Kashchuk v Ukraine (ECHR)

The applicant owned a house in a village in the Mykolayiv region where he lived with his wife and two children. In February 1996, the village suffered considerable flooding. The Executive Committee of Mykolayiv City issued an order noting thirty-seven residential houses in the village were flooded and twenty-seven of those were at risk of collapsing. The local authorities recommended that the applicant contact his employer, the “Equator Plant” to resolve his housing problem. The Council then delivered a decision on resettlement of the residents of the flooded houses, including the applicant’s family.

Difficulties arose in relation to the resettlement of the applicant’s family. The applicant noted the flat offered consisted of one room and did not have adequate facilities for his family. He was then placed on a waiting list. In 2002, the applicant brought a civil claim against the Equator Plant. The Zavodskyy District Court of Mykolayiv found against the applicant holding that the damage caused by the flooding in 1996 was not the main cause of the poor condition of the property. Following a series of legal cases, on 11 April 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal, giving a concise reasoning that it had not discerned any violations of the law.

The applicant complained alleging a violation under Article 6(1) ECHR that the domestic proceedings had been unfair. He also complained under Article 8 of a breach of his right to respect for his home, and under Article 13 of a lack of an effective domestic remedy.