Vehicles Seized for the Needs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Cannot Be Returned Until the End of the War — What Courts Say

In the conditions of a full-scale war, the boundary between private property rights and the interests of the state becomes extremely thin. The introduction of martial law in Ukraine in February 2022 radically changed everyone's life, and the legal space affecting this life also changed. For many citizens and businesses, an unexpected challenge was the possibility of property requisition — a procedure by which the state can forcibly seize property for defense needs.

Requisition is not just seizure; it is a complex legal mechanism where the state undertakes the obligation to compensate for losses. However, as practice in 2025–2026 shows, the path to this compensation lies through knowledge of the procedure and the current positions of the Supreme Court. Practice proves that the right to compensation does not yet guarantee its actual receipt. Compliance with the procedure is key — from proper execution of the seizure act to correct fixation of the market value of the property and timely appeal to the court.

The greatest risks for owners arise precisely due to procedural errors. The absence of an act of the established form, improper description of the property, or uncertainty in its valuation can significantly complicate further damage compensation.

Conditions of lawful requisition

Requisition, i.e., forced alienation, is the deprivation of the owner's property rights to the property, which passes to the state for use under martial law on the condition of full reimbursement of its value.

Analysis of the norms of Article 41 of the Constitution of Ukraine, Article 353 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, and Laws No. 389-VIII and No. 4765-VI allows highlighting mandatory conditions, without compliance with which the seizure is illegal.

Unlike the seizure of state property, the property of private individuals is alienated exclusively with prior or subsequent full reimbursement of its market value.

The right to make decisions on requisition belongs only to the highest military command (Armed Forces of Ukraine, Main Intelligence Directorate, State Border Guard Service, etc.) in agreement with the state administration. Without agreement, decisions can be made only in places of direct combat.

The fact of seizure must be certified by an Act of the established form, which records the characteristics of the property and the amount of its valuation.

Before alienation, an assessment of the market value of the property is carried out, and its conclusion is provided to the owner.

Compensation mechanism

Ukrainian legislation formally guarantees owners the right to compensation for requisitioned property. Two reimbursement mechanisms are provided: preliminary compensation — before signing the act of forced alienation, and subsequent — after the cancellation of martial law.

However, in practice, the realization of this right in 2025–2026 remains a complicated and lengthy procedure.

The first step is obtaining a copy of the act of forced alienation of property and the valuation conclusion. These documents become the key evidentiary basis for future receipt of funds.

The second stage is submitting a compensation claim to the military administration or the territorial recruitment center at the place of property seizure.

After that, authorized bodies conduct document verification. The law allows up to 30 days for this, after which a decision on compensation payment must be made.

What happens in practice

The real situation significantly differs from the legislative model. Property owners most often face delays in payments, which on average last from 8 to 14 months.

A separate problem remains the undervaluation of requisitioned property. In many cases, the valuation turns out to be 30–50% lower than the market value, forcing owners to go to court and initiate repeated expert evaluations.

Another common risk is attempts to formalize requisition as a "voluntary transfer" of property for defense needs. Such an approach effectively deprives the owner of the right to guaranteed compensation by law.

That is why it is worth documenting all circumstances of the seizure as thoroughly as possible — from photo fixation of the property to preserving every procedural document. In modern realities, this often becomes a decisive factor for successfully obtaining compensation.

Analysis of judicial practice

Judicial practice in disputes over property requisition during the full-scale war has significantly changed. While at the initial stage courts mostly formally confirmed the legality of actions by military administrations and military units, in 2024–2026 the emphasis shifted to checking the principle of proportionality of interference with private property rights.

Case No. 712/3525/23: an important precedent

The circumstances of the case concerned the owner's claim to return a vehicle seized for the needs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine under martial law.

Considering the dispute, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court emphasized that requisition is a permissible state interference in private property rights provided that such interference pursues a legitimate aim — ensuring the defense of the state and national security.

At the same time, the court analyzed the legality of the interference, the presence of a legitimate aim, and the proportionality of the restriction of property rights.

The Supreme Court confirmed that under martial law, public interest may prevail over private interest, but only with strict adherence to the procedures defined by law.

