BTI archive in occupied territory: how to prove house ownership in court

A house in Luhansk Oblast, a certificate of ownership from 1990 in hand, and nothing in the State Register of Property Rights to Real Estate. The state registrar refuses: the archive of the Bureau of Technical Inventory (BTI), where registration records are kept, stayed in the occupied territory, and there is nothing to confirm the right with. The way out is a claim to recognise ownership under Article 392 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. In October 2026 the Pavlohrad City and District Court of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast issued two such judgments in cases where I prepared the claims: both houses are in the same village of Svatove District, the BTI archive is unavailable in both, and both claims were granted. Here I explain which documents persuaded the court, who the defendant is and what to do with the judgment next.

In brief: 6 key points

• Ownership of real estate that arose before 1 January 2013 is recognised as valid if it was registered under the law in force at that time. The absence of an entry in the current State Register of Property Rights to Real Estate does not, by itself, cancel the right.
• When the BTI archive is in a temporarily occupied territory, the state registrar cannot check the old entry and refuses. In that case the court confirms the right under Article 392 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
• The court does not create a new right; it confirms one acquired earlier. This is how the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court reads Article 392 in its resolution of 19.05.2020 in case № 916/1608/18.
• The key evidence is the certificate of ownership, the BTI registration entry, the technical passport and the registrar's refusal stating the reason "archive in occupation".
• In both cases the defendant was the settlement military administration of the community where the houses are located. It did not object to the claims.
• In cases № 185/3351/26 and № 185/3348/26 the court recognised private ownership of residential houses with outbuildings. About seven months passed from filing the claim to the judgment.

Why the registrar refuses when the BTI archive is in occupation

Before 2013, ownership of houses was registered by the Bureau of Technical Inventory (BTI). Entries were made in paper register books, and they did not move automatically into the electronic State Register of Property Rights to Real Estate. To carry an old right over into the new register, the state registrar must make sure the registration really took place. For this he asks the BTI or the body that holds the archive.

In the first case the registrar did exactly that. He sent a request to the settlement military administration, which replied: residents of the community used the services of the BTI of Kreminna District, but the archive of this BTI has not been evacuated and is in the occupied territory, so it is impossible to provide information about the registration. Consideration of the application was suspended, the circumstances were not removed, and the registrar refused, citing paragraph 8 of Article 24 of the Law of Ukraine "On State Registration of Property Rights to Real Estate and Their Encumbrances".

In the second case the ground is the same: the holder of the required information is the municipal BTI enterprise, which is in a temporarily occupied territory. The court specifically noted that the registrar's decision does not establish that the house belongs to another person and does not declare the certificate of ownership invalid. The refusal is technical: the registrar does not say "there is no right", he says "I cannot verify it".

Is ownership formalised before 2013 still valid

Yes, if it was formalised under the rules of that time. Part 3 of Article 3 of the Law "On State Registration of Property Rights to Real Estate and Their Encumbrances" recognises as valid property rights that arose before 1 January 2013 under one of two conditions: the registration was carried out in line with the law in force when the right arose, or the law at that time did not provide for mandatory registration at all.

In the first case the court also relied on two more Supreme Court resolutions:

• of 10.04.2019 in case № 522/4689/16-ц — rights that arose before the Law came into force are recognised as valid if mandatory registration was not required at that time;
• of 20.05.2020 in case № 303/6974/16-ц — the absence of registration under this Law does not deprive a person of the rights of possession and use of property that belongs to that person by right of ownership.

In the second case the court put it in its own words: the absence of information in current electronic registers does not, by itself, disprove ownership that was acquired and formalised in accordance with the law in force when it arose.

Article 392 of the Civil Code: the court confirms a right, it does not create a new one

Article 392 of the Civil Code of Ukraine allows an owner to file a claim to recognise ownership in two situations: if the right is disputed or not recognised by another person, or if the owner has lost the document that certifies the right.

Literally, neither situation fits: nobody disputes the house, and the certificate has been kept. Even so, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court explained in its resolution of 19.05.2020 in case № 916/1608/18 that the rule of Article 392 also applies when the documents a person holds do not allow ownership of real estate to be confirmed beyond dispute. There is one condition: the right to this property is not registered in the name of another person. In the same resolution the Grand Chamber stressed that a court judgment under Article 392 does not give rise to ownership, but only confirms an existing right acquired earlier on lawful grounds.

This is the starting point the court took in the second case: the claimant is not asking the court to create a new ownership right, but relies on a right acquired and formalised earlier, which needs judicial protection because state registration cannot be completed.

Before filing a claim, order an information certificate from the State Register of Property Rights to Real Estate for the address of the house. If the right of another person is already registered there, the logic of Article 392 in this form does not work, and a different way of protecting the right is needed.

First the registrar, then the court

It is better to file the claim not instead of going to the registrar, but after that. A refusal worded "BTI archive in the occupied territory" is evidence that there is no out-of-court way to confirm the right. In both of our cases it became one of the key documents, and in the first the court stated directly: there is no other way to confirm the claimant's ownership and enter the information in the State Register of Property Rights to Real Estate.

