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

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

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

The Cassation Administrative Court refused to open cassation proceedings on the complaint of the Dnipropetrovsk Regional State Administration in case No. 160/21371/25. The court concluded that the decisions of the lower instances regarding the petition of LLC “Alpha Veahaus” for allocation of a forest plot are not subject to cassation review, since the case belongs to the category of low complexity.

“Alpha Veahaus” (EDRPOU 34884355, director Olga Smakota) 5 June 2025 filed petition No. 05/06-01 with the regional administration. 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 “Lesy Ukrainy” (subcompartments 8, 10, 12, 14–17) on the territory of Pishchanska territorial community of Samarskyi district, outside the village of Orlivshchyna, for recreational purposes — without expropriation from the permanent user.

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

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

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

This 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 Regional State Administration Volodymyr Orlov (he held the position from January 2021 to July 2024 and acted as head) of soliciting an undue benefit in an especially large amount — 200 thousand dollars — for facilitating the allocation of this very forest plot to LLC “Alpha Veahaus.”

According to the investigation, in May 2024, through intermediary Oleksiy 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 had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt: the conversation from 2 May 2024 was not properly recorded, Honchar’s testimony was doubtful, and company representatives (including director Smakota) stated they did not know Honchar and had not issued him powers of attorney. Only a copy of a document was contained in the materials. The defense insisted on entrapment. The case is under appellate review in the VAKS Appeals Chamber.

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

Orlivshchyna is a popular recreational area with pine forest and the Samara River, home to sanatoria, holiday resorts and cottage towns. The question of allocating 19 ha of state forest for long-term use without expropriation remains a matter of judicial dispute: administrative courts have obliged the regional administration to consider the petition on the merits, while the criminal charge alleging a bribe for the same plot was not recognized as proven by the court of first instance.