As a result, the court refused to return the vehicle to the owner. The Grand Chamber concluded that during martial law, the owner of requisitioned property has the right primarily to monetary compensation, not to the actual return of the vehicle.

That is, requisitioned property used for defense needs is not subject to return until the special legal regime ends, even if the owner challenges the seizure itself.

At the same time, the court separately emphasized that the state is obliged to ensure an effective compensation mechanism, and any violations of the valuation or payment procedure may be the subject of a separate court dispute.

Case No. 947/10086/24 dated 11.02.2026

The plaintiff, who has the status of a person with a disability, challenged the requisition of a vehicle. The main argument was a violation of the property valuation procedure: the expert valuation was conducted after the act of forced alienation was drawn up, and the vehicle itself was not directly provided to the expert.

According to the plaintiff, such violations call into question the legality of the entire requisition procedure and should lead to the return of the property.

The Supreme Court took a different position regarding the nature of the requisition act. The court emphasized that the act of forced alienation is not a transaction in the civil law sense but an administrative-legal document that records the legal fact of the transfer of property to the state under martial law.

It follows that the cancellation of such an act itself does not restore ownership rights and does not create an automatic obligation to return the property to the previous owner. Moreover, the court stressed that in some cases such cancellation may actually deprive a person of the procedural basis for further compensation claims if there is no proper evidence of the fact and conditions of requisition.

The Supreme Court paid special attention to the issue of property valuation. The court explicitly stated that violations of the expert valuation procedure or its chronological sequence alone are not sufficient grounds for returning property during martial law.

The key is not formal deviation from the procedure but establishing the fact of actual seizure of property for defense needs and the existence of grounds for compensation.

As a result, the Supreme Court overturned the decisions of lower courts that ordered the return of the vehicle to the plaintiff. The court confirmed that under martial law, the priority is to ensure the state's defense needs, and protection of property rights is mainly realized in the form of monetary compensation.

Thus, even significant shortcomings in valuation or requisition documentation most often turn not into property return but into disputes over the amount of monetary compensation.

Case No. 369/2600/23 – under consideration by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court

The case concerns the requisition of real estate, namely 22 apartments in Sofiyivska Borshchahivka for the needs of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense.

The Main Intelligence Directorate seized the apartments to create a fund of official housing instead of those destroyed by shelling. The owner argued that there were no hostilities in the area and that requisition of apartments without repair was not an urgent need.

The panel of judges referred the case to the Grand Chamber to clarify whether the same proportionality criteria can be applied to movable property (cars) and real estate (housing), especially in regions far from the front line.

The court must determine whether the state must prove a specific public need for each real estate object, rather than simply referring to defense needs.

Claims for recovery of property value

Courts in Ukraine consistently proceed from the fact that during martial law, the return of requisitioned property is an exceptional measure and is applied extremely rarely. Even in cases of procedural violations, judicial practice focuses on preserving the state's defense interests.

Therefore, the main defense strategy becomes not a vindicatory claim for property recovery but claims for recovery of its market value and proper compensation.

The act of forced alienation and the valuation conclusion are important documents for receiving funds from the state. Any defects in these documents, such as missing signatures or undervalued price, must be challenged immediately but with the understanding that the fact of requisition itself will remain in force.

The general statute of limitations for claims related to compensation for requisitioned property is three years from the moment of its seizure. Missing this deadline significantly complicates the possibility of effective judicial protection, even in the presence of formal violations by authorities.

Practical advice

Considering the established judicial practice, several basic steps can be highlighted:

• refuse to sign documents on voluntary transfer of property if the goal is to receive compensation;
• mandatory photo and video fixation of the property's condition at the time of seizure;
• require involvement of an independent appraiser or subsequently challenge the undervalued price;
• promptly respond to procedural violations;
• use the judicial mechanism as the main tool for forced recovery of compensation in case of delays by the state.

Read more about why enterprises in Ukraine can receive significant fines from recruitment centers even when they actually have neither transport nor employees in the article by the "Judicial and Legal Newspaper" Recruitment Centers Demand Businesses Report on Transport Even in Its Absence.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram account to stay informed about the most important events.