War-related losses: lawsuits against the Russian Federation, proving damages, and work with compensation commissions

Can Ukrainian courts issue judgments on compensation for damages against the Russian Federation?

Ukrainian courts consider claims against the Russian Federation, and this practice has already become quite common among businesses and individuals. These cases concern compensation for both property and moral damages caused by armed aggression.

Courts do, in fact, issue judgments in favor of claimants. As a result, a significant body of court decisions has been formed confirming the right to compensation. These judgments are already being consolidated within summary enforcement proceedings involving substantial amounts.

However, the key issue lies not in obtaining a court judgment, but in its actual enforcement.

Why are Ukrainian court decisions against the Russian Federation difficult or impossible to enforce?

The main difficulty lies in the absence of an effective mechanism for the compulsory enforcement of such judgments. As of today, there are virtually no active assets of the Russian Federation in Ukraine that could be seized to satisfy claims.

Even when a court judgment is obtained and enforcement proceedings are opened, state authorities face an objective obstacle — the absence of debtor’s property within Ukraine’s jurisdiction.

The situation becomes even more complex when it comes to enforcement abroad. This requires recognition and enforcement of the judgment in another state, which involves additional legal barriers, particularly issues related to state jurisdictional immunity.

As a result, in practice, most such judgments currently remain unenforced despite their legal validity.

Is it possible to recover damages through courts of other countries?

In theory, such an option exists, but it is legally and procedurally complex. It requires either recognition of a Ukrainian court judgment by a foreign court, or filing a claim directly in a foreign jurisdiction.

In such cases, the key challenge remains the doctrine of state immunity, which in many situations limits the possibility of enforcing claims against state assets.

At the same time, international practice is gradually evolving, and some states are considering the creation of special mechanisms for the use of frozen Russian assets.

What is the practical value of obtaining court judgments against the Russian Federation?

Despite enforcement difficulties, such court decisions are highly important. They establish the fact that damage was caused, determine its amount, and create a legal basis for future claims against the Russian Federation.

In the long term, these judgments may be used in international compensation mechanisms, as well as in processes related to the use of frozen assets of the aggressor state.

Can citizens claim compensation from Ukraine instead of the Russian Federation?

Until 2022, there was a practice in Ukraine where certain claims by individuals against the State of Ukraine were partially satisfied. Claimants argued that the state had failed to ensure adequate protection of their rights, particularly in areas affected by hostilities.

However, after the beginning of the full-scale invasion, judicial practice changed. The Supreme Court formed an approach under which liability for damage caused by aggression cannot be imposed on Ukraine. Courts proceed from the principle that the aggressor state bears responsibility for the consequences of its actions, and this responsibility cannot be transferred to the state that is itself a victim of aggression.

How is the value of damages determined?

The valuation methodology regulates the activities of professional appraisers and defines how the value of destroyed or damaged property is assessed, including municipal assets.

For communal property, an additional requirement is provided — mandatory review (peer review) of the appraisal report, which distinguishes this approach from the valuation of private property.

Alternatively, in practice, forensic expert reports are often used. These combine property valuation and technical assessment of damage and allow the formation of an evidentiary basis without a separate review of the appraisal report.

What should be done if there are no property documents?

In practice, situations often arise where full documentation for real estate objects is missing — due to destruction of archives, lack of registration, or historical specifics of property accounting.

In such cases, the use of alternative evidence is permitted, including archival materials, technical documentation, inspection reports, and other documents that confirm the factual existence of the property and its possession or management.

Individuals may also obtain legal assistance to restore missing documents and prepare an evidentiary base for further compensation procedures.

How can it be proven that property damage was caused specifically by military aggression?

The key issue is establishing a causal link between the event (shelling, explosion, etc.) and the damage to the property.

For this purpose, applicants may submit various types of evidence, including:

• documents confirming ownership or use of the property;
• photo and video documentation of the damage;
• public materials and media reports about relevant events in a specific period;
• extracts from the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations confirming the initiation of criminal proceedings;
• documents confirming recognition of the person as a victim in criminal proceedings.

