The issue of eviction from housing of persons who are not its owners and do not even have a registered place of residence in an apartment or house, in practice, turns out to be much more complicated than it might seem at first glance. The owner has the legal right to own, use and dispose of his property, however, in housing disputes, courts increasingly evaluate not only documents on the right to property, but also real life circumstances: duration of residence, family ties, presence of children, other housing, behavior of the parties and the balance between the right to property and the human right to housing.
Lawyers from the law firm Repeshko and Partners explained how disputes about eviction of unregistered residents are resolved in modern judicial practice, why the lack of registration does not guarantee the owner automatic eviction of residents, and what circumstances may be decisive for the court when assessing the proportionality of such interference.
The issue of eviction from residential premises of persons who are not its owners, but live in it for various reasons, in particular due to registration of residence, family ties, lease relationships, or actual occupancy, remains one of the most complex in housing disputes. In recent years, judicial practice in such cases has changed repeatedly: from an approach in which eviction was actually not allowed, to decisions where the owner’s right was given priority, and later again to a much more cautious position of the courts regarding the forced deprivation of a person of housing.
From a legal point of view, in such disputes it is important to distinguish between two aspects of the use of housing: registration of the place of residence and the actual residence of a person in an apartment or house. In this case, actual residence can exist both with and without registration, which in practice is often of decisive importance for the court’s assessment of the circumstances of the case.
Given the multifaceted nature of this issue, the resolution of the Supreme Court of Ukraine dated April 17, 2026 in case No. 522/15146/22 deserves special attention. In November 2022, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, who acted in her own interests and in the interests of two minor children. The third party in the case was the guardianship and trusteeship body. The lawsuit concerned the elimination of obstacles to the use of housing by eviction without providing another residential premises.
The plaintiff justified his claims by the fact that he owns the apartment on the right of private ownership. At the time of the application to the court, no person was registered as a resident of this apartment. As the plaintiff noted, from spring 2011 to May 11, 2021, his son lived in the apartment with his wife, who is the defendant in the case, and their two minor children. By the court decision of December 13, 2021, the marriage between the plaintiff’s son and the defendant was dissolved. At the time of the application to the court, the defendant and her minor children continued to live in the apartment, which belongs to the plaintiff on the right of private property.
At the same time, the plaintiff believed that the defendant and the children were creating obstacles to his exercise of his property rights, in particular, they were creating obstacles to access and use the apartment. In addition, according to the plaintiff, they do not bear the costs of maintaining the apartment and do not pay for utilities, as a result of which the debt was formed. Referring to these circumstances, the plaintiff asked the court to remove the obstacles to the use of her own apartment and to evict the defendant with two minor children without providing other housing. It is worth noting separately that the defendant with her children actually lived in the apartment, but was not registered in it.
By the decision of the court of first instance dated May 02, 2024, the claim was refused. By the decision of the court of appeal dated February 11, 2025, the plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the court of first instance was left unchanged. At the same time, the Supreme Court concluded that the cassation appeal should be dismissed, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances should be left unchanged.
In this case, the court proceeded from the fact that the Constitution of Ukraine protects both the right to property and the right to housing. Article 41 of the Constitution of Ukraine provides that everyone has the right to own, use and dispose of their property. The right to private property is acquired in accordance with the procedure established by law, is inviolable, and no one may be unlawfully deprived of the right to property. At the same time, the use of property may not harm the rights, freedoms and dignity of citizens, the interests of society, as well as worsen the ecological situation and natural qualities of the land.
At the same time, Article 47 of the Constitution of Ukraine guarantees everyone the right to housing. The state creates conditions under which every citizen will be able to build housing, purchase it as property or rent it. Citizens in need of social protection are provided with housing by the state and local government bodies free of charge or for a fee affordable for them in accordance with the law. Forced deprivation of housing is possible only on the basis of the law and by court decision.
In such cases, the owner of the home really has a strong legal position, because the law protects his right to own, use and dispose of his property. However, in housing disputes, this argument is not always enough. When it comes to evicting a person from the place where he actually lives, the court assesses not only the right to ownership of the apartment, but also whether such eviction will not be an excessive interference with the person’s right to housing. That is why even in cases where a person does not have a registration of residence in the apartment, this does not mean that he can be evicted automatically.