There is no need to travel to an occupied region or a frontline zone for this. In the first case the court relied on Order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine of 09.06.2023 № 2179/5 "On Carrying Out State Registration Within Several Administrative-Territorial Units": registration of rights to real estate located, in particular, in Luhansk Oblast is carried out regardless of where the property is located. The registrar who refused in the first case worked at an Administrative Services Centre (TsNAP) in Kirovohrad Oblast.

The specifics of state registration under martial law are set by Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (CMU) of 06.03.2022 № 209, which the court also cited. Before applying to the registrar, check its current version: the rules have changed several times.

Who is the defendant and which court to file in

There is no dispute over the right in such cases, but a claim without a defendant is impossible. In both cases the defendant was the Krasnorichenske Settlement Military Administration of Svatove District, Luhansk Oblast — the body that now exercises local self-government powers in the community where the houses are located, and which itself informed the registrar that the archive is unavailable. The military administration did not object to the claims; in one case it filed a request to consider the case without its participation, in the other it did not file a statement of defence.

Both cases were heard by the Pavlohrad City and District Court of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast. Courts located in an occupied territory or near the front line do not administer justice, and their cases are transferred to other courts under Part 7 of Article 147 of the Law of Ukraine "On the Judicial System and the Status of Judges". The list changes, so before filing check which court currently hears cases of your community. A claim can be filed through the E-Court (Electronic Court) system, as was done in the first case.

Which documents proved ownership

The court assesses evidence as a whole, and in both cases the main argument was that the documents were consistent: the certificate, the registration entry and the technical passport contain the same information about the owner, the address and the characteristics of the house.

In the first case the court even examined on what basis the house was built: the technical passport contained information that a household plot was allocated by a village council decision back in 1977. The information certificate from the register also showed that the land plot under the house was already registered in the claimant's name. This strengthened the position, although it was not required.

If the certificate or the technical passport is lost, the chances of a claim under Article 392 are much lower: the court will have nothing to confirm that the right arose at all. Start by looking for copies with notaries, in banks (if the house was ever mortgaged) and in family archives. On restoring documents, see the page on obtaining duplicates of documents.

Two cases from one village: what the court decided

The cases were heard by different judges of the same court, in different procedures, but the conclusion is the same.

In both judgments the court recognised the claimant's private ownership of a residential house with outbuildings and structures, stating the address and area. This matters: the state registrar later enters exactly these details in the register, and the more precisely they match the technical passport, the fewer questions there will be at registration.

Both are first-instance court judgments that have not entered into legal force as of the date of publication: the appeal period is thirty days from the date the judgment was announced.

How much it costs and how long it takes

A claim to recognise ownership is a property claim, so a court fee is paid for it. In the second case the claimant paid 1064,96 UAH, and the court recovered this amount from the defendant under Article 141 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. In the first case the claimant himself asked to bear the court costs, and the court took this request into account. The amount of the fee depends on the value of the property and the subsistence minimum for the year the claim is filed, so the figure from these cases is a guide, not a tariff.

As for timing: the claims reached the court in February and March 2026, and the judgments were issued on 14 and 15 October 2026, about seven months later. Neither the claimants nor the representative travelled to a hearing — the cases were heard without their participation, at the request made in the claim. After the judgment is announced, the thirty-day appeal period runs, and only then does the judgment enter into legal force.

What to do after the court judgment

1. Wait for the judgment to enter into legal force and obtain a copy with the relevant mark.
2. Apply to a state registrar or a notary with an application for state registration of ownership on the basis of the court judgment. For property in Luhansk Oblast, any registrar in Ukraine will do.
3. Obtain an extract from the State Register of Property Rights to Real Estate and check the address, area and list of buildings against the court judgment.
4. Check the land documents. If the plot under the house is not registered, that is a separate matter, best resolved right away.

The register entry matters for more than "good order". Without it the house cannot be sold, donated or passed on by inheritance in the usual way, and after the owner's death the heirs would have to prove the same right again — already without the person who remembers the history of the documents. How to handle an inheritance when the property is in an occupied territory and documents are missing is covered on the page of the family attorney; and if the owner himself died in a combat zone, the first step may be establishing the fact of death through the court.

Common mistakes

• Going to court without the registrar's refusal. Without it, it is harder for the court to see that there is no out-of-court way.
• Filing under Article 392 without checking the register. If the right to the house is already registered in someone else's name, this route does not fit.
• Not checking the documents against each other. A mismatch in area, house number or the spelling of a surname between the certificate and the technical passport must be explained in the claim, not left in the hope that the court will not notice.
• Choosing the wrong defendant. A claim against the registrar or against the state in general, instead of the body that represents the community, delays the case.
• Stopping at the court judgment. The judgment is the basis for registration, not the registration itself. Without applying to the registrar, nothing will appear in the State Register of Property Rights to Real Estate.

