{"id":31016,"date":"2026-08-17T15:09:22","date_gmt":"2026-08-17T12:09:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ldn.org.ua\/?post_type=event&p=31016"},"modified":"2026-08-17T15:12:22","modified_gmt":"2026-08-17T12:12:22","slug":"pravova-dopomoha-iak-skladova-vidnovlennia-tendentsii-potreb-meshkantsiv-deokupovanykh-hromad-pivdnia-za-danymy-link","status":"publish","type":"event","link":"https:\/\/ldn.org.ua\/en\/event\/pravova-dopomoha-iak-skladova-vidnovlennia-tendentsii-potreb-meshkantsiv-deokupovanykh-hromad-pivdnia-za-danymy-link\/","title":{"rendered":"Legal Aid as a Component of Recovery: Trends in the Legal Needs of Residents of De-occupied Communities in Southern Ukraine, Based on LINK Data"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The legal component of the LINK local humanitarian response coordination mechanism has been administered by the Legal Development Network since 2024, in partnership with the Czech humanitarian organisation People in Need and with financial support from the UK Government. Humanitarian response lawyers identify unnoticed legal needs during field visits to settlements in the de-occupied hromadas (communities) of Mykolaiv and Kherson oblasts, provide legal information and refer complex cases to partner organisations.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over two years of operation, the component has accumulated a dataset of 805 requests, which makes it possible to see not isolated stories but patterns: which legal issues residents raise, how these issues change over time and what prevents people from resolving them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These patterns are seen most clearly where they emerged simultaneously among several dozen people in a single hromada.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Twenty-one technical passports<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In Pliushchivka hromada in Mykolaiv Oblast, twenty-one families were unable to apply for compensation for damaged housing. The reason lay neither in a refusal by the state nor in the complexity of the procedure itself: the residents had no technical passports for their houses, and without these it is impossible to register ownership. Obtaining a passport costs money that these families did not have.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The problem was identified not by the residents themselves but by LINK lawyers \u2014 during a routine field visit to collect needs. It emerged that these were not isolated cases but a systemic situation within a single hromada. The lawyers collected 21 requests, passed them to the partner organisation the Norwegian Refugee Council (hereinafter \u2014 NRC) and subsequently accompanied the process with the municipal Bureau of Technical Inventory (BTI). NRC paid for the production of technical passports for all beneficiaries; as of June 2026, ten passports had already been issued.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Data from the LINK legal component for 2024\u20132026 show that this is a pattern. The legal need existed, but was not channelled towards resolution until a lawyer arrived in the village. The obstacle proved to be not the law, but the absence of funds to produce a document. And the issue was resolved only because a partner was found who was willing to cover the associated costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This analysis examines which legal issues residents raise, how these issues change over time and what prevents people from bringing them to resolution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

About the data<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Between May 2024 and early August 2026, the LINK legal component recorded 805 requests from 730<\/strong> residents of 124 settlements in 28 hromadas<\/strong> of Mykolaiv and Kherson oblasts. The distribution of requests between the two oblasts is almost equal: 409 requests (50.8%) came from hromadas in Kherson Oblast and 395 (49.1%) from hromadas in Mykolaiv Oblast. The overwhelming majority of requests \u2014 84.8%<\/strong> \u2014 were recorded directly during field visits to collect needs. A further 5.2% came in by telephone, 5.6% through referrals from humanitarian needs managers and other organisations, and the remainder during legal awareness and group events. This distribution is key to understanding all the conclusions that follow: the legal component records not the demand that a person brought to a lawyer on their own initiative, but the demand identified during engagement with residents of the hromadas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Who seeks legal assistance<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

80.5% of requests came from women<\/strong>, 50.1% from people aged 60 and over<\/strong>, and a further 45.7% from people aged 35\u201359. The share of young people under 35 is less than 4%. Pensioners account for 42.0% of all recorded client categories, compared with 11.7% in the rest of the registry, whereas internally displaced persons show the opposite pattern \u2014 16.3% against 42.2%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By client category, the largest group is pensioners \u2014 317 requests. They are followed by internally displaced persons (123), persons with disabilities (41), family members of service personnel (31) and low-income persons (22). In practice, the legal component works with that part of the population of de-occupied hromadas which either never left or was the first to return: older women who stayed behind to look after homes and smallholdings, and for whom travelling to the district centre for a consultation is a barrier in its own right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The structure of legal needs<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Almost half of all requests \u2014 46.5%<\/strong> \u2014 fall within two branches of law: civil law (228 requests, 28.3%) and inheritance law (146, 18.1%). These are followed, by a considerable margin, by administrative law (87, 10.8%), land law (68, 8.4%), social security (60, 7.5%) and pension law (59, 7.3%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This structure differs fundamentally from the structure of requests to member organisations of the Legal Development Network in other oblasts, where social security and military law occupy the leading positions. In the de-occupied hromadas of the South, property-related legal issues dominate \u2014 questions of ownership, inheritance and the documentation of rights to real estate and land.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

