Fight over 19 ha of recreational forest in Dnipropetrovsk region: “Alpha VeaHouse” asks the court to consider its petition

Fight over 19 ha of recreational forest in Dnipropetrovsk region: “Alpha VeaHouse” asks the court to consider its petition

The Orlov scheme: The Supreme Court refused cassation in the case about 19 ha of forest near Orlivshchyna — against the backdrop of an acquittal, “Alpha VeaHouse” demands consideration of its petition.

The cassation administrative court refused to open cassation proceedings on the complaint of the Dnipropetrovsk ODA in case No. 160/21371/25. The court concluded that the decisions of the lower instances regarding the petition of LLC “Alpha VeaHouse” to allocate a forest plot are not subject to cassation review because the case belongs to the category of minor complexity.

“Alpha VeaHouse” (EDRPOU 34884355, director Olga Smakota) on 5 June 2025 filed petition No. 05/06-01 with the ODA. The company asked to be granted long-term temporary use (for 49 years) of a state-owned forest plot of about 19 ha in compartment 14 of the “Eastern Forest Office” branch of SE “Forests of Ukraine” (subcompartments 8, 10, 12, 14–17) on the territory of Pishchanska territorial community of Samarskyi raion, outside the village of Orlivshchyna, for recreational purposes — without withdrawal from the permanent user.

The administration did not provide a response in the prescribed form, so the company went to court.

The Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court on 17 November 2025 found in part for the plaintiff: it declared the ODA’s inaction unlawful and obliged the administration to issue an order to allocate the plot.

The Third Administrative Court of Appeal on 11 August 2026 vacated the part of the decision that directly obliged the allocation of the land, but left the duty to consider the petition on the merits in compliance with the Law “On Administrative Procedure” and to adopt the corresponding administrative act. The Supreme Court refused to open cassation proceedings because the case was considered in simplified proceedings and did not contain issues that would require cassation review.

The same plot of 19 ha near Orlivshchyna became the subject of a high-profile criminal proceeding. NABU and SAP accused the former first deputy head of the Dnipropetrovsk ODA, Volodymyr Orlov (he held the position from January 2021 to July 2024, acting as head), of requesting an improper benefit in an especially large amount — 200 thousand dollars — to facilitate the allocation of this very forest plot to LLC “Alpha VeaHouse.”

According to the investigation, in May 2024, through intermediary Oleksii Honchar (appearing in the materials as Torop), Orlov allegedly indicated that he controlled the land allocation process and could ensure a positive decision. The case was qualified under part 4 of article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

On 11 February 2026 the High Anti-Corruption Court issued an acquittal. The court found that the prosecution was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt: the conversation of 2 May 2024 was not properly recorded, Honchar’s testimony raised doubts, and company representatives (including director Smakota) said they did not know Honchar and had not given him powers of attorney. The materials contained only a copy of a document. The defense insisted on provocation. The case is under appeal review in the Appeals Chamber of HACC.

“Alpha VeaHouse” is registered in Dnipro. According to open sources, the company is associated with the park-hotel “Zolotyi Plyazh” in the village of Orlivshchyna on the banks of the Samara River. Publications linked the structure to people in the orbit of businessmen Vadym Yermolaiev and Roman Kutsyi. Earlier there were reports of possible violations during the development of recreational land in this area.

Orlivshchyna is a popular recreational area with pine forest and the Samara River, where sanatoriums, holiday bases and cottage towns are located. The question of allocating 19 ha of state forest for long-term use without withdrawal remains the subject of judicial dispute: administrative courts have obliged the ODA to consider the petition on the merits, while the criminal charge regarding an alleged bribe for the same plot was not found proven by the first-instance court.