Medvedchuk’s Traces and the Museum of Prominent Ukrainian Figures: Can the Kyiv City Council Save the Landmark?
Ukraine risks losing part of its historical heritage left to us by the likes of Franko, Lysenko, Kosach, Starytsky, and Tobylevych.
This concerns the Museum of Prominent Figures of Ukrainian Culture, particularly the house in Kyiv where the Ukrainian theatrical figure Panas Saksahansky lived.
In the city center, at 96-a Zhylianska Street, the developer plans to build a 16-story office-residential and hotel complex with parking right next to the Museum buildings.
Construction on this plot of land could lead to the destruction of several historical landmarks.
Photo of the LUN: Developer’s project for the object on Zhylianska Street
The plot where construction is planned was leased to LLC “NVP “Restin” by the decision of the Economic Court during the time of Mayor Leonid Chernovetsky, who is accused of state treason. Thus, Kyiv City Council practically did not vote for the transfer of this land into lease, but a year after this decision, deputies agreed to add a parking lot to the designated purpose of the plot. The term of the current agreement was repeatedly extended through court decisions. The term of this agreement expired two years ago, and as of today, the issue of terminating the contract, which should have been voted on by the city council in the interests of the community, remains unresolved. It is important to understand that even during Chernovetsky’s time, Kyiv City Council did not grant permission for LLC “Restin” to carry out construction work on this land because the plot had and still has the status of historically and culturally significant land.
Photo: Museum of Prominent Figures of Ukrainian Culture
The session is preliminarily scheduled for March 21, and the public will monitor the roll-call vote. UDAR, European Solidarity, and “Servant of the People” have assured that they support this issue. If a sufficient number of deputies from these factions attend the meeting, there should be enough votes.
The construction contractor near the Museum of Outstanding Figures is LLC “Scientific and Production Enterprise “Restin”. The founders of the company are PJSC “Aster” and LLC “KP Invest”, with the ultimate beneficial owners being Volodymyr Shuliak and Ihor Shtrel, according to YouControl data.
PJSC “Aster” and its owner Shtrel, who has worked, among other places, at the Russian “Sberbank”, have already been mentioned in the investigation by Bihus.info:
“Since autumn 2020, the companies that acted as customers for all three residential complexes by ENSO had the fund “Aster” as a co-owner, which, in turn, was owned by a typical Cypriot “matryoshka”. At the end of this chain was the company Limedell Limited, which also turned out to be associated with Medvedchuk.”
The area where “Restin” planned construction works is within the protective zones of the Museum. Nataliia Voytseshchuk, Head of the Permitting and Coordination Documentation Department of the Ministry of Culture, emphasizes this.
Voitsiashchuk notes that this corner of Kyiv has become a unique cultural hub and contributed to the Ukrainian revival of that time. Violations of the integrity and naturalness of the territory could significantly alter the characteristics or introduce substantial distortions in the perception of traditional architecture, intangible heritage, and other forms of cultural assets represented in the Museum’s exposition.
Dr. Kateryna Derevska, a Doctor of Geological Sciences and professor at the Department of Ecology at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, emphasizes that construction work will negatively impact not only the environment but also the condition of buildings, as such actions are a source of vibration and pressure on the soil, vegetation cover, and groundwater of the location. Consequently, there may be foundation flooding, destruction of building structures, the formation of cracks, and wall damage.
The most damage from construction could be inflicted on the memorial building of Saksahansky, which suffered greatly from the explosive wave during the Russian missile attack on the capital last autumn. Currently, the city has allocated funds only for emergency repairs, and a tender is already underway. However, as reported by Olha Hural, the director of the Museum of Prominent Figures of Ukrainian Culture, full-scale restoration of the building is planned after the end of the war.
And it’s important to understand that even during Chernovetsky’s time, the Kyiv City Council did not grant permission for construction work to be carried out by LLC “Restin” on this land because the plot had and still has the status of historically and culturally significant land.
However, because at that time the court did not establish that it was a museum protection zone and did not verify the land management project for compliance with the requirements of the Land Code, but only determined the inaction of the Kyiv City Council, which did not provide approval to the developer within the specified deadlines, the prosecutor’s office has been defending these cultural heritage sites in courts for several years now.
And there are already three legal cases regarding this matter.
The Prosecutor’s Office is currently demanding that the lease agreement with LLC “Restin” be declared invalid through the courts. In the first instance, in the Economic Court, law enforcement officials lost. Currently, the case is being heard on appeal (judges: Mykhailo Yakovliev, Yevhen Shaptala, Oksana Tyshchenko).
Additionally, the Prosecutor’s Office filed a lawsuit against the Department of Urban Planning and Architecture of the Kyiv City State Administration and the State Inspection of Architecture and Urban Planning. The key demand is to revoke the urban planning conditions and development restrictions and the permit for construction work.
This case was initially heard by the notoriously known judge of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv, Yevhen Ablow, who is a participant in the “Wolfs tapes” scandal. Regarding the protection of cultural heritage, he is also known for his decision to legalize the removal of the Gostinny Dvor status as a monument.
In the case of the Museum of Outstanding Ukrainian Figures, despite significant public interest and the complexity of this category of cases, Ablow refused to grant the prosecutor’s motion and appointed the hearing under simplified proceedings. Importantly, despite the dissolution of the “wolfish” District Administrative Court of Kyiv by the Verkhovna Rada, the liquidation commission has not yet transferred the case for consideration to the Kyiv District Administrative Court.
The urban planning conditions and restrictions were issued in 2014, and the permit from the State Architectural and Building Inspectorate for construction work was obtained in the summer of 2015. However, besides that, “Restin” failed to obtain any other approvals, particularly from the authorities responsible for cultural heritage.
The Ministry of Culture also seeks to protect the monument and refuses the developer’s approval of project documentation and permission for earthworks. The developer believes that the Ministry of Culture missed the deadlines for approval and is trying to argue in court that in such a case, the principle of tacit consent should apply. A similar situation occurred with another developer when a case related to St. Sophia Cathedral was heard, and a few days ago, the developer lost the lawsuit.
And now, the third legal case related to the Museum is being heard in the Kyiv District Administrative Court at the lawsuit of LLC “Restin” against the Ministry of Culture. It was referred here for reconsideration by Supreme Court Judge Larisa Tatsiy.
And here, several departments of the Kyiv City State Administration (KMDA) would immediately become involved as third parties in the case — the Department of Cultural Heritage Protection and the Department of Culture. However, they have not yet shown initiative, even though the prosecutor’s office has filed motions to join them.
By the end of March, the Kyiv City Council may make a decision to refuse to extend the lease agreement for land development in the museum’s protective zones, significantly strengthening the state’s position in the prosecutor’s lawsuits in court.
Although the prosecutor’s office is defending the state’s interests in this process, the land is owned by the community of Kyiv, which entrusted its representation to the Kyiv City Council deputies. If the decision of the deputies favors the developer — to extend the lease agreement — it will not only halt all three lawsuits in court but also force law enforcement agencies to prepare another lawsuit and challenge the decision of the Kyiv City Council.
Especially for “Left Bank“
