Date of the decision: 3 September 2020
Country: Ukraine
Jurisdiction: European Court of Human Rights
Legal Basis: Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home)
Subject: Interference with the right to a home may be necessary in order to protect the rights of the others.
The case concerned a mother of 4 children who was the victim of psychic and psychological violence by her former husband. Indeed, the couple divorced in 2015 but remained living in the same flat. Ms Levchuk took her fight through the national courts to ask the eviction of her former husband from the family home invoking her children’s right to a childhood without constant conflicts and threats. However, both the Ukrainian Court of Appeal and Supreme Court sided with her husband and supported his right to housing. Thus, before the European Court of Human Rights she claimed that the Ukrainian government has breached Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention.
Unanimously the Court declared that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, “everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence”
Concerning the right to housing, “the Court has earlier indicated in its case law that eviction is the most extreme measure of interference with one’s right to respect for the home guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. However, it has also stated that “interference by the national authorities with individual rights under Article 8 might be necessary in order to protect the health and rights of the others”
The Court considers that in dismissing the applicant’s eviction claim brought under Article 116 of the Housing Code, which, as explained by the Government, was in principle a suitable legislative solution for her case, the domestic judicial authorities did not conduct a comprehensive analysis of the situation and the risk of future psychological and physical violence faced by the applicant and her children. It also notes that the proceedings lasted over two years at three levels of jurisdiction, during which the applicant and her children remained at risk of further violence . The fair balance between all the competing private interests at stake has therefore not been struck. The response of the civil courts to the applicant’s eviction claim against her former husband has accordingly not been in compliance with the State’s positive obligation to ensure the applicant’s effective protection from domestic violence”.
To read the full case, click here.
