CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 2 February 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 2222/18 Petro Ivanovych PETRYCHUK against Ukraine lodged on 29 December 2017 communicated on 12 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the ongoing use and expansion of a municipal cemetery near the applicant’s property in the village of Babyn in Ivano-Frankivsk region. From 2008 onwards the cemetery extended beyond its designated boundaries into an agricultural land plot adjacent to the applicant’s. After a local church association purchased that land, the municipality authorised changing its designated use to a cemetery. Although the applicant successfully challenged this authorisation in court, burials outside the cemetery’s original territory continued. By decisions of the Kosivskyi district court of Ivano-Frankivsk region of 25   February 2009 and 26 March 2013, the municipality was ordered to establish a mandatory sanitary-protection zone between the cemetery and the applicant’s property, as well as to prohibit unauthorised burials. Despite the applicant’s repeated challenges to the bailiffs’ inactivity, these decisions were never enforced. According to the applicant, the cemetery continues to expand and the current distance between his house and some of the graves is less than 15 metres. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the operation of the unauthorised cemetery at such close distance to his property creates unbearable living conditions. In particular, he claims that soil contamination caused by the decomposition of buried corpses prevents him and his family from properly using their land plot, garden and drinking water. He also complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the State’s failure to enforce the above domestic court decisions and the lack of an effective remedy in this respect. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private, family life and/or home, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2 of the Convention (see Dzemyuk v.   Ukraine , no. 42488/02, §§ 87-92, 4 September 2014; Yevgeniy Dmitriyev v.   Russia , no. 17840/06, §§ 56-57, 1 December 2020; and Solyanik v. Russia , no. 47987/15, §§ 50-54, 3 May 2022)?   Alternatively, did the State discharge its positive obligation under Article   8 of the Convention to guarantee the applicant’s right to respect for his private, family life and/or home (see, for example,   Moreno Gómez v.   Spain , no.   4143/02, §§   53-56, ECHR   2004-X )?   The parties are invited to provide information on any negative consequences that the applicant has suffered or risks to suffer on account of the use of the cemetery in close proximity to his property (compare with Tonyuk v. Ukraine , no. 6948/07, § 44, 1 June 2017).