| Applicant name | MYRONYUK |
| Applicant type | natural person |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | Ukraine |
| Application no. | 22566/14 |
| Date | 12/09/2024 |
| Judges | Lado Chanturia, President, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, Mykola Gnatovskyy |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | violation |
| Reason | Not necessary (economic) |
| Type of privacy | Locational privacy |
| Keywords | eviction hostel |
| Facts of the case | The case concerns the allegedly unlawful and unjustified eviction of the applicant from a State-owned hostel. The applicant relied on Article 8 of the Convention. |
| Analysis | t the same time, the domestic courts ordered the applicant’s and his family’s eviction without having analysed the proportionality of that measure. Once they found that their occupancy did not comply with the applicable legal provisions, they gave that aspect paramount importance. In their reasoning, the courts did not address the applicant’s arguments concerning the necessity of his and his minor children’s eviction and did not indicate, in any manner, that they had sought to weigh up the desire of the claimant – a public entity – to have the disputed premises vacated for the benefit of unspecified third parties against the applicant’s submissions that retaining occupancy of the premises, in which he and his family had arguably lived for over sixteen years in total (including some twelve years after his discharge from military service), was an issue of vital importance for him and his minor children. In so far as the Government alleged, as noted above, that the applicant had manipulated the facts concerning his and the children’s actual place of residence and the precarious nature of their situation, those arguments were neither raised by the claimant in a convincing manner, nor reflect in the reasoning of the domestic courts. In those circumstances, the Court cannot find that the domestic authorities provided “sufficient reasons” to demonstrate a “pressing social need” for the disputed eviction or that they justified its “proportionality” within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention (compare Dakus, cited above, § 51). |
| Other Article violation? | – |
| Damage awarded | olds (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 1,200 (one thousand two hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; |
| Documents | Judgment |