PANOVA v. UKRAINE and 3 other applications

 
Communicated on 29 May 2019
 
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 28519/10
Galyna Viktorivna PANOVA against Ukraine
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The present applications were lodged on various dates by four Ukrainian nationals residing in Yasnogorodka (see Appendix for individual details).
On 22 June 2014 Mr I.V. Biryuchkov, the applicant filing application no. 57473/10, died. Mrs V.I. Pavlinova, his mother, who is also filing application no. 52630/10, expressed her wish to pursue his application in his stead.
The circumstances of the cases
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
In 1980s all applicants except Mr Biryuchkov worked for “L.K.”, a resort complex located in the Makariv District, Kyiv Region (Ukraine). At the material time the resort belonged to “V.”, a Russian-based Soviet State-owned enterprise.
On 1 July 1980 the Makariv District Council permitted exploitation of various new constructions on “L.K.’s” territory, including a building called “hotel with accommodation hall and garage”, which was situated at 4, Budivelna st.
On various dates before 1987 the applicants were provided with rooms in the aforementioned building, along with several dozen other “L.K.’s” employees and their families, who were provided with accommodation in various buildings in the resort.
In 1987 “V.” closed down the resort complex, laid off all its employees, including the first three applicants, and transferred “L.K.’s” real estate to “S.M.T.”, a State-owned enterprise located in Ukraine. On several occasions “S.M.T.” entertained various projects with a view to re-housing the former “L.K.’s” employees, occupying its buildings, however, they were not completed.
In 1992 the “L.K.’s” real estate complex was acquired by “E.”, a private company.
On numerous occasions former “L.K.’s” employees residing in its buildings took unsuccessful actions challenging legality of the property sale to a private owner.
On 1 March 1993 the Kyiv Regional Administration assured “L.K.’s” former employees that they would not be evicted from “L.K.’s” real estate unless “E.” arranges for their re-housing.
In March 2006 the Makariv District Prosecutor instituted proceedings on behalf of all the “L.K.’s” residents, including the applicants, seeking to oblige “E.” to regularise their occupancy by way of issuing occupancy vouchers (ордер) in their names.
“E.” lodged a counter-claim, alleging that all the “L.K.’s” residents had arbitrarily occupied its property and seeking their eviction.
The applicants contested “E.’s” claims as well as the prosecutor’s submissions. They maintained that they had been provided with their current dwellings as protected corporate tenants and had occupied them lawfully, regularly, and in good faith. They could therefore not be evicted unless re-housed. The applicants provided copies of documents certifying their permanent residence registration with local authorities and house fee payment books (розрахункова книжка) issued in their proper names in accordance with the rules applicable to protected tenancies in 1980s. All applicants except Mrs Panova also provided copies of occupancy vouchers (ордер) issued in their names by the Makariv District Council.
On 20 October 2006 the Shevchenkivskiy District Court in Kyiv ruled in “E’s.” favour. It found, in particular, that available documents were insufficient to classify the disputed buildings as intended for permanent residential occupation. Moreover, not all the “L.K.’s” residents had occupancy vouchers, and, in any event, it was not clear on which basis the existing vouchers had been issued. The disputed buildings had never been registered as part of the public housing stock. In view of the above, protected tenancy rules did not apply in the present case. In absence of any contractual relationship with “E.”, the “L.K.’s” residents’ occupancy lacked legal basis and “E.” could not be obliged to accommodate them. All the “L.K.’s” residents, including the applicants, had therefore to be evicted.
The applicants appealed, maintaining, essentially, that for over twenty years they had been occupying the disputed premises lawfully and in good faith, as permanent protected tenants, and “E.” had unlawfully acquired their building, which should have never been privatised.
The Makarivskyy District Prosecutor also appealed, submitting, in particular, that the disputed accommodation was the only home for several dozen “L.K.’s” former employees and their families; that they had occupied it in good faith for long periods of time and had paid relevant fees and expenses. He also noted that any irregularity in documenting the occupancy could not have been held against the “L.K.’s” former employees, as it had not been their fault. In his opinion, the eviction with a view to protecting the current owner’s property interests was a disproportionate measure.
On 8 September 2009 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal quashed the eviction order. It found that there were sufficient documents for applying the law governing protected tenancies in corporate accommodation halls to the situation of “L.K.’s” residents. As “E.’s” eviction claims were not formulated in accordance with such law, they had to be rejected.
On 17 March 2010 the Supreme Court of Ukraine allowed the appeal lodged by company “E.” on points of law and upheld the eviction order taken by the District Court. It found no grounds to apply the protected tenancy rules and referred to the Civil Code rules protecting property from arbitrary intrusions.
On 31 March 2010 the decision of the Supreme Court was sent to the applicants by post.
On various dates in May and June 2010 all applicants were evicted.
Subsequently “E.” demolished the building, in which the applicants had resided.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain that they were arbitrarily divested of their homes. They refer to Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention.
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; Kryvitska and Kryvitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 30856/03, judgment of 2 December 2010; and Brežec v. Croatia, no. 7177/10, 18 July 2013)?
 
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
 
 
 
No.
Application
no.
Lodged on
Applicant name
date of birth 
28519/10
30/04/2010
Galyna Viktorivna PANOVA
08/06/1950
  
52630/10
06/09/2010
Vira Ivanivna PAVLINOVA
03/08/1951
  
52697/10
06/09/2010
Nataliya Leonidivna GLUSHCHENKO
06/11/1957
  
57473/10
25/09/2010
Igor Volodymyrovych BIRYUCHKOV
19/09/1974
 
 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy