Unanimous consent from neighbours is no longer required: How the rules of eVidnovlennia changed in 2026

In February, we wrote about what seemed to be an almost impossible problem: how to reach an agreement among all co-owners of a building when one collective decision has to be made but opinions differ. We looked at both the psychology of such negotiations and the financial logic of ownership consolidation, because for decades unanimous consent had been the main obstacle to any collective decision concerning multi-apartment housing in Ukraine.

In 2026, this problem was partially removed — at least in one specific case. And it is worth examining in detail, because the change is significant not only for compensation recipients, but also for the broader way shared ownership is approached.

What has changed

Under the eVidnovlennia programme for damaged (but not destroyed) housing, a new procedure now applies: one co-owner may submit a compensation application on behalf of all co-owners, and the consent of the others is automatically deemed to have been obtained if none of them files an objection within 15 days.

This is fundamentally different from the previous logic of “collect everyone’s signatures first”, which had long slowed the process down. The burden of action has now shifted from the person seeking to move something forward to the person seeking to prevent it. If no one objects, the process proceeds.

An important clarification: this rule applies to damaged housing that can be repaired. Compensation for destroyed housing — where a housing certificate or a larger cash payment is involved — still requires the consent of all co-owners. The state has distinguished between these two situations according to the level of risk: the larger the amount involved and the more irreversible the consequences of the decision, the higher the required threshold of consent.

Another change introduced in 2026 benefits the same group of owners. If they have already repaired their homes at their own expense — either before receiving compensation or without waiting for it — they can still apply retroactively by providing evidence of both the damage and the completed repairs, including receipts for materials and works. This removes another barrier: owners no longer have to choose between “living in a damaged apartment while waiting for compensation” and “paying for the repairs themselves and losing the right to compensation”.

Why this matters beyond eVidnovlennia recipients

At first glance, this may appear to be a narrow technical change within a single government programme. But it establishes a broader principle in practice: the state has effectively confirmed what DOMOVA has been telling owners of ageing and damaged housing for years — unanimity should not be a prerequisite for action when there is a transparent notification mechanism and a defined period in which objections can be raised.

This is the same logic that DOMOVA is seeking to establish when consolidating building owners for a sale to a redevelopment investor — except that, for such decisions, there is currently no legal presumption of consent on which to rely. In practice, this means a structured process: clear information for every owner, a defined period for making a decision, and transparent communication. However, final consent still has to be obtained from each owner individually, rather than simply waiting to see whether anyone objects.

The state has applied the principle of presumed consent to a relatively simple and short-term decision — an application for repair compensation. Whether this logic will be extended to more complex and long-term decisions, such as selling an entire building to an investor or participating in the comprehensive reconstruction of a neighbourhood, remains an open question. This is precisely what is currently being discussed in the Verkhovna Rada in connection with Draft Law No. 6458.

What this means for owners right now

If your building was damaged by shelling and needs repairs, but the process previously stalled because it was impossible to collect signatures or obtain the consent of all neighbours, it is worth checking the programme conditions again. What seemed like a dead end just a year ago may now be resolved after a 15-day waiting period rather than months of negotiations.

For owners of buildings that were not damaged by shelling but have become physically and functionally obsolete, this indicates the direction in which government policy is moving: away from the logic that “the consent of every individual owner takes precedence over everything else” and towards a model based on “a transparent process with the right to object”. If this approach is extended to more complex decisions concerning ageing housing stock, collective decisions by owners will no longer be merely theoretically possible — they will become practically achievable.