Published on 16 October 2023
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 84568/17
Mariya Vasylivna BILYAVSKA
against Ukraine
lodged on 14 December 2017
communicated on 25 September 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns unsuccessful eviction proceedings brought by the applicant, the sole owner of a house, against her adult children’s families (two couples and four minor children), who, according to her, have systematically bullied and intimidated her, repeatedly forcing her to retreat to another residence because of impossibility of harmonious co-habitation.
Invoking Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol no. 1, the applicant complains, in essence, that domestic law, as interpreted and applied by the national courts in her case (in particular, Articles 116, 156 and 157 of the Housing Code of 1983), disproportionately restricted her ability to obtain full possession of her property with a view to using it as her own home free from nuisances caused by unwanted cohabitants. It imposed on her a default obligation to keep housing her adult children with their families without ensuring an appropriate mechanism for the balancing of various interests at stake.
She further argues that the national courts did not respond adequately to her key arguments. In particular, she submits that the courts have ignored the fact that she was a frail elderly woman suffering from various illnesses, who had made numerous attempts to cohabit harmoniously with her children’s families before seeking to evict them. These attempts had failed because the defendants, who had alternative housing, had been systematically insulting, threatening, and harassing her. In addition, they had restricted her access to house amenities and had undertaken various projects modifying the property without seeking her consent as the sole property owner.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest?
In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (compare, for example, with Kasmi v. Albania, no. 1175/06, §§ 77-86, 23 June 2020)?
2. Was the disputed house the applicant’s “home” within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention? If so, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her home, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (сompare, for example, Levchuk v. Ukraine, no. 17496/19, §§ 81-91, 3 September 2020)?
3. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts give sufficient reasons for dismissing her key arguments?