CEDHCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 août 2020
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:001-204714
- Date
- 26 août 2020
- Publication
- 26 août 2020
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleCommunicated
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3B53EBD5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B163ECD { width:87.22%; border-collapse:collapse } .s81729C29 { width:8.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sF7C6380 { width:22.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9299A6E7 { width:8.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF9126CBC { width:22.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Communicated on 26 August 2020 Published on 14 September 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 1302/19 Svitlana Leonidivna ZYMNYA and Others against Ukraine lodged on 5 December 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns proceedings instituted in October 2006 by the applicants, the list of which is set out in the appendix, challenging the results of a public auction, ordered by the bailiffs, on which parts of a dormitory building where the applicants resided were sold to third persons in the course of the enforcement proceedings. The applicants argued that they had a right to reside in the rooms in the dormitory building and as a result of the sale they could not use the shared premises (toilets, bathrooms etc. located in the corridors). On 11 June 2018 the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts having found against the applicants. The courts found that the shared premises of the dormitory building had not been sold and following the change of ownership of the dormitory building the applicants had continued to reside there and use its shared premises without any obstruction. The courts further acknowledged that the sale of the property not partitioned in kind had been contrary to the law, however, the applicants not being a party to the enforcement proceedings were not in a position to challenge the bailiffs’ actions. Relying in substance on Article 6 and on Article 13 of the Convention the applicants complain that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement and that they had no effective remedy in this connection.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applicable to the proceedings in the present case? If so: (a) Was the length of the proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? (b) Did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies for their complaint under Article 6 § 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?         APPENDIX No. Applicant’s Name Birth date Nationality Place of residence 1 Svitlana Leonidivna ZYMNYA 27/05/1965 Ukrainian Mykolayiv 2 Svitlana Leonidivna BONDARENKO 17/09/1963 Ukrainian Mykolayiv 3 Natalya Oleksandrivna GONCHAROVA 07/06/1960 Ukrainian Mykolayiv 4 Sergiy Mykolayovych LOSKUTOV 23/11/1956 Ukrainian Mykolayiv 5 Oleksandr Mykolayovych SAVUN 29/06/1968 Ukrainian Mykolayiv 6 Galyna Volodymyrivna SPIRKACH 25/08/1960 Ukrainian Mykolayiv 7 Alevtyna Gennadiyivna SYDORKINA 14/11/1961 Ukrainian Mykolayiv 8 Ganna Pavlivna TKACHUK 29/12/1963 Ukrainian Mykolayiv 9 Lyubov Ivanivna TOROVETS 04/02/1963 Ukrainian Mykolayiv    Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
- Date
- 26 août 2020
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:001-204714
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel