Who Can Be Evicted from a Dormitory Without Being Provided Another Residence: The Supreme Court's Answer

A person who is not in an employment relationship with the institution responsible for the dormitory and resides there under a civil law lease agreement, the term of which has expired, is subject to eviction without being provided another residential premises if a new agreement between the parties has not been concluded, the person owns other housing, systematically violates cohabitation rules, and the premises are necessary to ensure the statutory activities of the institution. This conclusion was made by the Supreme Court in the composition of the panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court.

On May 27, 2026, the Cassation Civil Court of the Supreme Court considered in simplified proceedings the cassation appeal of the Khmelnytskyi Vocational Electronics Lyceum in the case filed by the Khmelnytskyi Vocational Electronics Lyceum against a person regarding eviction from a room in the student dormitory of the Khmelnytskyi Vocational Electronics Lyceum without providing other residential premises.

To substantiate the claims, the plaintiff argued that the defendant lived in the dormitory room of the lyceum based on a fixed-term civil law lease agreement, the term of which had expired. The defendant had no employment or educational relationship with the institution. After the termination of the agreement, the defendant continued to live in the dormitory without legal grounds and did not voluntarily vacate the premises. Additionally, the plaintiff noted that the defendant violated the rules of residence, was held administratively liable, received warnings for safety violations, and abused the right to use the housing. The disputed room is necessary for the institution to ensure and improve the living conditions of students.

The court of first instance satisfied the claim, noting the termination of contractual relations and the absence of the defendant's rights to use the housing.

The appellate court disagreed with the conclusions of the first instance court, canceled the decision, and issued a new ruling denying the claim, stating that the defendant moved into the dormitory on lawful grounds, and the lease agreement is considered extended for the same term according to Article 822 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, since the lessor did not notify the lessee in advance about the refusal to extend the agreement, and the defendant continued to use the housing.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court's conclusion, canceled its ruling, and upheld the decision of the first instance court for the following reasons.

When considering disputes about eviction from residential premises, courts are obliged to assess the proportionality of interference with a person's right to respect for their home through the prism of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It is necessary to maintain a fair balance between the guaranteed right of the lessee to housing and the right of the owner (balance holder) to effective management and use of their property for socially useful or statutory activities.

The expiration of a fixed-term lease agreement for housing is an independent ground for terminating the right to use the premises. Since a new agreement between the parties was not concluded in accordance with the law, and the balance holder objected to the person's further stay in the dormitory, the defendant has no legal grounds for possession and use of the disputed residential area.

The appellate court's conclusion about the automatic renewal of the agreement under Article 822 of the Civil Code of Ukraine is erroneous because the court did not consider the specifics of the legal regime of beds and rooms in educational institution dormitories, which have a clear targeted purpose.

The mere fact of the defendant's prolonged residence in the dormitory premises without statutory (educational) or employment ties with the institution does not create an obligation for the plaintiff to provide such a person with housing indefinitely.

In this case, considering the defendant's ownership of other real estate (housing), his systematic violation of cohabitation and public order rules in the dormitory, as well as the confirmed need of the educational institution to use this space for student accommodation, the eviction claims without providing other residential premises are justified, lawful, and meet the criterion of proportionality of interference with the right to respect for housing.

More details on the Supreme Court ruling dated May 27, 2026, No. 686/10701/23 (proceeding No. 61-747sv24) can be found at this link.

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 informed about the most important events.