Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine #728 of June 4, 2026

Who is affected: internally displaced persons, local self-government bodies, oblast administrations, the Ministry of Social Policy, Family and Unity of Ukraine; international and national non-governmental organizations.

Summary:

  • requires monitoring of a property’s compliance with minimum requirements before its inclusion in the list of places of temporary residence — that is, the quality check now precedes settlement rather than taking place after the fact;
  • expands the range of monitoring participants: alongside international NGOs, national non-governmental organizations, as well as IDPs and their associations, are now involved;
  • obliges oblast administrations to provide the Ministry of Social Policy with up-to-date information on the number of beds and persons residing in each location, which will make it possible to maintain centralized records and promptly redistribute vacant places;
  • extends the deadline for concluding an agreement with a resident from 60 to 90 calendar days in the absence of documents;
  • establishes the right of IDPs to receive written notification of a planned relocation no later than four weeks in advance, which was previously not guaranteed;
  • details the grounds for terminating an agreement and for eviction, while at the same time establishing a broad list of protected categories that cannot be evicted on the grounds of lack of employment:
    • caregivers of children under six;
    • parents of three or more children;
    • people with disabilities and those who care for them;
    • people with serious illnesses;
  • establishes that, once the date of the end of hostilities in the settlement from which the displaced person came has been determined, the agreement may not be extended, but only taking into account the security situation, the condition of the housing, and the individual circumstances of the family.

What is right:

The requirement for prior monitoring before including a property in the list is fundamentally important: previously there were situations in which IDPs were settled in places that did not meet minimum standards, and these places had to be brought up to standard only after settlement.

Involving national NGOs and the IDPs themselves in monitoring is an important step toward greater accountability of the system to those it serves.

A four-week notice of relocation protects people from sudden eviction, which had previously been a real risk when the status of a property changed.

The broad list of protected categories that cannot be evicted on grounds of employment is socially balanced: the state acknowledges that the employment requirement cannot be applied equally to a mother of three children and to a healthy person with no caregiving responsibilities.

What is wrong:

The provision on the non-extension of an agreement after the date of the end of hostilities in the IDP’s settlement of origin has been determined contains too many evaluative concepts. In practice, this may mean either an excessively harsh approach on the part of the head of the place of residence, or a complete absence of oversight, depending on the human factor.

An eviction period of 15 calendar days after the termination of an agreement is critically short for families with children, people with disabilities, or those who have nowhere to go: finding alternative housing within two weeks under wartime conditions is a practically impossible task.

The centralized record of beds being introduced is the right instrument, but the procedure does not define exactly how this information will be used to redistribute people between places of residence, or whether IDPs will have the right to such a referral.

Alternative solution:

The provision on the non-extension of an agreement after the date of the end of hostilities has been determined needs to be supplemented with a clear procedure: who assesses the security situation and the suitability of the housing, within what deadlines, by which document the decision is formalized, and how it can be appealed.

The eviction period after the termination of an agreement should be increased to at least 30–60 days for families with children, people with disabilities, and elderly people, and the head of the place of residence should be obliged to provide information on alternative accommodation options before a decision on eviction is made.

The centralized register of vacant places being created should be accessible not only to the Ministry of Social Policy, but also to the IDPs themselves, at least in the form of a public search on a website, so that a person can independently find a place in another community without depending on an administrative referral.

What happened:

The resolution comprehensively clarifies a procedure that has been in force since 2023 and over that time has encountered real practical problems — from settlement in unsuitable premises to sudden evictions without notice. Most of the changes are a response precisely to these documented problems, which indicates a certain feedback response of the system to practice.

At the same time, the key risks — the vagueness of the grounds for eviction after the official determination of the date of the end of hostilities and the short period for vacating the premises — remain unresolved and may become a source of conflict situations.