CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 février 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s471F7CE { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } FIFTH SECTION Application no. 28848/07 Ivan Stepanovych YASINSKYY against Ukraine lodged on 15 June 2007 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Ivan Stepanovych Yasinskyy, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1960 and lives in the city of Ternopil, Ukraine. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. Since 1985 the applicant, employed by the State Railways Company, was residing in a room in a hostel and was on a waiting list for improvement of his housing conditions. In the beginning of 2001 the State Railways Company and the Ternopil City Council (“the Council”) agreed to transfer a number of houses into municipal property. On 27 November 2001 the applicant’s family (the applicant, his wife and son) was given a two-room apartment by the State Railways Company. In the beginning of 2002 the applicant’s family moved into this apartment. However, it turned out that by decision of 19 December 2001 the Council gave the apartment in question to a certain B., who was employed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. On 26 December 2001 the Council approved the transfer of the house, in which the apartment in question was situated, into municipal property. In April 2003 a prosecutor instituted proceedings in the Ternopilskyy City Court on the applicant’s behalf claiming to annul the decision of 19   December 2001. It was stated that on 16 January 2001 the Lviv Railways and the Executive Committee of the Council signed an agreement on transfer of property title for several buildings, however, the house in question was not among them. Moreover, according to Article 55 of the Housing Code of Ukraine, free accommodations in the houses which were transferred into municipal property by State enterprises, shall be given primarily to the employees of these enterprises who need improvement of their housing conditions. On 24 December 2003 the court rejected the prosecutor’s claim. The prosecutor appealed stating that the court disregarded the decision of 27 November 2001 and Article 55 of the Housing Code. On 15 March 2004 the Ternopil Regional Court of Appeal quashed the first instance court decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. On 21 June 2004 the Zborivskyy District Court found that on 19   December 2001 the apartment in question had been still in the property of the Railways Company therefore the Council had had no right to give it to B. On 19 August 2004 the Ternopil Regional Court of Appeal quashed this decision and rejected the prosecutor’s claim. It held that the decision to give the apartment in question to B. was lawful as the apartment was municipal property. The prosecutor appealed reiterating that the court had ignored Article 55 of the Housing Code and the decision of 27 November 2001. On 20 December 2006 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the decision of 19 August 2004. In May 2007 the applicant’s family was evicted from the apartment in question. B.     Relevant domestic law Housing Code of Ukraine, 1983 According to Article 55 of the Code, free accommodations in the houses which were transferred into municipal property by the State enterprises, shall be given primarily to the employees of these enterprises who need improvement of their housing conditions. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about unlawful interference with his right for respect to his home. He also complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings in his case. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?   2. If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?