| Applicant name | MOROZ |
| Applicant type | natural person |
| Number of applicants | 2 |
| Country | UKRAINE |
| Application no. | 63648/14 |
| 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 well-being) |
| Type of privacy | Locational privacy; economic privacy |
| Keywords | Eviction |
| Facts of the case | Relying on Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, the applicants complained that they had been arbitrarily and unfairly ordered to vacate their home. The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a case, considers that these complaints fall to be examined under Article 8 only. |
| Analysis | The Court notes that the Court of Appeal ordered the applicants to vacate the disputed premises on the sole grounds that they had been registered as “non-residential”, without having analysed the applicants’ specific situation. In its reasoning, the Court of Appeal did not address the applicants’ arguments that the disputed premises had been initially granted to their family by the Council more than sixty years prior to the repossession proceedings, to serve as their place of residence, and that the applicants had officially established and registered their home in them, renovated them at their expense and paid various charges as de facto tenants for the duration of their occupancy. Its reasoning also did not indicate, in any manner, that the court had sought to weigh up the desire of the claimant – a public authority – to have the disputed premises vacated against the applicants’ submissions that retaining occupancy of the premises, which they had being officially living in for some forty and twenty-three years respectively prior to the proceedings, was an issue of vital importance for them. In those circumstances, the Court cannot find that the Court of Appeal provided sufficient reasons to demonstrate a pressing social need for the disputed eviction order or that it justified the proportionality of that order for the purposes of Article 8 of the Convention. The Higher Specialised Court, with which the applicants lodged a further appeal, dismissed it without taking those matters into consideration. |
| Other Article violation? | – |
| Damage awarded | The applicants did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award them any sum on that account. |
| Documents | Judgment |