| Applicant name | KLYMENKO |
| Applicant type | natural person |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | UKRAINE |
| Application no. | 14301/14 |
| Date | 02/03/2023 |
| Judges | Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President, Lado Chanturia, Mykola Gnatovskyy |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation |
| Reason | Not necessary (rights and freedoms of others) |
| Type of privacy | Locational privacy |
| Keywords | Housing denied; no sufficient reasons |
| Facts of the case | The applicants complained that their eviction had been neither lawful nor necessary and that the domestic courts had failed to provide adequate responses to their main arguments and to assess their personal circumstances. |
| Analysis | The Court considers that the second applicant cannot be considered to have lost her connection with the disputed flat as a “home” on account of her temporary absence. Nor does it discern, from the domestic courts’ judgments, that her studies abroad, of which they had been made aware, were a material consideration for them in deciding on her eviction or that of her child. The Court notes that the reasoning adduced by the domestic courts indicates that, having decided that the applicants’ lease agreement and the first applicant’s fixed-term employment with the University had ended, they gave those factors paramount importance. They provided no further reasoning for rejecting the applicants’ key argument concerning the importance of the total length of the first applicant’s uninterrupted employment. Nor did the courts address, in their reasoning, the applicants’ other arguments concerning their personal situation or indicate, in any manner, that they sought to weigh up the State-owned defendant’s decision to recover the flat for the benefit of unspecified third persons against the applicants’ submissions that retaining the lease was an issue of vital importance for them. In those circumstances, the Court cannot find that the domestic authorities provided “sufficient reasons” to demonstrate a “pressing social need” for the disputed eviction or justified its “proportionality” within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention. |
| Other Article violation? | No violation 6 and 13 ECHR |
| Damage awarded | Holds (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, jointly, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i) EUR 4,500 (four thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 2,669 (two thousand six hundred and sixty-nine euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses; |
| Documents | Judgment |