Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
More than 2 million hryvnias of potentially lost municipal revenue, four years of litigation and new claims for damages. That could be the bill for the Chernivtsi community over the story of a municipal space of only 83 square meters in the city center. How much the city spent on legal battles is still unknown. Officials refuse to say who will be held accountable for the consequences.
More details — in Daria Kondratiuk’s report for “Stop Corruption TV.”
The story began on 14 June 2022. That day an auction was held to extend the lease of a ground-floor space in a building on Stepan Bandera Street, 5, with an area of 83,4 square meters. The starting price was 5 621,50 UAH.
Three participants took part in the bidding. The highest bid, 61 001 UAH, was offered by Nataliya Vargotska. Larysa Nahorniak bid exactly 61 thousand, one hryvnia less.
However, on 21 June the Department of Communal Property of the Chernivtsi City Council disqualified Vargotska: they explained that she failed to submit documents required by the auction conditions. The electronic system automatically declared the next participant, sole proprietor Larysa Nahorniak, the winner. On 19 July 2022 the Department signed lease agreement No. 72 with her.
Instead of handing over the premises, a multi-year legal battle began. Nahorniak actually received the property by acceptance certificate only on 1 August 2025, more than three years after the contract was signed. This followed decisions by the Commercial Court, the appellate instance and the Supreme Court in case No. 926/2191/24.
Three years of vacancy: how much the budget lost
The lease rate set at the auction was about 60 thousand hryvnias per month. Over 36 months the city could have received roughly 2,16 million UAH. That is the calculation journalists included in their appeal to the State Audit Service.
Those funds could have gone to community needs: supporting the military, buying drones, repairing shelters, schools or kindergartens. This figure does not yet include court costs. Journalists separately asked the city council how much public money went to court fees and legal support for all cases related to the premises.
Contract void, but bills keep coming
After the handover in August 2025, Larysa Nahorniak began paying rent and invested her own money to prepare the site for operation. According to the documents, she paid a total of 554 838 UAH in rent. In addition, the case materials list expenses for participating in the auction, project documentation, franchise and construction works totaling 917 632,73 UAH.
On 11 February 2026 the Chernivtsi Court of Appeal declared lease agreement No. 72 null and void. In its ruling the court concluded, among other things, that the Department of Communal Property unjustifiably disqualified the participant with the highest bid. In other words, the decision that started the whole story was found unlawful by the court.
After that, Nahorniak filed a claim with the Commercial Court demanding reimbursement of funds and compensation for damages. She stated:
917 632,73 UAH of actual expenses and damages;
100 000 UAH of moral damages;
554 838,28 UAH of rent paid.
On 30 July the Commercial Court of the Chernivtsi region partially granted the entrepreneur’s claim.
In their appeal to the State Audit Service, journalists estimated the total potential financial consequence of this story for the budget at over 3,2 million UAH. That sum consists of 2,16 million of potentially lost rent and payments related to compensating the entrepreneur’s damages. At the same time, this is the editorial calculation based on available documents, not a court-determined amount of budget losses.
The first-instance decision did not satisfy Nahorniak’s side. Her lawyer Vladyslava said: “My client and I disagree with the court’s decision. We will definitely appeal it.” Both parties have already filed appeals, so the dispute is not closed.
The lawyer also pointed to a legal collision. The Department of Communal Property signed the contract with Nahorniak, while the claim to return the premises was filed by the Chernivtsi City Council itself. She said she does not understand why the city council represented interests in this process. However, in the full text of the court decision the court separately explained why the city council, as owner of municipal property, had the right to seek its return.
“Double rent”: the Department’s position
A separate question concerns payments. After the contract was declared void, the Department continued to charge Nahorniak rent, and the entrepreneur continued to pay it. Journalists asked the head of the Department of Communal Property, Vadym Russ, about this.
The official explained that for the Department the decisive factor is not the court ruling but the acceptance certificate. “From the moment we hand over the premises to a person… we start charging rent. And on the day an act of returning the premises is signed… rent stops being charged,” Russ said.
Moreover, he said, if a tenant does not vacate a premises on time, additional charges may accrue. “If a person should leave on the fifteenth — on the sixteenth they have double rent… Then, if the person appeals, we will go to court with all these calculations,” he explained. So the legal saga could give rise to yet another financial dispute.
