CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 avril 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 20 April 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 63341/19 Roman Vasylyovych NOVGORODSKYY against Ukraine lodged on 29 November 2019 communicated on 2 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s complaint that he is unable to evict an individual who lives in his apartment without his consent (Article 1 of Protocol No.1 and Article 13 of the Convention). In 2012 the applicant loaned a sum of money to a certain N. using an apartment as collateral. On an unspecified date N. moved into the apartment. In 2015 N. ceased making loan repayments, and as a result, ownership of the apartment was transferred to the applicant by notarial deed. In February 2016 the applicant instituted judicial proceedings seeking N.’s eviction. By its final decision of 29 May 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that N. could not be evicted without being provided with an alternative accommodation. According to the applicant, N. is still living in his apartment and there are no legal remedies that would allow him to evict her. The applicant complains that his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions has been violated (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1), and that he has no effective remedies in this respect (Article 13 of the Convention).         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? If so, was the interference in the public interest and in accordance with conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaint, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?