Article 109 of the Housing Code of Ukraine provides that eviction from occupied residential premises is allowed only on the grounds established by law and can be carried out voluntarily or in court. At the same time, the law establishes a general rule: citizens who are evicted from residential premises are simultaneously provided with another permanent residential premises. The exception applies only to certain cases, in particular, eviction in the event of foreclosure on housing purchased at the expense of a credit or loan, the repayment of which is secured by a mortgage on the same housing.
No less important for such disputes are the provisions of Article 156 of the Housing Code of Ukraine, according to which family members of the owner of a residential building who live with him use the residential premises on an equal basis with the owner, if at the time of their moving in there was no other agreement on the procedure for using the premises. A similar approach is contained in Part One of Article 405 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, which stipulates that family members of the owner of the dwelling who live with him have the right to use this dwelling in accordance with the law, and the residential premises that they may occupy are determined by the owner.
At the same time, the law also protects the owner himself. Article 319 of the Civil Code of Ukraine establishes the right of the owner to own, use and dispose of his property at his own discretion, as well as to perform any actions regarding it that do not contradict the law. At the same time, the law emphasizes that when exercising his rights, the owner is obliged to adhere to the moral principles of society. At the same time, Article 383 of the Civil Code of Ukraine provides for the right of the owner of a residential building to use the premises for his own residence, the residence of his family members and other persons.
In addition, the provisions of Article 391 of the Civil Code of Ukraine grant the owner the right to demand the removal of obstacles to the exercise of the right to use and dispose of his property. It is this norm that is most often referred to by plaintiffs in eviction cases, believing that the actual residence of other persons in the apartment limits their exercise of property rights.
At the same time, the Supreme Court of Ukraine in its resolution of November 16, 2016 in case No. 6-709ts16 drew attention to the fact that the right to use the owner’s premises is not only for his family members, but also for other persons, if they permanently live with him and run a joint household. In the same legal position, the court noted that the owner has the right to demand the elimination of violations of his property rights from persons who are not members of his family and do not belong to the circle of persons who permanently live with him and run a common household.
The Supreme Court also paid special attention to the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Article 8 of the Convention guarantees everyone the right to respect for his private and family life and home, and Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention enshrines the right to peaceful possession of his property. At the same time, the concept of “property” in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights has a much broader meaning and is not limited only to the formal right of ownership.
That is why state interference in the right to property or the right to housing must meet the criteria of legality, necessity and proportionality. In other words, even in the case of termination of the right to use housing, a person has the right to expect that the court will assess how justified and proportionate his eviction from the specific life circumstances of the case will be.
Summarizing the approaches of the European Court of Human Rights to the application of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention, the Supreme Court effectively emphasized: the termination of the right to use housing does not in itself mean the automatic possibility of evicting a person without providing alternative housing. Such interference is permissible only if it is provided for by law, pursues a legitimate aim and is necessary in a democratic society.
Separately, the court drew attention to the fact that even after the termination of the legal grounds for residence, a person has the right to expect that the issue of his eviction will be assessed by the court from the point of view of the proportionality of such interference with the right to housing and private life. In other words, the court must assess not only the owner’s right to an apartment, but also the specific life circumstances of the person who actually lives in this housing.
Important in this case was the conclusion that a person’s long-term residence in a dwelling, regardless of the legal status of such residence, may indicate the formation of a sufficient and real connection between the person and this dwelling. That is why such a dwelling may be considered “dwelling” within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention, and the subsequent eviction of the person may be regarded as an interference with his right to respect for his home and private life.
At the same time, the Supreme Court separately emphasized that even if the owner cannot actually use his home due to the residence of other persons, this in itself does not mean that he loses the right to own real estate. That is, the right of ownership continues to exist and remains protected by law, but in such disputes the courts must assess the balance of interests of all parties.
According to the court’s position, the loss of housing is the most extreme interference with the person’s right to respect for housing. The decision emphasized that the concept of “housing” has not only a property meaning for a person, but is directly related to the personality, sense of security, stability of life, family ties and a person’s place in society. That is why in eviction cases, procedural guarantees and the court’s obligation to carefully assess whether such an intervention is truly necessary and proportionate are of particular importance.