Asked whether the Department had tried to find out how their decisions of 2022 resulted in four years of litigation, Russ replied that the legal department deals with court cases and that answering would require pulling all the documents. He said no internal official review had been conducted within the Department. In other words, the court has already found the Department’s decision unlawful, but there was no internal investigation.
The Department does not plan to stop. “We will go to the end until we put a period,” Russ said. How much this legal story has already cost the budget was not named during the conversation. Journalists filed official requests for the full list of court cases, costs for their support and documents on rental payments.
Mayor “not authorized,” lawyer also not
The main question remains: why has such a principled legal battle been going on for four years over a small municipal space? Officials do not answer. People familiar with the story suggest that such persistence may indicate a special interest in this particular property. There is currently no documentary evidence to support that theory.
During a previous trip journalists asked the mayor, Roman Klichuk, this question. He advised them to contact the lawyers. The lawyer representing the city council in court also could not answer: he said he is only the city council’s lawyer and is not authorized to comment.
After the new court decision journalists returned to Chernivtsi and directly asked the mayor whether he considers it appropriate that correcting mistakes made during the auction escalated into a multi-year legal campaign with financial consequences for the community, and who should be held responsible. There was again no substantive on-camera answer: Klichuk suggested submitting an official request. Journalists registered a request addressed to him personally, as well as a separate request regarding budget expenditures on the courts.
Councilors: “first we will study the documents”
At a city council session journalists handed materials to deputies and asked them to assess the officials’ actions. Most interlocutors admitted they had not yet examined the case details and must first study the documents. Some councilors said they are ready to get involved if a special commission is initiated to investigate the story.
The first reply to the appeal came from Chernivtsi City Council deputy Dmytro Bilous. However, no specific decisions have yet been made about a separate review of the situation or checking officials’ actions. Assessment of the story effectively remains within the realm of court proceedings. Whether it will become an object of council oversight depends on whether relevant procedures are initiated at the city council.
What controllers and law enforcement say
Journalists also contacted state bodies.
The State Audit Service reported that a planned inspection or audit of the Department of Communal Property for the third quarter of 2026 was not scheduled. At the same time the appeal was entered into the risk database for possible consideration when planning future control measures.
The State Tax Service forwarded the appeal regarding the Department and the city council to the Main Department of the STS in the Chernivtsi region for review.
NABU replied that at this stage it had not established sufficient objective data of criminal offenses within the Bureau detectives’ jurisdiction. Therefore they do not see grounds for a pre-trial investigation at this time.
Thus, the question of possible personal liability of officials remains open.
The mayor’s business and transparency concerns
Journalists raised another question in a previous investigation. Mayor Roman Klichuk remains the ultimate beneficial owner of a number of companies connected to business in Chernivtsi. Therefore the city’s decisions on municipal property and the conditions for doing business require particular transparency.
Sources familiar with the story suggest that the determined fight over this particular space could be related to someone’s special interest in the object. The editorial board emphasizes: there is currently no documentary evidence of a private interest of Roman Klichuk or other officials in this space.
After journalists’ appeal, the National Agency on Corruption Prevention checked this information. The agency did not find factual data indicating that after the transfer of corporate rights to management, Klichuk continued to personally control the business activities of the relevant companies. Regarding questions about possible misuse of official position, NACP noted that their legal assessment belongs to law enforcement agencies.
The bill that hasn’t been issued yet
A telling aspect of this story may be not only its outcome but the city’s attitude toward the information presented to it. This is visible, in particular, from a clip of the session broadcast. And this is not the only situation where questions arise about implementation of city council decisions.
Meanwhile the legal saga continues. Whether the appeal will put a final stop to it is unknown. The questions are mounting. Why did a dispute over 83 square meters stretch over four years? Why didn’t the fight end after the court found the Department’s decision unlawful? How much will it ultimately cost the budget? And will anyone bear personal responsibility?
Journalists are awaiting answers about the real amount of budget expenditures and will follow the appeal and whether deputies create a separate commission.
Read also: the millionaire mayor: how Roman Klichuk combines power in Chernivtsi and the family business?
Document: PDF proof of the original version of the news item "83 квадрати за мільйони: як оренда приміщення в Чернівцях перетворилася на чотирирічний суд і завдала збитків громаді?". It records the publication content at the moment of the first scan, the preservation date and the source: NARDEP 24.