* Note: data for 2026 cover the period up to 6 August 2026 and are not complete for the year.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The balance between branches remains stable throughout the observation period. The only category showing pronounced growth is pension law: from 2 requests in 2024 to 39 in 2025. This is linked to the gradual restoration of access for residents of de-occupied hromadas to Pension Fund services, and to the accumulation of questions about the recalculation of pensions for periods when a person was in occupied territory or displaced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Behind the branches of law lie specific administrative procedures<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The breakdown by sub-branch of law shows that this is not a matter of abstract legal advice, but of a narrow set of recurring procedures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

158 requests (19.6%)<\/strong> concern the registration or restoration of rights and documents: ownership rights, registration actions, privatisation, and the restoration of lost documents. 289 requests (35.9%)<\/strong> are directly related to the consequences of the armed aggression \u2014 compensation for damaged and destroyed property, IDP status, the consequences of occupation, and matters affecting service personnel and their families. The share of such requests is not falling but rising: 35.0% in 2024, 33.7% in 2025 and 40.2% in 2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The requests show that the key obstacle is not ignorance of the law as such, but the gap between the actual state of affairs and its documentary reflection. A woman has lived in her own house for more than ten years \u2014 yet the notarial contract with the previous owner was never signed. Formally, the housing appears not to exist: no register holds information about the house, even though the owner holds documents confirming her right. In other cases, a person lives in a home that does not officially belong to them and that has been destroyed by the war \u2014 but the actual owner left long ago and cannot submit a compensation application. The compensation mechanism for destroyed housing turns out to be inaccessible not because of a refusal, but because ownership was never registered, or was inherited de facto, without formalisation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kherson and Mykolaiv oblasts: a shared frame, different emphases<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Both oblasts share the same “top” of the structure \u2014 civil and inheritance law \u2014 yet the emphases differ. In Kherson Oblast hromadas the shares of inheritance (20.8% against 15.5%) and land (9.6% against 7.4%) matters are higher. In Mykolaiv Oblast hromadas the shares of administrative (12.7% against 8.8%), pension (8.9% against 5.9%) and housing law (7.9% against 2.7%) are noticeably higher.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This reflects the difference in the security situation and in the stage of recovery. Mykolaiv Oblast hromadas, most of which lie outside the zone of systematic shelling, have moved on to restoring administrative services and rebuilding housing \u2014 hence the demand for registration actions, documentation and housing matters. In Kherson Oblast hromadas, which remain under constant threat, the prevailing demand is to put property rights in order, inheritance rights in particular \u2014 often as a preventive step.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trends: from pilot field visits to systematic work<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The quarterly distribution of requests reflects the roll-out of the component itself rather than fluctuations in demand. After the launch in the second half of 2024 and a technical pause in early 2025, the workload reached a plateau: 191 requests in Q3 2025 and 190 in Q4. In 2026, 109, 66 and 66 requests were recorded in the first three quarters respectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The decline in 2026 does not indicate a fall in need. Rather, it points to saturation in those settlements where field visits have already taken place: after the first session, residents\u2019 most acute issues are recorded on a one-off basis, and subsequent requests come predominantly from new clients in new locations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Hromadas are named after their administrative centres.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ten hromadas account for 82.2% of all recorded legal needs. This distribution primarily reflects the intensity of field work in a particular hromada rather than the level of legal protection of its residents: in hromadas where visits were sporadic, the number of recorded needs is minimal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Results and the limits of what is possible<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

88.7% of requests<\/strong> were closed by providing consultation and clarification on legal matters, and a further 9.8% by providing legal information. The drafting of applications, complaints and other legal documents accounts for only 1.2% of cases. This reflects the model of the component: the humanitarian response lawyer acts as an entry point to the legal system, not as a representative in a case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As of August 2026, 80.5% of requests have the status “Completed”<\/strong>. A further 6.7% are in progress, 3.7% are being handled by a partner, 5.1% are no longer relevant and in 1.5% contact with the client has been lost. Two-thirds of completed requests (65%) were closed within a week of being recorded \u2014 a direct consequence of the advisory nature of the assistance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Referral to partner organisations was required in 188 requests (23.4%)<\/strong>. In practice, 99 referrals were recorded, most often to the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC, 39 cases) and the Danish Refugee Council (DRC, 13). These are followed by the NGO Southern Development Strategy (11), the NGO Tenth of April (9), Polish Humanitarian Action (4), the NGO Step (4), the Charitable Foundation I am Kherson (3) and the Charitable Foundation SKHID-SOS (3).