CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 avril 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } Published on 4 May 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 38943/20 Marta Lyubomyrivna OMELKO against Ukraine lodged on 12 August 2020 communicated on 16 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application mainly concerns the fairness of domestic proceedings in which the applicant sought judicial recognition of her tenancy rights in a publicly owned apartment. By a final decision of 15   April   2020 the Supreme Court refused to recognise the applicant’s continued residency in the apartment in question and dismissed her claim. In doing so, it relied on findings made in earlier civil proceedings, in which it had been established that four other individuals (the applicant’s father, aunt and two cousins) had been residing there. The Supreme Court held that this conclusion had acquired res judicata effect and was not open to challenge. It apparently did not address the applicant’s arguments that she had not been a party to these proceedings and had not been aware of them. The applicant complains about the refusal to recognise her tenancy rights and that the domestic proceedings were unfair in view of, inter alia , the Supreme Court’s reliance on findings reached in a case to which she had not been a party. She relies on Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did the Supreme Court provide sufficient reasons for its decision of 15   April   2020 and was this decision “arbitrary” and/or “manifestly unreasonable?   2.     In respect of the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, namely the Supreme Court’s refusal to recognise her tenancy rights in the apartment in question,   does it disclose   a violation of this provision, as claimed by the applicant?