Published on 23 January 2023

FIFTH SECTION

Applications nos. 22566/14 and 63648/14 Sergiy Stepanovych MYRONYUK against Ukraine and Valentyna Denysivna and Oksana Bogdanivna MOROZ against Ukraine lodged on 14 March 2014 and 12 September 2014 respectively communicated on 6 January 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES

The cases concern allegations that the applicants’ eviction from State ‑ owned housing was neither lawful, nor necessary in a democratic society. Further details are expounded in the Appendix.

The applicants invoke Article 8 of the Convention. Ms V. Moroz and Ms O. Moroz, filing application no. 63648/14, additionally invoke Article 6 of the Convention.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

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)?

APPENDIX

Applicant

Grounds for eviction

Applicants’ key arguments

Final decision

1. Application no. 22566/14 lodged on 14 March 2014

MYRONYUK

Sergiy Stepanovych

born in 1970

residing in Lutsk

In view of the applicant’s criminal conviction and discharge from military service in 2001 for a military offence his family lost entitlement to occupy a room in the military hostel.

The military prosecutor’s office had explicitly examined the applicant’s family situation after his conviction and discharge from service and decided that they remained eligible under the applicable law for the hostel occupancy, in particular, because the applicant had served in the military for over ten years prior to his discharge and because, notwithstanding the discharge, he, like a number of other officers residing in the hostel, remained on the military reserve list. The eviction procedure was initiated twelve years after the discharge, which was in breach of the statute of limitation and in any event no longer fair, since the applicant’s criminal record had long since been expunged. By the relevant time, the applicant’s family of six, had regularly occupied the disputed room as their only home for over sixteen years and had dutifully paid all the charges. The eviction was neither lawful nor necessary, in particular in view of the fact that three of the family members were minor children.

26 September 2013

Higher Specialised Court of Ukraine

2. Application no. 63648/14 lodged on 12 September 2014

1. MOROZ

Valentyna Denysivna

born in 1955

2. MOROZ

Oksana Bogdanivna

born in 1974

residing in Lviv

No legal basis for the applicants to reside in the premises registered as “non-residential property” of a municipally-owned library

The disputed premises were incepted as a custodian’s flat as early as in 1910. The applicants (mother and daughter) were family members of the library custodian, who had been allocated that flat in 1951. They were officially registered as residents of that flat since 1973 and 1990 respectively. Their family dutifully paid all the charges to the municipality for the entire duration of the occupancy. The first applicant had no other dwelling. The courts dismissed an eviction claim lodged by the municipality against their neighbours, who were in an identical situation and occupied an adjacent flat. In the neighbours’ case, the courts recognised that notwithstanding the formal status of their flat as “non ‑ residential premises”, its occupants and the library were in a de-facto residential lease contractual relationship. The applicants’ eviction was therefore arbitrary and unfair.

12 February 2014

Higher Specialised Court of Ukraine

notified

13 March 2014