The ghost of Chernovetsky in Kyiv. Who is taking away two hectares in the center of Kyiv from the military?

During the war, the Ministry of Defense fights for a site in Pechersk

On March 27, the Supreme Court will once again begin considering the dispute between the Ministry of Defense and two companies: LV-Holding and Imperial. The subject of the conflict is a plot of land that the military received in Kyiv back in 1951, but during the chairmanship of Alexander Omelchenko, the city sold this plot to a developer, and the intended purpose for office and residential development was changed when Leonid Chernovetsky became mayor.

The developer, as reported by the media, is connected with Chernovetsky’s then son-in-law Vyacheslav Suprunenko, with whom the daughter of the ex-mayor of Kyiv later divorced. Therefore, the City Council here is also a party to the matter.

The scheme in this story is quite typical: first, the developer purchased buildings from the Kyiv Apartment Maintenance Department, which were located on the disputed site, then received this site for rent, and then bought it from the city.

The buildings, according to law enforcement officials, were later demolished so that high-rise buildings and commercial premises could be built on the entire land plot. And the Ministry of Defense has now been proving for years in the courts that the city did not sell its communal land, but state land, which deputies of the local council have no right to dispose of.

The public initiative “Igla” found out the details of the case in the courts.

How is the Ministry of Defense fighting... developers?

The Ministry of Defense and the Kiev Housing and Maintenance Department insist that this site in Pechersk, whose area is more than 2 hectares (site address: Kyiv, Rybalskaya St., 24/16), is not communal, but state property. Accordingly, the local government body - the Kyiv City Council - could not sell it or give it to anyone unless there is the consent of the government.

The case has been dragging on in courts of various instances for six years; it was returned three times by the Supreme Court so that lower court judges could better study the details of the case.

But even from those interim decisions of the Supreme Court that have already been made, the facts are clearly established: this site is defense land and the property of the Ministry of Defense. This means that the local council could not alienate this plot, because it is not a municipal one, but a state one.

After the Supreme Court returned the case for a new trial, the appellate court finally took into account that the land plot was owned by the state. The Northern Economic Court of Appeal (judges Antonina Malchenko, Alexandra Agricova, Tatyana Kozyr) at the end of last year made a decision in which the Ministry of Defense won the case.

And now the developers are trying to appeal the decision of the Northern Economic Court of Appeal in cassation. The judges who are part of the panel of the Economic Court of Cassation considering this case are: Vitaly Zuev, Inna Berdnik, Ivan Mishchenko.

There is also a monument of national importance on the site - Tower No. 5 of the Kyiv Fortress. And since we are talking about cultural heritage and the lands of the Ministry of Defense, the interests of the state are also protected by the military prosecutor's office.

Victoria Sheksheeva, head of the department for the representation of state interests in court of the Specialized Prosecutor's Office in the field of defense of the Office of the Prosecutor General, notes: “The subject of the dispute is precisely defense lands, which are limited in civil circulation and the automatic transfer of property rights, as well as a change in the intended use of them, is prohibited by land legislation. The prosecutor’s office will continue to fight against the illegal deforestation of defense lands.”

State Secretary of the Ministry of Defense Lyudmila Dorogan emphasizes: “We hope for a fair court decision to return the land plot of the Ministry of Defense to ownership. This case has been pending in the courts for years and it is time to put an end to it, in accordance with the law, protecting the interests of the state. We believe in the fair and legal decision of the Cassation Economic Court.”

The City Council, which is also a party to the case, also already recognizes that these lands are indeed not communal, but state-owned. Secretary of the City Council Vladimir Bondarenko focuses on this: “During Chernovetsky’s time there really was a number of daring bullies. As for this case, Kyiv supports the legitimate demands of the Ministry of Defense and believes that during Chernovetsky’s chairmanship this land was unlawfully taken from the state. This is not the communal property of the community. Therefore, the demand of the Ministry of Defense is quite fair.”

Suprunenko. History of "Imperial"

The land, which in 2006, according to the decisions of the City Council of LV-Holding LLC, was subsequently resold several times. In 2011, LLC “Residential Complex “Imperial” became the owner.

And this company “Residential Complex “Imperial” subsequently mortgaged this plot to “Asvio Bank”, which was controlled by the Suprunenko brothers, under a financial obligation of 105 million UAH. At the same time, Imperial mortgaged the same plot to GPP Developers Ltd under a financial obligation of $20 million. GPP Developers Ltd was also associated with the Suprunenko brothers. “Our Money” wrote about this.

“The issue of the legality of transactions on such a transfer of land on a mortgage by developers, which was reported in the media, is being studied by the prosecutor’s office,” says prosecutor Sheksheeva.

It is no coincidence that the name Suprunenko appears so often in this story. Vyacheslav Suprunenko was not just a deputy of the Kyiv City Council from Leonid Chernovetsky’s bloc, but also Chernovetsky’s son-in-law, under whose chairmanship the purpose of this site was changed.

Vyacheslav also has a brother, Alexander. He was the people's deputy of the Party of Regions.

The story with the plot in Pechersk is not the only land scandal associated with the Chernovetskys and Suprunenkos.

Thus, part of the park adjacent to Mikhailovskaya Square (now the Heavenly Hundred Square), with numerous violations during Chernovetsky’s time, ended up in Green Plaza LLC.

And here the traces again led to the son-in-law of the then mayor - Vyacheslav Suprunenko. Here the developer planned to build a hotel and office complex

The lawsuit lasted four years and the Supreme Court eventually rejected the developer's complaint and returned the land to the community.