Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
"Spilna Meta" from Odesa: public racketeering, political ties, and millions of questions — media
NGO “Volunteer Movement 'Spilna Meta'” is an Odesa civic organization that has been involved in conflicts over construction and urban development since 2015. Its leader is Volodymyr Savchenko. For several years the organization has opposed various construction projects: it submits appeals to state bodies, secures inspections, holds public actions, and files lawsuits. But after “negotiations” with developers, the lawsuits are withdrawn.
Savchenko’s path into the civic sector was paved by a traitor, Dmytruk, who is now on the run. Savchenko worked as his paid assistant, and Dmytruk publicly supported Savchenko and called him his friend. According to Savchenko himself, other members of 'Spilna Meta' also served as Dmytruk’s assistants.
Their interaction was not limited to a personal acquaintance. In particular, during the conflict around the Calypso residential complex, the organization’s public activity and Dmytruk’s actions coincided with the court process. Calls to attend the hearing were circulated before the session, a rally took place near the court, and Savchenko documented the events in photos and videos. Later the circumstances of these events were reviewed by the High Council of Justice. The HCJ assessed the actions of Dmytruk, Savchenko, and other participants collectively and noted that the systematic nature of the described actions could indicate attempts to pressure and influence judges.
Then the political story changed: Savchenko publicly announced a break with Dmytruk, and Dmytruk later left Ukraine. But 'Spilna Meta' continued its activities.
And here the questions become documentary rather than political.
In the story with the Dynamo stadium in Odesa, the organization challenged urban planning documents for more than a year, and in December 2022 it itself asked to have its suit left without consideration.
In the case of the Sapphire club residence, 'Spilna Meta' demanded the annulment of permitting documents and demolition of the structure. The court denied the request for compulsory demolition.
At 151A Fontanskaya Road the organization obtained interim measures that prohibited construction work. The developer claimed losses of 4,5 million UAH, and the court set counter-security in the amount of 568 thousand UAH.
On Lanzheron, after appeals by 'Spilna Meta' DIAM appointed an unscheduled urban-planning control inspection.
This results in a rather specific system: a single civic organization is present in construction conflicts for years, capable of initiating inspections and court proceedings and securing temporary halts to work. But only temporarily. Then money appears in accounts and the fight ends.
According to open data, its income was about 2,36 million UAH in 2023, 1,04 million UAH in 2024, and 2,12 million UAH in 2025 — totaling about 5,5 million UAH. At the same time, registry data lists one employee.
For an organization that demands transparency from business, questions about its own financial transparency seem entirely reasonable.
Who finances 'Spilna Meta'? Who pays for the multi-year legal and informational campaigns? Who are the main donors? Did the organization receive money, property, or services from entrepreneurs with whom it entered public conflicts?
And finally — how many of the violations that activists reported for years were actually confirmed by final court decisions?
In the case of 'Spilna Meta' there are already enough documents and questions to stop seeing this story solely as activists' fight for Odesa and to start asking: who really needs such a system of constant pressure on business, and why?
INSIDER UA | Submit content
Telegram publication
