Is it possible to return to housing after illegal eviction: The Supreme Court is to define a new approach

The Supreme Court referred to the United Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court a case regarding the actual eviction of a resident from an apartment that, after foreclosure on the mortgage subject, passed into the ownership of another person. The panel of judges concluded that there are different approaches in judicial practice as to whether repossession is a proper means of protection in cases where a person was deprived of access to housing outside of court proceedings.

The United Chamber faces a question of fundamental importance: can a person who claims to have been deprived of access to housing without a court decision demand to return to it through repossession, or should their protection be limited to claims for compensation for damages or moral harm?

Circumstances of the case

The plaintiff lived in the apartment with her family. This housing was purchased by her mother in 2007 mostly with bank loan funds and was mortgaged as security for the loan. Subsequently, the loan claims were assigned to a financial company, which in 2021 transferred the apartment to another company under Article 38 of the Law "On Mortgage."

According to the plaintiff, in August 2023 she and her family members were deregistered from their place of residence without their consent, and access to the apartment was blocked by changing the locks. She insisted that there was no court decision on eviction, she had not received any written demands for voluntary vacating of the premises, and the apartment was her only housing. Moreover, at that time she had a newborn child.

In her claim, the woman requested repossession of the apartment and compensation of 50,000 hryvnias for moral damages.

Decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances

The Uzhhorod City District Court partially satisfied the claim. The court concluded that changing the locks and actual deprivation of access to housing are equivalent to eviction. The court noted that eviction can only occur voluntarily or by court order, and the defendant did not provide evidence of voluntary vacating of the apartment or the existence of a court eviction decision. As a result, the court ordered repossession of the apartment to the plaintiff and awarded her 5,000 hryvnias in moral damages.

The Zakarpattia Appellate Court overturned this decision and fully dismissed the claim. The appellate court reasoned that after the transfer of ownership rights to the new owner, the derivative right of the previous owner's family members to use the housing ceased. Therefore, according to the appellate court, the defendant exercised his powers as the owner, and there were no grounds to satisfy claims for repossession or compensation for moral damages.

Why the case was referred to the United Chamber

When considering the cassation appeal, the panel of judges of the Cassation Civil Court of the Supreme Court noted that the Supreme Court's practice has repeatedly emphasized that eviction from housing is possible only voluntarily or by court decision, and extrajudicial eviction is not permitted. Also, in previous decisions, the Supreme Court stated that changing locks or other actions that prevent access to housing may indicate actual eviction.

At the same time, the panel drew attention to the Cassation Civil Court's ruling dated May 14, 2025, in case No. 159/3927/23, which expressed a different approach. In that case, the court noted that a violation of the eviction procedure itself does not grant a person the right to reside in the housing and cannot automatically be grounds for repossession. It was stated that a person can protect their rights by other means, including claims for housing provision or compensation for damages.

Due to the existence of different approaches to applying repossession as a means of protection, the panel decided to refer the case to the United Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court of the Supreme Court.

What the Supreme Court emphasized

In its ruling, the Cassation Civil Court of the Supreme Court thoroughly analyzed constitutional guarantees of the right to housing, provisions of the Civil Code, the Housing Code of the Ukrainian SSR, Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as the European Court of Human Rights' practice regarding the inadmissibility of arbitrary eviction. The court reminded that loss of housing is the most serious form of interference with a person's right to respect for their home, and therefore such disputes require special attention to procedural guarantees.

Additionally, the panel noted paragraph 52 of the Final Provisions of the Law "On Mortgage," according to which, during martial law and for 30 days after its termination or cancellation, certain foreclosure mechanisms provided by this law are suspended regarding housing of individuals mortgaged under consumer loans. However, the ruling did not assess the impact of this provision on the specific dispute on the merits, as the case has not yet been decided on the merits.

The approach proposed by the panel of judges

By referring the case to the United Chamber, the panel effectively proposed departing from the conclusion set out in the ruling dated May 14, 2025, in case No. 159/3927/23.

According to the panel, the United Chamber should conclude that eviction is allowed only voluntarily or by court order, extrajudicial eviction is not permitted, and a person evicted from housing in violation of the established procedure is not limited in the choice of means of protection. Such a person may assert claims for compensation for damages or moral harm, as well as a claim for repossession of the housing as a way to restore the situation that existed before the violation of the right.

At the same time, the Supreme Court has not yet decided the dispute on the merits. By ruling, case No. 308/16652/23 was referred to the United Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court of the Supreme Court to resolve the issue of the application of legal norms in such legal relations.

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