In practice, one of the most important types of evidence is criminal-law documentation of the event, which confirms that the damage is related to hostilities.

How does the commission act in case of doubts regarding the cause of damage?

If the causal link is not obvious, the commission for reviewing issues related to compensation for damaged and destroyed real estate (hereinafter — the commission) may request additional documents or technical expert reports confirming that the damage resulted specifically from military aggression, and not from other factors (such as building wear or poor technical condition).

In such cases, the commission’s decision depends on the completeness of the submitted evidence and its overall assessment.

Do apartment owners in multi-apartment buildings have the right to housing certificates?

A separate practical issue concerns multi-apartment buildings affected by missile strikes or other forms of damage. In such cases, the question arises whether the owner of an individual apartment is entitled to compensation in the form of a housing certificate.

Judicial practice has already formed an approach according to which the object of assessment is not the entire building as a single structure, but the apartment as a separate object of property rights. The key factor is whether the specific housing unit can continue to perform its intended function.

If the commission refuses to issue a certificate, referring to the possibility of restoring the building as a whole, such decisions may be challenged in court. In a number of cases, courts have ruled in favor of applicants and recognized the right of apartment owners to receive housing certificates regardless of whether the entire building will be restored.

Can commission decisions be appealed?

Yes, commission decisions may be appealed in administrative court proceedings. In practice, such disputes are most often reviewed by appellate courts.

If the court rules in favor of the applicant, commissions usually comply with the decision, as further appeal is less common due to procedural and financial constraints.

How to proceed if the commission has no technical specialist to assess the degree of damage?

In practice, when reviewing claims related to damaged or destroyed property, situations often arise where the commission does not include a qualified technical specialist capable of accurately determining the level of destruction of an object.

In such cases, a conditional classification of damage is applied:

• over 80% damage — the object is considered effectively destroyed and not subject to restoration;
• up to 80% — the object is considered damaged and potentially suitable for restoration.

If the commission lacks technical expertise, the applicant is advised to independently initiate a construction and technical inspection.

Such an expert report allows to:

• record the actual condition of the property;
• determine the degree of damage in percentage terms;
• provide a professional conclusion on the possibility of restoration.

In some communities, such technical inspections have even been financed by local or state funds, but in practice, in most cases, the costs are borne by the applicant.

How are expert conclusions used?

If the expert report states that the damage exceeds 80%, the applicant may use this document as the main piece of evidence confirming that the property has been destroyed.

Such a conclusion is typically integrated into the commission’s case file and becomes a key basis for decision-making.

Can the commission disagree with an expert report?

Yes, in practice the commission may disagree with the conclusions of an independent expert and reach a different assessment regarding the degree of damage.

In such cases, the following situations are possible:

• the commission classifies the object as damaged rather than destroyed;
• or establishes a lower percentage of destruction than indicated in the technical report.

However, such decisions are not final and may be appealed in administrative court.

What are the possible consequences of appealing?

In the event of judicial appeal, the applicant may submit an additional forensic expert report, which carries higher evidentiary value in dispute proceedings.

If the court rules in favor of the applicant, this may result in:

• cancellation of the commission’s decision;
• an order for re-examination of the application;
• reimbursement of legal costs.

Thus, even in cases of disagreement between the commission and technical experts, the dispute can ultimately be resolved through the court system.

Can the commission refuse based on the applicant’s financial situation?

No. The financial situation of the applicant, as well as the existence of debts or asset seizures, is not included in the list of legal grounds for refusal.

The commission may only refuse or suspend consideration of a case on grounds expressly provided by regulatory acts. Therefore, any decisions based on “informal” reasons — for example, lack of documentation without proper justification — may be challenged in court.

 

If you have suffered losses, do not delay. It is important to properly document the damage, collect evidence, and choose an effective strategy: court proceedings, compensation programs, or both simultaneously.

The law firm “DE-JURE” specializes in cases related to compensation for war-related damages. We support clients at all stages — from evidence collection to court representation.