At least 140 monks, novices, and representatives of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) remain on the territory of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, but their eviction is possible only by a decision of the court, where litigation is ongoing, according to Maksym Ostapenko, Director General of the National Preserve.
"The relocation of any individuals who were here on the basis of an agreement can only be carried out in accordance with a court decision. This must be executed by the state executive service. As of today, there are monks, novices, and representatives of the UOC on the territory of the Lower Lavra whose contract has been terminated and with whom a legal battle is ongoing," Ostapenko said at a press conference in Kyiv on Tuesday.
He recalled that it had been three years since the lawsuit entered the appeals stage, and a review on the merits had still not taken place.
"We hope that the court will put an end to this story," he added.
Regarding the exact number of UOC (MP) representatives on the territory of the Lavra, Ostapenko noted that it was difficult to provide a precise figure because the monks and monastery representatives continuously come and go. However, he stated that the initially provided list contained about 140 individuals who had remained on the territory after 2023.
As previously reported, the National Preserve "Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra" terminated the lease agreement with the Holy Dormition Monastery of the UOC (MP) effective March 29, 2023. On the same day, the Commercial Court of Kyiv opened proceedings based on a lawsuit filed by the Holy Dormition Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra of the UOC (MP) against the "Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra" Preserve regarding the unlawful termination of the lease, while the UOC (MP) declared that they did not intend to move out of the Lavra before the conclusion of the trial. On August 9, 2023, the court upheld the legality of the termination of the contract between the UOC (MP) monastery and the "Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra" Preserve. In December, the North Commercial Court of Appeal postponed the review on the merits of the appeal regarding the illegality of the unilateral termination of the lease.
