Communicated on 5 June 2019
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 2714/11
Olga Petrivna SEVRUK against Ukraine
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A list of the applicants is set out in the Appendix.
The circumstances of the cases
On various dates the domestic courts ordered the applicants’ eviction from State-owned housing, having found that they lacked legal basis for occupying the disputed premises (see Appendix for individual details).
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain that the domestic courts acted unlawfully and failed to assess their personal circumstances, when ordering eviction. They invoke Article 6 (applications nos. 2714/11, 17414/11, and 14301/14) and Article 8 (applications nos. 17414/11 and 14301/14) of the Convention in respect of these complaints.
The applicants also complain under Article 13 of the Convention that they had no effective remedies for their complaints concerning eviction.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their home, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, in view of their eviction (see, for example, McCann v. the United Kingdom, no. 19009/04, ECHR 2008; Paulić v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, judgment of 22 October 2009; and Kryvitska and Kryvitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 30856/03, judgment of 2 December 2010)?
2. Did the applicants have at their disposal effective remedies for their complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
APPENDIX
Applicant
Grounds for eviction
Applicant’s arguments
Final decision
1. Application no. 2714/11 lodged on 30 December 2010
SEVRUK
Olga Petrivna
born in 1952
residing in Rivne
Arbitrary, unauthorised occupation of municipal housing (flat) owned by the Rivne City Council
The applicant claimed that she was entitled to take over the disputed flat as a household member (civil partner) of a protected tenant, who had passed away in 2006. She referred to her longstanding occupancy since 1997; her regular registered residence status and dutiful payment of charges. She further argued that she was in need of social housing, as she was a single retired pensioner with a small income, frail health and no other housing.
15/09/2010 Supreme Court of Ukraine
2. Application no. 17414/11 lodged on 12 March 2011
MUKOVOZ
Tetiana Grygorivna
Born in 1969
Residing in Kyiv
Expiration of a temporary lease contract for a room in a student accommodation hall owned by the National Aviation University’s affiliated college
The applicant claimed that she was entitled to protected tenancy of the disputed premises and could not be evicted unless re-housed. She noted that she had been provided with disputed premises in connection with her employment at the National Aviation University. She referred to her long-standing regular occupancy (over five years) and on-going employment with the University. She further submitted that she had been obliged to invest a considerable sum into renovation of the disputed premises as a pre-condition for allocating them, so her understanding was that the tenancy would be protected. The applicant also noted that she was a single mother and that eviction would be contrary to the interests of a minor child, who suffered from serious health problems. She submitted medical certificates and noted that her family had no other housing.
21/09/2010
Supreme Court of Ukraine
3. Application no. 14301/14 lodged on 7 February 2014
1. KLYMENKO
Mykola Oleksiyovych
born in 1951
residing in Kharkiv
2. KLYMENKO
Yuliya Mykolayivna
born in 1983
residing in Kharkiv
3. KLYMENKO
Igor Mykolayovych
born in 1986
residing in Kharkiv
Expiration of a temporary lease contract for three rooms in a student accommodation hall owned by the Kharkiv National Medical University
The applicants, father and two adult children, alleged that they had to be considered protected tenants of the disputed premises and could not be evicted unless provided with social housing. They noted that the disputed premises were allocated to them in 1998, in connection with the first applicant’s employment at the Medical University. The Kharkiv City Council had taken a special decision designating these premises as a “social flat” and the family had been taken off the social housing waiting list in this connection. In 2008 the above decision having been annulled, the applicants had been obliged to sign annual lease contracts. In 2011 the first applicant having resigned, the University had refused to renew the lease. The applicants referred to their long-standing regular occupancy and noted that the first applicant had worked at the University for 37 years; that they were in need of social housing; and that the second applicant had recently given birth to a baby, who was also in need of housing.
09/12/2013 Higher Specialised Court in Civil and Criminal Cases
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy