Two years after apartment building was destroyed, displaced residents still waiting for compensation
Two years after a stray Ukrainian misile struck on apartment buildings in Brovary,many of the building’s former residents are hoping that a suit they’ve filed against the Defense Ministry will soon be heard in Solomensky District Court in Kyiv.
On April 20, 2000, a Soviet‑designed Tochka‑U tactical missile veered 90 kilometers off course during a military training exercise and hit a nine‑story residential building. The resulting blast killed three people and injured five more. The accident caused the evacuation of 91 families from the building, and 32 families were permanently displaced after 13 apartments in the building were rendered uninhabitable.
Though the government has offered some cash and new apartments, the victims are pressing for additional compensation for the pain and suffering they say the incident has caused. The claims range from Hr 60,000 to Hr 180,000.
The lawsuit follows a lengthy criminal investigation that was completed by state prosecutors in November. Though the report has not been made public, attorneys familiar with the case say that investigators determined that the accident was caused by a technical malfunction in the missile, rather than by willful misconduct or negligence on the part of the military.
An attorney for one of the victims, Yashar Yacubov, said the report blamed the accident on the rocket’s Russian manufacturer.
Three days following the accident, the defense ministry provided each family with between Hr 2,000 to Hr 10,000 in what the ministry called “humanitarian compensation.”
The ministry’s payment was “a humanitarian act,” according to attorney Olga Khoroshlyova, who likened the money to a type of damage control.
“They knew that if they didn’t pay, it would draw public criticism,” she said. But, she added, the government had no legal obligation to pay the families.
Khoroshlyova’s law firm, Magister & Partners, is representing the Defense Ministry in another case involving a fatal missile mishap, the Sibir Airlines shoot‑down last October. The firm is not involved with the Brovary case.
In addition to the initial humanitarian payments, the government gave each displaced family a new but basic, unadorned apartment and up to Hr 3,000 for finishing work about three months later. Residents were also given vouchers for a two‑month stay at sanatoriums.
Residents say that wasn’t enough.
“Property damage is one thing,” said Skarazhevsky, 42. “We should be compensated for our emotional suffering as well.”
Although Skarazhevsky wasn’t in the apartment when the accident occurred, his mother was. She fell three stories and suffered severe bruises and spinal injuries.
Olha Izvekova, 63, said that since the accident she has had difficulty sleeping, experienced high blood pressure and has suffered post‑traumatic stress syndrome. Izvekova was reading on her couch the afternoon the missile exploded five meters away.
After the missile struck, “there was so much dust and debris that I couldn’t see the walls,” she said. Scared and blinded by dust, Izvekova waited an hour in her apartment before rescuers reached her.
She is suing the government for Hr 180,000.
While courts will likely hear the residents’ case, legal analysts say that the victims have slim hope of being awarded additional compensation.
“If a criminal investigation exonerated the Defense Ministry from culpability, it will be difficult to prove [that the government was responsible] in a civil court,” Khoroshylova said.
She said that while she is unfamiliar with the case, a civil action would be a lengthy affair that could take up to five years to resolve.
Khoroshylova said that the residents should also consider pursuing the missile’s manufacturer because the missile was defective. That could be problematic. If the missile was manufactured during Soviet times, the state company that made it no longer exists. Any successor firm would likely disavow responsibility.
Victims may have a fighting chance if they can show that the Defense Ministry failed to maintain or test the missile as required by the manufacturer, Khoroshylova said.
Despite the prospect of an uphill legal battle, some of the families affected by the accident said that they are intent on recovering additional compensation.
They said that the new apartments the government provided were essentially unfinished rooms that cost far more to convert into livable apartments than the Defense Ministry paid them.
The apartments, located five blocks away from the destroyed building, are “uninhabitable,” said Lydmyla Kostynenko, 32.
She described the apartments as cement‑block rooms without running water, sinks, toilets or electricity.
“We spent Hr 2,000 on plaster and wallpaper alone, and the walls are still falling apart,” Kostynenko said, pointing to her rotting bathroom.
Skarzhevsky decided not to finish the apartment he was given. He wants to show the court just what he got, and what it would take to make the bare rooms a home.
“The court needs to know how much time and money it would cost me to make this place livable,” he said, standing in his apartment surrounded by piles of concrete blocks.
Some of the residents said that they felt entitled to the same compensation President Leonid Kuchma has promised to families of the victims of last year’s Sibir Airlines crash. On Feb. 27, the government offered the families $20,000 apiece.
An errant S‑200 missile fired by Ukraine’s military during training exercises Oct. 4 exploded near a Sibir Airlines aircraft en route from Tel Aviv to Novosibirsk. All 78 people aboard the jetliner were killed when the aircraft crashed into the Black Sea.
