Published on 28 July 2025
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 47789/18
Sergiy Ivanovych SYTNYK
against Ukraine
lodged on 27 September 2018
communicated on 8 July 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the impossibility for the applicant, an owner of an apartment, to evict previous owners from it.
In 2014 the applicant bought an apartment in the city of Cherkasy at a public auction held following a foreclosure of mortgaged property. He duly registered his title to the apartment.
As the apartment’s former owner Ms M. and her adult son refused to leave the premises and did not pay for utilities, the applicant initiated civil proceedings for removal of obstacles in use of property. His action was granted by lower courts but by the judgment of 11 April 2018 the Supreme Court reversed their decisions and ruled against the applicant. It found that the lower courts had erroneously applied the law, having disregarded the requirements of the 1983 Housing Code that in case of eviction the affected persons must be provided with a substitute accommodation; when that is not ensured, the claims for eviction should be rejected.
The applicant later tried to institute other proceedings before the domestic authorities to evict Ms M. and her son but was unsuccessful.
The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the impossibility to evict unwanted inhabitants living in his apartment without good grounds was unfair and disproportionately interfered with his property rights.
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?
2. Has that interference been in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?