In fact, the Supreme Court once again confirmed the approach developed in recent years: even if a person’s right to live in an apartment has formally ceased, the issue of eviction cannot be resolved automatically only on the basis of another person’s property rights. In each specific case, the court must verify whether such an intervention complies with the principle of proportionality and whether the eviction will not constitute an excessive restriction of the person’s right to housing.
Therefore, deprivation of a person of housing without provision of another residential premises is possible under the conditions that such interference with the person’s right to respect for private life and the right to housing, provided for by law, pursues a legitimate aim, defined in paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Convention, and is necessary in a democratic society. Even if the legal right to occupy the residential premises has been terminated, the person has the right to expect that the interference with his or her right to respect for the housing will be assessed for proportionality in the context of the relevant principles of Article 8 of the Convention.
It should be noted that the position of the Supreme Court in this case did not arise in isolation. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, in its resolution of August 21, 2019 in case No. 569/4373/16-ц, proceedings No. 14-298цс19, noted that in cases of eviction of a person or recognition of him or her as having lost the right to use the housing, the court cannot limit itself to a formal verification of the grounds. Since such a decision may in fact result in eviction, the court must assess in each specific case whether the interference with the person’s right to respect for his or her home is not only lawful but also necessary, whether it meets the pressing need and whether it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued by the owner.
This approach is of particular importance when it comes to former family members of the owner of the home. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court emphasized that when deciding on the termination of the right to use the home of a former family member of the owner, the courts must take into account not only the formal grounds provided for in Article 406 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. At the same time, they must also take into account the fact that the very fact of termination of family relations with the owner of a house or apartment does not automatically deprive such persons of the right to use the occupied premises. That is why the dispute must be resolved taking into account the balance of interests of both parties.
In the case considered by the court, not only the documents on the right to ownership of the apartment were important, but also the circumstances of the defendants’ actual residence. The defendants moved into the apartment with the consent of the owner after he acquired it in 2011 – as the plaintiff’s daughter-in-law and grandson. All this time, the apartment was used for the residence of the son of the apartment owner and his family, and later, in 2014, while living in this apartment, the granddaughter of the apartment owner was born. The court also took into account that the defendants do not have the right to own another home or another place of residence. For eviction disputes, this circumstance is significant, because it is not just about the termination of the use of someone else’s property, but about the possible loss of the only permanent place of residence by individuals.
It was separately established that the defendant tried to conclude a written agreement with the plaintiff on the procedure for using the disputed apartment. However, the plaintiff ignored the proposed option, and did not provide an alternative option, i.e. his own draft agreement on the joint use of the apartment, either to the court or to the defendant. There was no other evidence in the case file that the defendant was creating obstacles for the plaintiff in using the apartment belonging to him.
The situation with the payment of housing and communal services was also important for assessing the dispute. Until October 2021, the son of the apartment owner, who was in a registered marriage with the defendant, lived in the apartment, together with minor children at that time. The debt for housing and communal services arose precisely during the time when the son of the homeowner lived together with the defendants. After the divorce from the plaintiff’s son, the defendant began to pay for communal services for living in the apartment.
Having assessed these circumstances in total, the court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, came to the conclusion of refusing to satisfy the claim. The reason was that the defendants had formed a strong connection with their place of permanent residence over the years of residence. Under the circumstances established in the case and the evidence examined, their eviction from the apartment would not be a proportionate interference with the right to housing and the right to respect for private life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention.
Therefore, we advise homeowners to be very careful in situations where other persons, even without registering their place of residence, actually live in the apartment or house for a long time. Such registration in itself is not the only reason for a housing dispute: consent to move in, family relations, duration of residence, presence of children, absence of other housing, payment of utility services and the behavior of the owner himself may be important. In order not to lose the opportunity to freely use and own your own real estate, it is worth determining in writing in advance the conditions of residence, obligations to pay utility services, the procedure for using the housing, the terms of such residence and the grounds for its termination. Remember, if other people actually live in the apartment for a long time, especially with the owner’s consent or within family relationships, they may form a protective bond with this dwelling.