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The gap between the need for referral and the actual number of referrals outlines a systemic constraint. Partner organisations work mainly on cases connected with overcoming the consequences of the war, whereas private-law disputes \u2014 inheritance, family and contractual \u2014 largely fall outside their specialisation and outside programmes that fund associated costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What the recipients of assistance say<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Collecting feedback on the effectiveness of assistance is an integral part of the LINK mechanism. According to information received from recipients of assistance as of early August 2026, among 71 respondents referred to a partner organisation, 22 people (31%) stated at the time of the survey that their issue had been resolved, 41 (58%) that it was in the process of being resolved, and 4 people each (6% each) that it could not be resolved or had been resolved partially. Among 252 hromada residents who received an initial consultation during a field session, the figures are higher: 136 people (54%) resolved their issue, 67 (27%) are in the process of doing so, 31 (12%) did not resolve it and 18 (7%) resolved it partially.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The difference is explained by the complexity of the cases: matters requiring court proceedings, lengthy administrative procedures or representation are referred to partners, whereas field sessions mainly resolve issues that can be settled by submitting documents to the relevant authority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Satisfaction levels are high: 69% of those surveyed answered affirmatively when asked whether they were satisfied with the process of receiving legal assistance, and among those who rated the outcome on a ten-point scale, 54 of 71 respondents gave the highest score.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Barriers: money, information, distance<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The most frequently mentioned barrier is not knowing which authority to approach in order to resolve the problem<\/strong> (179 mentions). Second comes the combined financial barrier: the lack of financial means to consult a lawyer and cover associated costs (160 mentions), compounded by the high cost of notarial and other state services (17). Third is the absence in the settlement of anyone able to provide legal assistance<\/strong> (110 mentions), together with the related logistical obstacles and the difficulty of travelling to institutions (98).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among those referred to partners, the structure of barriers shifts towards the financial: one in four (28%) cites the high cost of notarial and other state services, and 22% the lack of financial means to consult a lawyer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This points to a specific gap. Only a small number of partner organisations are able to cover notarial fees and mandatory administrative charges, and as a rule only in cases connected with overcoming the consequences of the war. In private-law matters \u2014 inheritance, family, contractual \u2014 such costs are not covered. A consultation can therefore be obtained free of charge, but acting on it cannot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How specific such a sum can be is shown by a case from Shevchenkove hromada in Mykolaiv Oblast. During a needs assessment, LINK lawyers identified a family in which a father is raising children alone and cannot formalise an inheritance: the legal and notarial costs amounted to around 60,000 hryvnias, and the family had no means to cover them. The legal position was clear, and so was the sequence of steps; all that was missing was the money for the procedure. The lawyers assessed both the legal and the financial elements, approached the Norwegian and Danish Refugee Councils and secured the partners\u2019 acceptance of the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Both of the cases described \u2014 the 21 technical passports in Pliushchivka hromada and the inheritance matter in Shevchenkove \u2014 were resolved according to the same pattern: LINK identifies a problem during a field visit, assesses its legal and financial elements, finds a partner able to cover the costs and accompanies the case to a result. This pattern is not a systemic guarantee: it works only when a particular partner has a relevant programme and the resources for it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Notably, respondents mentioned the security situation as an obstacle comparatively rarely. A likely explanation is the geography of the survey: a significant proportion of participants live in Mykolaiv Oblast hromadas, where the security situation is relatively more stable than in the front-line hromadas of Kherson Oblast.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among the reasons why an issue could not be resolved, the most frequently named are the absence of the necessary documents (15 mentions), the need to go to court (8), the absence of any result after approaching an organisation or institution (6), missed deadlines (5) and refusal by a state or local self-government body (4).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Legal needs do not exist separately from humanitarian ones<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In 60 cases (7.5% of requests) lawyers recorded that the beneficiary simultaneously had needs of a non-legal nature. Most often these were firewood (30 mentions), hygiene items and household chemicals (28), drinking water (24), food (21), cash assistance for treatment (15), construction materials (6) and adult incontinence pads (4).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is practical confirmation of the value of an integrated model: for a resident, the lawyer who comes to the village to record legal needs is the same channel of access as the humanitarian needs manager. The reverse flow also works \u2014 5.6% of requests came precisely through referrals from humanitarian needs managers and partner organisations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What this looks like in practice is shown by the case of a person injured in a military incident in Kherson Oblast. The need was complex from the outset and did not divide into “humanitarian” and “legal”: medical supplies were required, along with transport to a medical facility in Mykolaiv and the preparation of documents to obtain the relevant status. It was impossible to separate these elements \u2014 without transport there was no treatment, without documents there was no status, and without status there was no access to further support. LINK passed the case to the Danish Refugee Council and coordinated the response across the two oblasts. As a result, medical supplies were provided, transport to hospital was arranged and support was given in preparing the documents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Such cases are not exceptional. As of October 2025, the LINK team had compiled and passed to Humanity & Inclusion 294 verified requests from residents of nine Kherson Oblast hromadas in which rehabilitation, psychological, legal, cash and assistive elements were interwoven within a single situation; 222 of these were processed. Needs that remained uncovered were referred onwards to other partners.