Background
Sergiy Sytnyk bought a flat in Cherkasy at a 2014 public auction after its previous owner, Ms M., defaulted on a debt. He registered title, but Ms M. and her adult son remained in the property, refused to sign a lease, and did not pay utilities. Ukrainian lower courts initially granted his claim to remove them.
In April 2018, however, the Supreme Court rejected the claim. It applied Article 109 of the 1983 Housing Code, holding that former owners could not be evicted without substitute permanent accommodation, subject to an exception not applicable on the Supreme Court’s view. The applicant remained unable to take possession, was held liable for accumulated utility debt before later recovering it from Ms M., and ultimately sold the flat in 2025.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously held that Ukraine violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The restriction on eviction was a State-regulated control of the use of property, not merely a private dispute, because the Supreme Court’s interpretation of domestic law effectively required the applicant to accommodate the former owners unless alternative housing was provided.
The Court had serious doubts that the interference was lawful: the Supreme Court did not explain why it displaced the Civil Code provisions relied on by the applicant in favor of Article 109, a Soviet-era provision located in a chapter concerning State and public housing. In any event, the measure was disproportionate. Article 109 did not identify who had to provide alternative housing, and the domestic authorities did not assess the former owner’s circumstances, the surplus she received after the sale, or the applicant’s efforts to regularize the arrangement. The applicant was made to bear the social and financial burden alone and never obtained possession of his flat.
Key Takeaways
- Housing protections may serve a legitimate public interest, but they cannot impose an excessive burden on an individual private owner.
- Courts applying eviction restrictions must give coherent legal reasons and conduct an individualized proportionality assessment.
- Where former owners require alternative housing, domestic law must not leave a new owner solely responsible for providing it.
Why It Matters
The judgment limits the use of housing-protection rules to shift homelessness-prevention costs onto private purchasers of foreclosed property. It also underscores that an owner’s formal ability to sell a property does not cure a prolonged loss of practical possession.
The Court awarded EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and made no award for costs and expenses because they were undocumented.