Frequently asked questions

Can a house be registered without going to court if the BTI archive stayed in the occupied territory?

It is worth trying that first, and going to court only after a refusal. A state registrar can carry into the State Register of Property Rights to Real Estate a right formalised before 2013 if he confirms the old entry through electronic archives or a request to the body that holds the BTI documents. For property in Luhansk Oblast you can apply to any registrar or notary in Ukraine: in our first case the application was considered by a registrar in Kirovohrad Oblast. The problem arises when the paper BTI archive has not been evacuated and there is no data in the electronic registers. In cases № 185/3351/26 and № 185/3348/26 the registrars refused in 2024 for exactly this reason. Such a refusal is not the end: it becomes evidence that there is no other way to confirm the right, and it opens the way to a claim to recognise ownership under Article 392 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.

Who should be the defendant in a claim to recognise ownership of a house in an occupied community?

In cases № 185/3351/26 and № 185/3348/26 the defendant was the settlement military administration of the community on whose territory the houses are located. It exercises local self-government powers while the community is occupied or in a combat zone, and it was the one that informed the registrar that the BTI archive had not been evacuated. The court heard both cases with such a defendant and granted the claims; the military administration did not object to them. The state registrar who refused registration was not a defendant: his decision was used as evidence. If a council still operates in your community instead of a military administration, the defendant will be different, so the status of the body on the date of filing is worth checking. The result of one case does not automatically carry over to others, but the logic of choosing the defendant — the body that represents the community at the place where the property is located — worked in these cases.

Which documents are needed for the court to recognise ownership of an old house?

The minimum set in our cases was four documents. First, the certificate of ownership of the residential house; in both cases it was issued on 15.01.1990, and in one a notarised copy was submitted to the court. Second, the BTI registration entry or registration card with the date of registration, the register book number and the register number. Third, the technical passport of the house with the address, area, plan and list of outbuildings. Fourth, the state registrar's decision refusing registration, explaining that the BTI archive is unavailable. It is worth adding an information certificate from the State Register of Property Rights to Real Estate: it shows that the house is not registered in the name of another person, and this is a condition for applying Article 392 of the Civil Code of Ukraine under the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in case № 916/1608/18. Documents for the land plot under the house are not mandatory, but, as the first case showed, they strengthen the position.

How much is the court fee and can it be recovered from the defendant?

A claim to recognise ownership is a property claim, so the court fee depends on the value of the house and the subsistence minimum for the year the claim is filed. In case № 185/3348/26 the claimant paid 1064,96 UAH, and under Article 141 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine the court recovered this amount from the defendant, the settlement military administration. In case № 185/3351/26 the claimant himself asked to leave the court costs with him, and the court did not recover them. Both options are lawful, and the choice is up to the claimant. An argument for bearing the costs yourself: the defendant did not violate the right and did not object to the claim, so a demand to recover the fee may seem unnecessary and provoke objections. An argument against: as a general rule the law puts court costs on the party against whom the judgment is issued.

How long does such a case take?

In our cases, about seven months from filing the claim to the judgment. The first claim was filed on 05.03.2026 through the E-Court and the judgment was issued on 15.10.2026; proceedings on the second claim were opened on 12.03.2026 and the judgment was issued on 14.10.2026. The court heard one case in simplified proceedings without summoning the parties and the other in general claim proceedings, but this made almost no difference to the timing. Neither the claimants nor the representative travelled to a hearing: the claim contained a request to hear the case without their participation. The timing is affected first of all by the workload of the court to which cases from occupied territories have been transferred. After the judgment is announced, the thirty-day appeal period runs. Only once the judgment enters into legal force can you take it to the registrar, so overall, from the claim to the register entry, plan for about eight to nine months.

What does a court judgment give if the house is still in the occupied territory?

A court judgment that has entered into legal force is the basis for state registration of ownership. After registration the right is visible in the State Register of Property Rights to Real Estate, and the house no longer exists only on paper from 1990, which can be lost or damaged. This has practical value already now. A registered right can be passed on by inheritance without proving it in court again, it can be donated, and in the future the house can be sold or rebuilt. If the property is damaged or destroyed as a result of armed aggression, a register entry will also make the question of compensation easier, although the conditions of such programmes for occupied territories are separate and should be checked on the date of application. The judgment does not restore access to the house and does not change the fact that the territory is occupied. It records who the house belongs to while witnesses and documents are still available.

This material is based on the judgments of the Pavlohrad City and District Court of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast of 14.10.2026 in case № 185/3348/26 and of 15.10.2026 in case № 185/3351/26. Personal data of the parties is not given. The article is for information only and is not legal advice for your situation; check that the mentioned provisions are in force on the date you apply.

The registrar refused because the BTI archive stayed in occupation, and you have the documents for the house? Write to me — we will check the documents and the register, determine the defendant and the court, and prepare a claim to recognise ownership. Consultations are held in Ukrainian or Russian; written communication in English is available.