CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 juin 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }   Communicated on 19 June 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 59184/09 Nina Pylypivna CHERKUN against Ukraine lodged on 21 October 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s alleged inability to resolve, either by bringing a claim before the domestic courts or through administrative procedures, her problem of obstructed access to her property, which was caused by the unlawful construction on her neighbour’s land. The only passage to her house has become inconsistent with the safety and other building regulations. In March 2008 the applicant lodged with the courts a claim against her neighbour and the local authorities, seeking inter alia the demolition of the impugned construction. In the proceedings which ended on 29   May 2009 the claim was rejected by the courts, which found that the applicant’s rights had not been affected by the impugned construction, as it had been erected on the neighbour’s land, and that it was for the local authorities to bring a claim before the courts, should the local authorities considered that any modification in the construction was necessary. In spite of the applicant’s repeated petitions to the local authorities, they lodged no claim with the courts in this regard. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an infringement of the applicant’s right of access to a court, as guaranteed by Article   6   §   1 of the Convention, having regard to the decisions of the domestic courts rejecting her claim of March 2008?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, having regard to her alleged inability to resolve her problem of obstructed access to her property?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1, having regard to her alleged inability to resolve her problem of obstructed access to her property?