A Kharkiv resident refuses to return a social assistance overpayment of 35,047 UAH for IDPs. The court has made its decision on the matter.

The woman was receiving IDP assistance, but later her payments were denied. It turned out that she provided inaccurate information, and thus she is required to return the overpayment of 35,047 hryvnias. This is stated in the decision of the Dzerzhinsky District Court of Kharkiv, published on January 31, 2025.

On February 23, 2016, the woman and her son were registered with the Department of Social Protection of the Shevchenkivskyi District Administration of the Kharkiv City Council as internally displaced persons. On February 25, 2016, she submitted a request to the department for IDP assistance for herself and her son. Subsequently, the citizen filed requests with the department to extend the appointment of IDP assistance. The department approved her IDP assistance for the periods from February 25, 2016, to August 24, 2016, from December 7, 2016, to June 6, 2017, from June 13, 2017, to December 12, 2018, and from June 16, 2019. On June 19, 2019, during the next extension of IDP assistance, it was established that the child's birth certificate was issued in Balakliya, Kharkiv region. On June 19, 2019, the department sent inquiries to the Social Protection Department of the Balakliya District State Administration and to Kharkiv City Children's Clinic No. 14 regarding the family's service status. The Balakliya District Social Protection reported that she received assistance for childbirth and childcare benefits until the child turned three years old from June 1, 2012, to June 27, 2015. Clinic No. 14 stated that the child, according to his medical card, was born in Balakliya and was monitored from July 2, 2012, until February 2013 at the Balakliya Central District Hospital, and since April 11, 2013, has been regularly observed by specialists at Clinic No. 14.

By a decision of the department dated July 8, 2019, No. 05/7-19, the registration certificate of the woman as an internally displaced person was revoked. Consequently, by an order from the department dated August 1, 2019, her request for IDP assistance submitted on June 19, 2019, was denied based on point 12 of Order No. 505, namely: the discovery of the provision of inaccurate information affecting the appointment of cash assistance and the cancellation of the IDP certificate. By the decision of August 1, 2019, her benefit payments were suspended from March 1, 2016, and she was removed from payment as of February 25, 2016. According to the report from the Regional Center for the Calculation and Payment of Social Benefits, the overpayment of IDP benefits for the periods from February 25, 2016, to August 24, 2016, from December 7, 2016, to June 6, 2017, and from June 13, 2017, to June 16, 2019, amounts to 35,047 hryvnias.

The woman believes that the claims are unfounded and illegal, and therefore should not be satisfied. According to current legislation, she is considered an internally displaced person. This is confirmed by the fact that on February 23, 2016, she and her son were registered with the Department of Internally Displaced Persons. The corresponding monetary assistance was provided based on decisions made by the department over four years. Indeed, she gave birth to her son at the Balakliya Central District Hospital, however, the claim that her child is currently registered and monitored by specialists at the clinic in Balakliya is not true. This assertion is entirely contradicted by an extract from her personal card from Clinic No. 14 in Kharkiv. The receipt of benefits for childbirth and childcare until the child turns three years old in Balakliya, Kharkiv region does not negate the fact that at the time the ATO began in Ukraine, she was living at her registered permanent residence. By filing such a lawsuit, the head of the department calls into question his own competence and that of his staff, as the claims contradict all previous actions of the authority over the past four years. In its legal position, the department contradicts itself, as it refers to events that occurred before the start of the temporary occupation under the Law of Ukraine "On Ensuring the Rights and Freedoms of Citizens and the Legal Regime on the Temporarily Occupied Territory" – February 20, 2014. Therefore, the lawsuit contains no evidence beyond reasonable doubt and does not refute the fact of her residence at her registered permanent address, thus the legality and validity of receiving social assistance remains intact.

What did the court decide?

The Social Protection Department's lawsuit was denied. During the court proceedings, it was not established that the woman provided inaccurate information.

"The court did not establish a fact of abuse of rights by the defendant when submitting the application for assistance, as the woman provided all the information required by the plaintiff's form, and the court did not find circumstances indicating an objective impossibility for the plaintiff to verify the information provided by the defendant when deciding on the appointment of targeted assistance. The return of excessively paid monthly benefits presupposes the recovery of the specified amount if such excessive payment occurred due to the fault of the recipient, namely due to abuses, particularly in cases of providing inaccurate information or failing to provide the relevant information at all. During the court proceedings, it was not established that the defendant submitted inaccurate information to the department; moreover, when the plaintiff submitted the relevant application for benefits, the originals of the necessary documents for the appointment of payments were checked. According to part 1 of Article 13 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the court considers cases only upon the request of a person submitted in accordance with this Code, within the limits of the claims made by them and based on the evidence submitted by the parties or requested by the court in the cases provided for by this Code. According to part 1 of Article 76 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, evidence includes any factual data on the basis of which the court establishes the presence or absence of circumstances (facts) that substantiate the claims and objections of the parties to the case, and other circumstances relevant to the resolution of the case. According to part 1 of Article 81 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, each party must prove the circumstances on which it relies as the basis for its claims or objections, except in cases provided for by this Code. Thus, the plaintiff did not prove before the court with proper and admissible evidence that as a result of the intentional actions of the defendant, namely providing inaccurate information when receiving targeted assistance and subsequently extending it, unreasonable payment of monetary assistance to the defendant occurred, and therefore the claims are unfounded and should not be satisfied.