FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 19957/07 Nataliya Vasylivna DAKUS against Ukraine lodged on 24 April 2007

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Nataliya Vasylivna Dakus , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1978 and lives in the town of Kalush , Ukraine .

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

In July 1997 the applicant married D.V. In 1998 their son was born. Since 1998 they had been living in the two-room apartment (apartment A.), together with D.I., D.Ig . and D.M. The apartment was a property of the State enterprise “ Kaluska TETS” (“the enterprise”).

In 1999 the apartment A. became municipal property.

In 2004 D.I., D.Ig . and D.M. moved to the three-room apartment B., which had been given to them and D.V. in 1996 by decision of the administration of the enterprise.

In March 2005 the applicant got divorced. After their divorce D.V. moved to the apartment B. and the applicant and her son stayed in the apartment A.

By decision of the Kaluskyy Local Court of 29 June 2005 it was established that D.V. had no right to reside in the apartment A. as he was absent from it for more than six months without any serious reasons.

In October 2005 the enterprise instituted proceedings in the Kaluskyy Local Court against the applicant, D.I., D.M. and D.V. claiming that they should move from the apartment A. since in 2005 it had been given to the enterprise ’ s employee R., who lived in a hostel.

In a court hearing the applicant stated that she had nowhere else to live.

On 25 July 2006 the court found for the app licant. Referring to Article 64 of the Housing Code, it held that the applicant had moved into the apartment A. as D. ’ s family member. She has been residing there since 1998 and has no other housing. Moreover, the apartment in question was transferred into municipal property.

The claimant appealed referring to Article 55 of the Housing Code.

On 14 September 2006 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed this decision and found against the applicant. The court held that when moving into the apartment A. the applicant did not obtain a right to live there. The Court referred to Articles 55 and 99 of the Housing Code of Ukraine.

The applicant appealed stating that she did not have another housing.

On 16 November 2006 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant ’ s request for leave to appeal in cassation.

On 15 December 2006 the applicant requested the Kaluskyy Local Court to postpone the enforcement of the judgment of 25 July 2006 for six months since she had no other accommodation and her salary was too tiny to rent something else. She also stated that it would be psychologically difficult for her 8-year old son to be evicted from his home when New Year and Christmas were approaching. However, on 21 December 2006 the applicant and her son were evicted from the apartment.

On 29 December 2006 the court decided to postpone the enforcement for three months.

B. Relevant domestic law

Housing Code of Ukraine , 1983

According to Article 55 of the Code, free accommodations in the houses which were transferred into municipal property by the State enterprises, shall be given primarily to the employees of these enterprises who need improvement of their housing conditions.

According to Article 64 of the Code, the tenant family members who live together with the tenant share his rights and obligations in respect of the accommodation. The family members of the tenant include his spouse, children and parents. Other persons can be also recognised as tenant ’ s family members if they live with him and share housing tasks. If the above persons cannot be considered as the tenant family members any more but they continue to share the accommodation, they share the tenant ’ s rights and obligations.

The tenant and his family members can allow other persons to share the accommodation (temporary tenants) (Articles 98 and 99 of the Housing Code). The temporary tenants do not have a separate right to live in this accommodation.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the national courts had erred in interpretation of facts and law and, therefore, the hearing in her case was unfair. She further complains that the court decision to evict her from the apartment on was in breach of Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for her home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention in view of the court decision of 14 September 2006 and by further applicant ’ s eviction despite her pending request to postpone the enforcement of this decision?

2. If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?

3. Where were the applicant and her minor child lodged after the eviction?