“The social protection authorities are demanding the return of the funds that the woman received as an IDP because she did not stop these payments after returning to the abandoned home. The woman received financial assistance for living as an internally displaced person for herself and her child. However, since she did not issue a waiver of payments, she is obliged to return 64,978 hryvnias. Information about […]”, — write: businessua.com.ua
The social protection authorities demand the return of the funds from the woman, which she received as an IDP, due to the fact that she did not stop these accruals after returning to the abandoned homes
The woman received financial assistance for living as an internally displaced person for herself and her child. However, since she did not issue a waiver of payments, she is obliged to return 64,978 hryvnias. Information about this is contained in the decision of the Nemyshlyan District Court of the city of Kharkiv, published on November 14, 2025.
On April 20, 2022, the woman, using the Unified state web portal of electronic services (Diya portal), independently registered herself and her son, received electronic certificates of registration as an internally displaced person and issued housing assistance. On November 14, 2022, she personally deregistered as an IDP due to returning to the place of residence she left behind, but did not submit a request for the termination of housing benefits for internally displaced persons. The office did not have the technical ability to promptly monitor all persons who are removed from the register in the Unified Information Database on Internally Displaced Persons and who do not submit a request for the termination of the payment of assistance for the residence of IDPs. In December 2023, the employees of the Office found out that on November 14, 2022, the citizen was removed from the register based on her application in the Unified Information Database on Internally Displaced Persons, however, financial assistance for housing for internally displaced persons continued to be received until December 2023, inclusive. The calculation of the allowance was stopped, and on the basis of paragraph 11 of Resolution No. 332, the amount of accommodation allowance for internally displaced persons illegally received by her was calculated in the amount of almost 65 thousand hryvnias. Taking into account 12 hryvnias returned by the bank from her account at the request of the department, the amount of the debt is 64,978 hryvnias. She was sent a corresponding message about the need for a voluntary return of budget funds, but no action was taken on her part.
The defendant submitted a petition to the court, in which she asked to consider this case without her presence. She insists on the dismissal of the claims, stating that there is no illegality in her actions.
What decision did the court make? The court did not satisfy the claim of the Department of Social Protection of the Population of Zaporizhzhya City Council. The case materials do not contain the necessary evidence of the defendant’s intentional provision of false information or concealment of facts that influenced or could influence the establishment of the right to state social support and the determination of its scope.
“The appointment, calculation and payment of the benefit was carried out by the Department of Social Protection of the Population at the place of actual residence of the defendant using its own powers when making the relevant decision. Since the monthly payment of the benefit by the plaintiff to the defendant was made voluntarily in the absence of an error in the calculations and at the same time this payment was not preceded by any dishonest actions on the part of the defendant, the court came to the conclusion that there were no legal grounds for satisfying the claim. In addition, taking into account the social status the defendant, the presence of a minor child, the need to maintain a fair balance between the state’s interests and interference with the defendant’s rights, considers that the forced return of the social assistance provided by the state may cause an excessive financial burden on the defendant. Taking into account the above, the court concluded that there are no grounds for satisfying the claim, since the plaintiff was not provided with mandatory conditions for the return of the excessively paid social assistance; in particular, no evidence was provided to the court, which would meet the above-mentioned criteria regarding their sufficiency, appropriateness and admissibility, which would confirm the existing signs (circumstances) of the defendant’s intentional submission of false data or concealment of information that affected or could affect the establishment of the right to state social assistance and the determination of its scope,” the court emphasized.
The source
Please wait…