THE RIGHT TO INVIOLABILITY OF HOUSING IN UKRAINE AND EUROPEAN STATES: COMPARATIVE-LEGAL ASPECTS OF CONSTITUTIONAL REGULATION

Abstract

The article examines the constitutional practice of regulatory regulation of the right to inviolability of housing, enshrined in Art. 30 of the Constitution of Ukraine, and the corresponding norms of the constitutions of European states. There is a well-founded need to set out the specified norm in accordance with the requirements of international human rights documents. It is noted that the right to inviolability of housing is an internationally recognized right, which is reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as in the vast majority of constitutions of European states, except for Norway, San Marino, France and Sweden, where this consolidation right is governed by industry legislation. It was noted that the constitutions of European states are characterized by both similarities and certain differences. The results of the study of the content of their provisions have shown that in them the legal regulation of this right is carried out in different ways. Thus, in the constitutions of Andorra, Greece, Georgia, Spain, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Portugal, Hungary, Finland, Switzerland, this right is disclosed together with other human rights. And in the constitutions of Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bulgaria, Armenia, Denmark, Estonia, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, North Macedonia, Moldova, Monaco, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey, Croatia, the Czech Republic, In Montenegro, this right is formulated as an independent personal right. It is emphasized that when establishing relevant prohibitions in the constitutions of European states, different terminology is used. Thus, in the constitutions of Azerbaijan, Georgia, Portugal, and Slovenia, the term «no one has the right» is used; in the constitutions of Andorra, Bulgaria, Moldova, Romania, Serbia, Montenegro – «no one can»; in the constitutions of Armenia and Estonia – «prohibited»; in the constitutions of Lithuania and Slovakia – «not allowed»; in the Constitution of Spain – «not allowed», and in the Constitution of Turkey – «cannot». In our opinion, in part 2 of Art. 30 of the Constitution of Ukraine, it will be more acceptable to use the term «no one can» instead of the term «not allowed», which implies the imposition of a direct legal obligation not to perform this or that action. In some constitutions of European states, a provision has been established, according to which it is impossible to break into a person's home or other property without his consent. However, there is no such provision in the Constitution of Ukraine. In our opinion, in order to more effectively protect the inviolability of a person's home and other possessions, provisions on entering a person's home or other possessions without their consent should be established at the constitutional level. In this regard, the provisions of Part 2 of Art. 30 of the Constitution of Ukraine to add the phrase «without her consent», as well as to regulate in more detail the issue of entering a person's home or other property without her consent only in cases specifically established by law or by reasoned court decision. The provisions of Art. 30 of the Constitution of Ukraine to be laid out in accordance with the requirements of international documents on human rights.