The Supreme Court did not allow the eviction of a military pensioner who lived for 20 years in a former medical post

Judicial practice repeatedly encounters situations where a person lives in a premises for years, and the property owner demands their eviction. In such cases, the assessment of the right to housing and the principle of proportionality become crucial.

In case No. 521/5433/24 dated June 3, 2026, the Supreme Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases considered the issue of evicting a person from premises that officially do not belong to the housing stock but are actually used as housing for a long time. The court assessed whether such residence is protected under Article 8 of the Convention and whether eviction without providing alternative housing is permissible.

Case circumstances

The Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, represented by a military unit, filed a lawsuit demanding the eviction of a military pensioner from the medical post premises, which are part of a military town. The plaintiff argued that the man had no proper legal grounds to reside in the disputed premises.

In response, the defendant filed a counterclaim, stating that he is a reserve lieutenant colonel, registered for housing allocation by the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, and has lived in the disputed premises for over 20 years. According to him, the second floor of the building was converted into a dormitory for military personnel, and he has no other housing.

During the case review, the courts established that the premises are actually used as housing, and in 2024, an agreement on the procedure for using the residential premises was concluded between the Odessa Housing Maintenance Department and the defendant.

The courts of first and appellate instances refused eviction and satisfied the claims to remove obstacles to access the housing, after which the military unit filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court's position

The Supreme Court indicated that the owner has the right to demand the removal of obstacles to exercising the right to use and dispose of their property, including residential premises, by removing obstacles to property use, eviction, and if necessary, deregistration of the person. However, this right depends on resolving the issue of the person's right to use such residential premises according to housing or civil legislation.

The court emphasized that eviction from housing without providing alternative housing is possible only if such interference with the right to respect for housing is provided by law, pursues a legitimate aim defined in paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Convention, and is necessary in a democratic society.

Interference with the right to housing must be not only formally justified but also necessary in a democratic society, while courts must ensure a fair balance between the interests of the individual and society.

The mere formal status of the premises as non-residential does not exclude the possibility of recognizing it as "housing" within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention if a person has actually lived there for a long time.

The Supreme Court noted that it was established in the case that the disputed premises, although registered as non-residential, have been actually used as housing for a long time, converted into a dormitory for military personnel and their family members, and the defendant has lived there with his family for over twenty years.

The Supreme Court pointed out that the defendant is a military pensioner, registered for housing allocation from the Ministry of Defense's housing stock, has no other housing, and the disputed premises are his only place of residence.

The court also noted that, considering the established practice of the European Court of Human Rights, the concept of "housing" is not limited to premises with formal residential status but includes any premises with which a person has a sufficient and long-term factual connection.

The Supreme Court indicated that the courts reasonably took into account that the defendant moved into the disputed premises with the consent of authorized persons, and the conversion of such premises into housing was carried out with the participation and knowledge of the Ministry of Defense authorities.

Therefore, the court decided that the plaintiff did not provide proper and admissible evidence of the defendant's unauthorized occupation of the disputed premises.

The Supreme Court stated that under these circumstances, the disputed premises are "housing" within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention, since the defendant has a sufficient and long-term connection with them, and therefore eviction without providing alternative housing is a disproportionate interference with his right to respect for housing.

The court also emphasized that the applicant's references to the absence of title documents for the defendant do not refute the correctness of the courts' conclusions, since according to housing legislation and Article 8 of the Convention, decisive importance is given not only to formal legal title but also to the factual circumstances of housing use, duration of residence, and the existence of a sufficient connection of the person with the relevant premises.

Even if pursuing a legitimate aim, interference with the right to housing must meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality.

The court noted that the mere status of the property does not exempt the state from the obligation to comply with international human rights protection standards.

Also, the Supreme Court stressed that registration of residence is not an independent basis for acquiring the right to use housing, but in combination with other established circumstances, it confirms the existence of a sufficient and long-term connection of the person with the premises.

Thus, the Supreme Court left unchanged the decisions of the lower courts and refused to evict the military pensioner from the disputed premises.

The court confirmed an important legal position that even a non-residential premises can be recognized as housing within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention if a person actually resides there for a long time, has a sufficient connection with this place, and does not own other housing.

Also read other important judicial practice where the Supreme Court confirmed that long-term residence and the existence of a strong factual connection with housing can be decisive when resolving eviction issues, in the article of the "Judicial and Legal Newspaper".

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram account to stay updated on the most important events.