The government proposes suspending bona fide acquirer guarantees: new risks for the real estate market in the draft 2026 budget

In September 2025, the government submitted the draft state budget for 2026 to the Verkhovna Rada. In addition to purely financial indicators – revenue, expenditure, deficit, and macroeconomic projections – the document contains accompanying legislative initiatives. Among them, lawyers, notaries, and the real estate sector paid special attention to the proposal to temporarily suspend certain provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Concerning Protection of Bona Fide Acquirers’ Property Rights”.

This law, adopted in 2023 in response to numerous conflicts around double property sales, restitution lawsuits, and widespread fraud in state registration, introduced mechanisms to ensure stability in civil turnover. Its main purpose is to protect bona fide acquirers from losing property in cases where previous transactions are invalidated, and the risk would otherwise be transferred to the acquirer by law.

Essence of the Government Initiative
The draft budget for 2026 proposes temporarily suspending a number of provisions of this law. According to the government, it is not a full repeal but a deferred application – for the duration of martial law and one year after its completion. The rules proposed for suspension include:

• Provisions preventing recovery of property from bona fide acquirers, even when the seller lacked the legal right to dispose;
• Norms restricting prosecutors’ and state agencies’ powers in cases of illegal alienation of state and communal property;
• Mechanisms for compensation at the expense of the state or local community, if the property cannot be returned to the previous owner.

In practice, this prioritizes public interests and restoration of legal owners’ rights over the stability of private property turnover.

Government Motivation
The formal reason for this step is the challenging economic situation and the need to protect state and communal assets from illegal alienation. According to government structures, during wartime there has been a surge in grabbing state and communal property through forged court decisions or illegal actions by registrars. In many cases, such assets ended up with third parties who considered themselves bona fide acquirers.

The government believes that absolute protection of acquirers blocks the possibility for the state to recover illegally alienated land, buildings, and other assets. This negatively impacts both budget indicators and the balance of state property.

Thus, the proposed solution is presented as temporary, aimed at minimizing losses during the war and the subsequent transitional period.

Risks for the Private Sector
From a legal perspective, the initiative risks returning the real estate market to the uncertainty that existed before the “bona fide acquirer” law. Key risks include:

• Lack of confidence in transaction security. Real estate buyers again face the risk of losing ownership rights if the seller’s transaction is considered invalid.
• Growth in litigation. Suspension of the law will encourage state bodies to more widely use restitution, inevitably increasing court cases.
• Declining investment appeal. Domestic and foreign investors are unlikely to invest in assets if legal guarantees are unstable in wartime.
• Persistence of corrupt practices. Lack of finality in bona fide acquirer protection opens doors for abuse during registration and court challenges.

Professional Community Position
Notaries, lawyers, and developers have expressed concern. Professionals note that introducing temporary restrictions undermines a key civil principle – ownership stability. At the same time, some jurists acknowledge that amid mass encroachments on state assets, the government must balance private and public interests.

There are also proposals for compromise, for example:

• Special checks on state and municipal property transactions during martial law;
• State insurance for purchase and sale transactions in case of subsequent restitution;
• A clear list of property categories subject to suspension, rather than applying this to the entire market.

Constitutional Aspect
Rights advocates point to possible constitutional violations, as Article 41 directly guarantees private property. Although the Constitutional Court has recognized the state’s ability to restrict rights in wartime, proportionality and temporary nature must be precisely regulated. Having such provisions in the budget law could be grounds for constitutional appeal.

Outlook in the Verkhovna Rada
Support for the initiative is likely, given the traditional package voting logic of the budget process. However, discussions in relevant committees will be a platform for intensive debate, and the risk of amendments from pro-business or developer groups remains.

Conclusion
The government’s attempt to temporarily suspend some guarantees for bona fide acquirers via the budget reflects the current state of Ukrainian legal policy: a shift from private ownership protection toward public interest in wartime. This initiative carries systemic risks for the economy, real estate market, and legal certainty. Parliament faces a tough choice: to guarantee acquirer protection at the expense of state recovery mechanisms, or emphasize public interest while undermining private sector confidence in the law. The way this transitional issue is resolved in 2026 will impact both individual cases and overall trust in the Ukrainian legal system.

Svitlana Krutorogova — Attorney, “WINNER” Law Firm.