En
Submit your application

Conclusion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine on the impossibility of forced eviction

As a general rule of law, the owner has the right to evict from his residential property a person who lives there without sufficient grounds, but …

By itself, the existence of ownership does not always automatically provide the owner with the opportunity to evict (discharge from the apartment or from the house) the one who is simply registered there and lives without being the owner!

If there is “controversy” in the issue of eviction, the case is routinely resolved by the judicial authorities, and if there is disagreement between the parties with the decision of the court of first and appeal instances – by the Supreme Court of Ukraine.

One of the cases of eviction will be of interest to both owners and residents, since in it the Supreme Court of Ukraine determined a ban on eviction, securing it with the appropriate legal opinion.

Conclusion on case No. 754/613/18-c of 15.01.2020 in detail

Background! The citizen went to court, demanding that his aunt be recognized as a person who had lost the right to use housing (forced eviction from the apartment).

He substantiated his claim by the fact that he is the owner of the home, which he received under a donation agreement. Aunt is registered there and lives, does not want to move out, which creates obstacles for him in the use of real estate.

“The court of first instance refused to evict the dwelling! He motivated the decision by the fact that the defendant has been living in an apartment for a long time and she has no other housing! The Court of Appeal ruled to “evict”! The Supreme Court of Ukraine took the side of the court of first instance ”.

The appeal court  made on the basis that the termination of ownership of the previous owner and its acquisition by the new owner terminates the circumstance that serves as the basis for establishing the easement with the defendant, since the plaintiff objects to the use of his home.

The Supreme Court reasoned its decision as follows:

  1. The resolution of such disputes should be carried out by the courts in each specific case with the clarification of the answers to the questions:
  • Is an interference with a person’s right to respect for housing lawful and necessary in a democratic society?
  • Does it respond to a pressing social need and is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued?
  1. A long time of residence in a dwelling in the absence of a person’s other place to live is a sufficient reason for this dwelling to be considered a person’s dwelling in the understanding of the provisions of Art. 8 “Convention on the Protection of Human Rights …”.
  2. The plaintiff, accepting the gift, even before the registration of ownership of the real estate, knew about the encumbrance of the apartment in the form of the right to use a family member of the former owner. That is, he could foresee the consequences of this factor, therefore, in this situation he can only accept the gift-apartment in the form it is – together with the aunt-dwelling.

It should be noted that the woman living in the apartment could have been on the street “with the light hand” of the Court of Appeal, if not for the Supreme Court of Ukraine. She was lucky, but in such cases there is no need to rely on chance, here she immediately needs the help (consultation) of a lawyer who practices the resolution of complex housing disputes.

13.04.2020

130

YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN
CCC: customers are not obliged to pay for the “mistakes” of ATMs!

“For the extra money issued by the ATM, the client is not responsible if there is no proof of receipt of funds!” – the Civil Court of Cassation expressed its decision in case No. 296/3921/15-c. The situation is in detail! A PrivatBank client withdraws a certain amount of money from a credit card at a […]

Ukrainian Supreme Court: Responsibility of a bona fide purchaser

Due to the “carelessness” of the notary, the person almost lost the housing they bought for their own money! The APU “saved” him. Case No. 645/4220/16-ts of 13.11.2019 The citizen applied to the court with a claim against two persons and a third party – a notary, demanding the invalidation of the sale and purchase […]

BC-SCU should regulate the right to exchange land shares

The procedure for resolving land disputes in Ukraine can be called “order” with a stretch! Due to the endlessly extended land moratorium, controversial issues in the field of land relations arise systematically. In fact, the presence of registration of ownership of land implies that it is the property of a specific person with all the […]

SCU on the validity of the contract after the replacement of the 1st page in it

The impossibility of establishing certain circumstances does not relieve the participants in the process from the need to prove them! This conclusion was made public by the Supreme Court of Ukraine on 25.09.19 following the results of the proceedings in case No. 397/928/16-c. The reason for the dispute was the replacement of the first page […]

Car accident. Insurance. If car repairs more expensive than buying?

Judges do not really “like” cases related to road accidents! There are too many nuances in them, the presence of which often makes an objective trial impossible, and the participation of insurance companies in them complicates everything at times! The Supreme Court of Ukraine “had” to understand the case of collecting insurance compensation, in which […]

Are you familiar with the terms of the loan? That means you was not be deceived by the bank!

The borrower, who has familiarized himself with the terms of the lending, cannot accuse the bank of fraud or must prove his accusation in court, if it came to this. Establishes this, shall we say, dogma, the legal conclusion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine in case No. 569/423/15-c of 03/05/18 and the older conclusion […]