IMPACTA LAW has achieved an important result before the Supreme Court of Ukraine (“Supreme Court”) in a long-running dispute concerning the Dnister Hotel in Ivano-Frankivsk. The Court partially granted the cassation appeal filed by our client, the NGO Multimedia Laboratory, and amended the reasoning of the lower courts' decisions.

The Dnister Hotel is a well-known historic building where a resolution on the unification of the West Ukrainian People’s Republic (WUPR) and the Ukrainian People’s Republic (UPR) was adopted in 1919. In 1990, the Ivano-Frankivsk section of the human chain stretching towards Kyiv began there.

The hotel’s reconstruction sparked public debate over changes to the historic building’s appearance and concerns about preserving its authenticity. The owners insisted that the works were lawful and that the necessary permits had been obtained.

Among the key issues in several court proceedings was specifically whether civil society organisations have the right to bring legal proceedings to protect the public interest in preserving cultural heritage.

In the case before the Supreme Court, the NGO Multimedia Laboratory challenged the failure to act of the local cultural heritage protection authority, It sought measures to restore the heritage site to its previous condition.

The courts of first instance and appeal dismissed the claim, finding, among other things, that the NGO had failed to establish its right to bring proceedings.

The Supreme Court rejected this approach. It recognised the protection of cultural heritage as a legally protected public interest and held that the statutory objectives and activities of the NGO Multimedia Laboratory demonstrated its substantive legal interest in bringing the claim. Accordingly, civil society organisations are entitled to apply to court to protect such an interest.

With this outcome, the IMPACTA LAW team overcame a significant procedural obstacle to the protection of cultural heritage by NGOs in court – an obstacle that had previously been one of the main grounds for dismissing similar claims.

At the same time, the Supreme Court held that, in this particular case, a court could not require the cultural heritage protection authority to adopt a specific measure where the law leaves the authority discretion to determine its response. Consequently, the outcome of the claim remained unchanged, although the Supreme Court amended the reasoning of the lower courts’ decisions. Following the review, the cassation appeal was partially granted.

This approach has practical implications for other cultural heritage disputes. IMPACTA LAW is already relying on the Supreme Court’s legal position in separate proceedings concerning the Dnister Hotel, which are currently before the Ivano-Frankivsk Court of Appeal.

Although the Supreme Court did not grant the substantive relief sought, the cassation appeal allowed establishing a legal position that may prove significant in future disputes regarding the preservation of the Dnister Hotel. It removes an important procedural obstacle for civil society organisations seeking to defend the public interest and historic landmarks in court.

The IMPACTA LAW Dispute Resolution team working on the case included Partner Oleksandr Onishchenko, Senior Associate Mykola Yerema, Junior Associates Denys Boichuk and Viktoriia Bondar, and Paralegal Veronika Makarchuk.