency and precious metals, totaling more than 50,000 hryvnias. The Pension Fund concluded that, as a result of these transactions, the woman was ineligible to receive a housing subsidy for a period of 12 months following the date of the transactions. Consequently, the payments received during the period from January to September 2023 were classified as overpayments. According to Pension Fund records, the overpayment amount totaled 8,850.18 UAH. In May 2024, the woman received a notice demanding the voluntary repayment of these funds.
Subsequently, based on her application, a housing subsidy was granted, and a 20% deduction from the subsidy amount was initiated to recover the overpayment. In September 2025, the Main Directorate of the Pension Fund filed a lawsuit. Following two subsequent requests to reduce the claim amount, the Pension Fund ultimately sought to recover 4,723.04 UAH from the woman.
Why the woman objected to repaying the subsidy
The defendant did not dispute the fact that foreign currency transactions had taken place. However, she explained that these transactions were strictly in the nature of currency exchanges—she was converting funds from one foreign currency into another, rather than purchasing foreign currency using new incoming funds. To support her position, the woman provided bank statements and a receipt. Specifically, as of August 22, 2022, her deposit accounts held:
663.12 euros, equivalent to 24,365.75 UAH at the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) exchange rate;
668.44 US dollars, equivalent to 24,443.91 UAH.
The total value of her savings, expressed in hryvnia, amounted to 48,809.66 UAH. On November 22, 2022, the woman performed a currency exchange transaction: she converted the euros she held into US dollars. Following this, the balance in her euro account became zero, while her dollar account showed a balance of 1,335.47 US dollars. Based on the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) exchange rate, this amount was equivalent to 48,836.27 UAH. Consequently, the defendant argued that these were, in fact, the same savings, merely transferred from one currency to another. Their total value did not exceed 50,000 UAH. The woman emphasized that the exchange transactions were transitional in nature—serving neither to accumulate wealth nor to fund expenditures. Therefore, in her view, the formal recording of the currency purchase and sale in bank documents did not constitute the type of transactions that would disqualify her from receiving a subsidy. She requested that the court dismiss the Pension Fund’s claim.
Findings of the Court
Having examined the case materials, the court reviewed the legal provisions governing the granting of housing subsidies during the period when the transactions in question took place. Specifically, under Subparagraph 4 of Paragraph 14 of Regulation No. 848 (as in effect at the time), restrictions were imposed on the granting of subsidies if certain types of transactions exceeding 50,000 UAH were conducted within a specific 12-month period. At the same time, the existence of grounds for applying such a restriction must be substantiated by appropriate evidence. The court established that the Pension Fund failed to provide sufficient evidence that the defendant—or other individuals whose financial status is considered when granting a subsidy—had engaged in transactions involving the purchase of foreign currency or precious metals exceeding the established threshold. Conversely, bank documents submitted by the woman indicated that, as of August 22, 2022, she held savings in euros and US dollars totaling 48,809.66 UAH.
Following the currency exchange transaction, the total value of these funds, when converted into hryvnias, amounted to 48,836.27 UAH. The court concluded that these circumstances support the defendant’s explanation regarding the nature of the transactions: they were conducted using the same pool of funds, which did not exceed 50,000 UAH. Furthermore, the Pension Fund failed to refute the woman’s arguments or provide evidence that she held funds in her deposit accounts totaling more than 50,000 UAH. Consequently, the court found that it was not proven that the defendant had engaged in currency transactions that would constitute grounds for the loss of her eligibility for a housing subsidy.
Can the Return of a Previously Paid Subsidy Be Demanded?
The court paid particular attention to the legal grounds for the recovery of social payments. Under Article 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, a person who has acquired property at the expense of another without sufficient legal grounds is, as a general rule, obliged to return it. However, Article 1215 of the Civil Code of Ukraine provides exceptions for certain types of payments—specifically, assistance and other monetary sums provided to an individual as a means of subsistence. Such funds are not subject to recovery if they were paid voluntarily, provided there was no calculation error on the part of the payer and no bad faith on the part of the recipient. The court cited the case law of the Supreme Court, which establishes a presumption that calculations are correct and that the recipient of the funds acted in good faith; the burden of proving the existence of a calculation error or bad faith rests with the payer. Furthermore, the court took into account the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), specifically the judgment in the case of *Rysovskyy v. Ukraine*.
In this judgment, the ECHR emphasized the principle of “good administration,” which requires state authorities to act in a timely and consistent manner and to ensure proper decision-making procedures. The risk of errors made by state authorities should not be shifted onto citizens, and the authorities themselves cannot derive an advantage from their own failure to follow established procedures. The court also noted that, pursuant to Articles 12 and 81 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the party asserting a claim bears the burden of proving the circumstances upon which that claim is based. The establishment of facts cannot be based on assumptions. Citing the Supreme Court ruling of April 8, 2025, in Case No. 753/14677/23, the court emphasized that the determining factor is not the quantity of evidence submitted, but rather its reliability, admissibility, and sufficiency to substantiate the relevant circumstances.
Court Decision
Upon reviewing Case No. 495/6943/25, the Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi City-District Court of the Odesa Region concluded that the Pension Fund failed to prove the existence of legal grounds to recover housing subsidy funds from the defendant. The court took into account that the bank documents provided by the woman confirmed the “transit” nature of the foreign currency transactions and demonstrated that the 50,000-hryvnia threshold had not been exceeded; the plaintiff failed to refute these circumstances with appropriate evidence. The court denied the claim filed by the Main Directorate of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Odesa Region in its entirety. Furthermore, the court denied the Pension Fund’s request for reimbursement of the court fee, as its claims were not upheld. Thus, the decisive factor in resolving the dispute was not the mere fact that foreign currency transactions took place, but rather the lack of proper evidence demonstrating that these transactions violated the statutory conditions for receiving the subsidy.