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A person injured in shelling does not come separately for medicine, separately for transport and separately for a consultation. A mechanism that accepts only one type of need forces them to make three approaches \u2014 and more often than not, to make none at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Conclusions<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
    \n
  • Legal need in de-occupied hromadas is primarily property-related. <\/strong>46.5% of requests concern civil and inheritance law, and a further 8.4% land law. This is the consequence of a decades-long deficit in the documentary formalisation of rights, which the full-scale war has made critical.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Unregistered rights block access to compensation mechanisms. <\/strong>A significant proportion of requests concerning compensation for damaged and destroyed property run up against not a refusal by the state, but the absence of registered ownership, unformalised inheritance or the absence of an owner.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • The field-visit model is decisive. <\/strong>84.8% of requests were recorded during field visits. Without the physical presence of a lawyer in the settlement, these needs would not have been channelled anywhere at all: one-third of those surveyed state that there is no one in their settlement from whom legal assistance can be obtained.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • The financial barrier is decisive at the stage of exercising a right. <\/strong>Consultation is available free of charge, yet notarial acts, technical documentation, court fees and travel to institutions remain uncompensated in private-law matters, which directly affects the share of unresolved issues. The difference between an unresolved and a resolved issue is often measured by a specific sum \u2014 the cost of a technical passport, or 60,000 hryvnias to formalise an inheritance.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • The coverage gap concerns private-law disputes. <\/strong>23.4% of requests required referral, but partners\u2019 specialisation is concentrated on the consequences of the war. Family, inheritance and contractual disputes systematically remain outside the scope of secondary legal aid within humanitarian programmes.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Priority directions for advocacy: <\/strong>simplifying the procedures for registering ownership and inheritance for residents of de-occupied and front-line territories; regulating rent payments for land plots occupied by fortifications; expanding the scope for covering notarial and administrative fees for vulnerable categories; and ensuring mobile access to notarial and registration services in settlements remote from district centres.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

    The analysis was prepared on the basis of data from the register of requests of the legal component of the LINK mechanism (805 requests, May 2024 \u2013 August 2026) and the results of beneficiary feedback collection (555 questionnaires from 493 people, October 2024 \u2013 July 2026).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Data for 2026 are incomplete.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The LINK local humanitarian response coordination mechanism is implemented by the NGO Legal Development Network in partnership with the Czech humanitarian organisation People in Need, with funding from the UK Government.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The views expressed in this material do not necessarily reflect the position of the donors and partners.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    The legal component of the LINK local humanitarian response coordination mechanism has been administered by the Legal Development Network since 2024, in partnership with the Czech humanitarian organisation People in Need and with financial support from the UK Government. Humanitarian…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":16,"featured_media":31021,"template":"","project":[],"section":[],"event-type":[],"region":[],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ldn.org.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/event\/31016"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ldn.org.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/event"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ldn.org.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/event"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ldn.org.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/16"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/ldn.org.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/event\/31016\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":31039,"href":"https:\/\/ldn.org.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/event\/31016\/revisions\/31039"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ldn.org.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/31021"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ldn.org.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31016"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"project","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ldn.org.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/project?post=31016"},{"taxonomy":"section","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ldn.org.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/section?post=31016"},{"taxonomy":"event-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ldn.org.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/event-type?post=31016"},{"taxonomy":"region","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ldn.org.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/region?post=31016"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}