Abstract:
Досліджено конституційну практику нормативного регулювання права на
недоторканність житла, закріпленого в ст. 30 Конституції України, та відповідних нормах
конституцій європейських держав. Авторами обґрунтовано необхідність викладення зазначеної
норми відповідно до вимог міжнародних документів з прав людини. зважаючи на закордонний
досвід щодо конституційного регулювання права на недоторканність житла, а також з метою
усунення суперечностей між положеннями міжнародно-правових актів і національним
законодавством України. 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.
