CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 avril 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 15 May 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 24667/14 Sergiy Mykolayovych YALOVENKO against Ukraine lodged on 23 March 2014 communicated on 24 April 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s alleged inability to use a hostel ( гуртожиток ), mainly to rent it out for profit, that he purchased from a private company in November 2010 and eventually sold to the Derhachi Town Council in June 2018. In particular, in the proceedings terminated by the final decisions adopted by the Higher Court in Civil and Criminal Matters on 9   January, 8 and 9   April and 17   December   2014, and 21   January, 18   March and 15   April 2015, a number of the applicant’s actions essentially aimed at evicting the residents occupying rooms in that hostel without his consent and without paying any rent were dismissed mainly for the reason that those residents were registered in the hostel long before November 2010 and pursuant to Article 132 of the Housing Code could not be evicted without being provided with alternative accommodation. The applicant complains of a violation of Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 in that the domestic courts dismissing his actions interpreted the relevant legal provisions too broadly, placing a disproportionate burden on him as the owner of the hostel from which he could not benefit. Allegedly, the courts disregarded his arguments that the residents’ registration in the dormitory had no lawful grounds and that thus they could not have enjoyed the special protection against eviction under Article 132 of the Housing Code. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was there an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1?   If so, did that interference meet the requirement of lawfulness, pursue a legitimate public or general interest and strike a “fair balance” between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights (see R & L, s.r.o., and Others v. the Czech Republic , nos. 37926/05 and 4 others, §§ 101-27, 3 July 2014, and Cassar v. Malta , no. 50570/13, §§ 44-62, 30 January 2018, with further references)?   Did the interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?