Forced Termination of Ownership of a Share in Residential Property Is Impermissible Without Considering the Person’s Financial Situation

Ruling of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated December 10, 2025
Case No. 466/2128/23, proceedings No. 14-96цс25

Brief Summary of the Dispute

The claimant sought the forced termination of the right of shared ownership through the payment of monetary compensation, relying on Part 4 of Article 364 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
The defendant objected, referring to the lack of financial ability to pay the compensation and the fact that the disputed apartment constituted the defendant’s only place of residence.

Legal Position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court
1. Application of Part 4 of Article 364 of the Civil Code of Ukraine Must Respect the Principle of Proportionality

“The application of the provisions of Part 4 of Article 364 of the Civil Code of Ukraine is possible only if the principle of proportionality of interference with a person’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, guaranteed by Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention, and the right to respect for one’s home, enshrined in Article 8 of the Convention, is observed.”

2. Financial Inability of the Defendant Precludes Termination of the Share

“If it is established that a person who owns a share in an apartment that constitutes their only home does not have a real financial ability to pay compensation, the termination of that person’s ownership right to such a share constitutes a disproportionate interference with their rights.”

3. Financial Situation and the Social Significance of Housing Are Key Circumstances

The Court emphasized that:

the apartment constitutes the defendant’s only place of residence;

the state of health, age, and other circumstances indicate the impossibility of enforcing the decision without violating the person’s fundamental rights;

alternative means of protection (in particular, the sale of the share to other co-owners) must be considered as a priority.

Conclusion

The Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and dismissed the claim, thereby effectively protecting the defendant from the loss of their only home.
This ruling clearly establishes that the right to housing prevails over property claims where compensation is unrealistic or threatens the fundamental social rights of an individual.