BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
THIRD
SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 30255/09
Mária BITTÓ
and Others
against Slovakia
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 4 January
2012 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep
Casadevall, President,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Alvina
Gyulumyan,
Ján Šikuta,
Luis López
Guerra,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Mihai Poalelungi,
judges,
and Santiago Quesada,
Section Registrar,
Having
regard to the above application lodged on 28 May 2009,
Having
regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and
the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having
deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
- The
applicants are twenty-one Slovakian nationals whose particulars
appear in Appendix 1. They were represented before the Court by
Mr J. Brichta, a lawyer practising in Bratislava, and Mr M.
Siman of EL Partners, s.r.o. in Bratislava. The Government of the
Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková.
A. The circumstances of the case
- The
facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as
follows.
1. Background information on rent control
- After
1948, when the communist regime had been installed in the former
Czechoslovakia, the housing policy was based on a doctrine aimed at
the restriction and abolition of private ownership.
- Some residential houses were confiscated and some
owners of residential houses were compelled to transfer their
property to the State for no or inadequate compensation. Those owners
who were not formally deprived of the ownership of their residential
housing were subjected to restrictions in the exercise of their
property rights.
- As
regards flats in residential houses, tenancy was replaced by the
“right of lasting use”.
- The
Flats Management Act 1964, which was in force until 1 January 1992,
entitled public authorities to decide on the right of use of flats.
Special regulations governed the sums which the users had to pay.
On 1 January 1992 “the right of lasting use” was
transformed into a tenancy with regulated rent.
- After
1991 some residential houses were restored to their former owners;
however, flats in these houses were mostly occupied by tenants with
regulated rent.
- Under
the relevant law (for details see “Relevant domestic law and
practice” below), owners of residential houses in a position
similar to that of the applicants in the present case have been
obliged to accept that all or some of their flats are occupied by
tenants while charging no more than the maximum amount of rent
fixed by the State (“the rent-control scheme”). Despite
repeated increases in the maximum rent which the domestic law
entitles house owners in this position to charge, that amount has
remained below the level of rent in similar housing premises which
are let on the principles of a free-market economy.
- In
situations similar to that of the applicants, the owners of
residential houses had practically no legal possibility to terminate
tenancies and evict tenants without providing them with “housing
compensation”. Furthermore, owners were not allowed to transfer
ownership of a flat leased by an individual to any third person other
than a tenant.
- The
Government of the Slovak Republic have dealt with the issue of rent
control on several occasions (see also paragraphs 19-22 below).
- Documents
of the Ministry of Construction and Regional Development indicate
that registration forms have been submitted by tenants in respect of
923 flats where rent control is applied. 2,311 persons have lived in
those flats, the average surface area of which is 71.38 square
metres. The documents indicate that it is envisaged that substitute
accommodation will be made available to the persons concerned by the
planned reform to the extent that this is justified by their social
situation. 76.5% of the tenants thus registered lived in flats
located in Bratislava.
- On
the basis of those data, the authorities have estimated that the
rent-control scheme currently concerns approximately 1,000 flats,
that is, 0.24% of rental flats in houses that existed in 1991 and
0.06% of the inhabited housing facilities which were available in
Slovakia in 2001.
2. Particular circumstances of the applicants’ case
- The
applicants are owners of residential buildings in Bratislava, Trnava
and Banská Bystrica to which the
rent-control scheme applies (further details are set out in Appendix
2). They submit, with reference to the applicable law, that the rent
to which they are entitled for letting their property is far below
the maintenance costs for their houses and disproportionately low
compared with similar flats to which the rent-control scheme does not
apply.
- By
way of example, they pointed out that the controlled rent in respect
of a flat with a surface area of 72.56 square metres has been
EUR 71.5 a month, which corresponds to EUR 0.99 per square
metre. However, the free-market rent in respect of such a flat was
approximately EUR 830 a month, that is EUR 11.4 per square metre.
- The
applicants further relied on the opinion of an expert elaborated at
their request on 19 July 2010. It sets out the difference between the
free market rent and controlled rent in respect of a residential
house located at Trenčianska street in
Bratislava-Nivy during the period from 1993 to 2010 (for
further details see Appendix 3).
- The
Government were in disagreement with the figures put forward by the
applicants. They submitted the opinion of a different expert
according to which average free-market rent for comparable flats in
the Bratislava-Staré mesto municipality
was between EUR 6.134 and 6.476 per square metre. In the broader
centre of Trnava free-market rent was between EUR 3.367 and EUR 3.865
per square metre.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
- Pursuant
to Article 20 § 1 of the Constitution, the ownership right of
all persons has the same legal content and it enjoys the same
protection.
- Article
124 of the Civil Code guarantees the same rights and obligations to
all owners. Equal legal protection is to be provided to all owners.
- A
recapitulation of the relevant domestic law and practice concerning
the rent-control scheme is set out in Krahulec v. Slovakia
(dec.), no. 19294/07, 7 June 2011).
- In addition, on 15 September 2011, the Act on
Termination and Settlement of Certain Apartment Tenancy Contracts
(Law no. 260/2011) came into effect. It was adopted with a view to
eliminating rent payment restrictions concerning individual owners.
- Its provisions are applicable, in particular, to
apartments of individuals whose rent has so far been regulated. In
those cases, landlords are entitled to terminate a tenancy contract
by 31 March 2012. Such termination of tenancy is to take effect after
a twelve-month notice period. However, if a tenant is exposed to
material hardship, he or she will be able to continue to use the
apartment with regulated rent, even after the contract termination,
until a new tenancy contract with a municipality has been set up. Law
no. 260/2011 further entitles landlords to increase rent by 20% once
a year until 2015.
- Municipalities
are obliged to provide a person exposed to material hardship with
lease of a municipal apartment with regulated rent. If a municipality
does not comply with that obligation until 31 December 2016 in a
particular case, the landlord can claim the difference between the
free market rent and regulated rent.
COMPLAINTS
- The
applicants complained that their rights under Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 had been violated as a result of the implementation of the
rules governing rent control in respect of their property.
- The
applicants also complained that they had no effective domestic remedy
at their disposal as required by Article 13 of the Convention in
respect of the above complaint.
- Finally,
the applicants complained that they were discriminated against in
comparison with the owners of similar housing facilities to whom the
rent-control scheme does not apply.
THE LAW
A. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
- The
applicants complained that they were restricted in enjoying their
property as a result of the rent-control scheme. They alleged a
breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which reads as follows:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the
peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of
his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the
conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of
international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way
impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems
necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the
general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other
contributions or penalties.”
1. Arguments of the parties
(a) The Government
- The
Government admitted that the rent-control scheme had resulted in
a limitation on the use of the applicant’s property. Such
a measure was in accordance with the relevant domestic law, which met
the requirements of accessibility and clarity, and the effects of
which were sufficiently foreseeable.
- The
interference pursued a legitimate aim, namely, to protect tenants
against unaffordable increases in rent. The Government argued that
the national authorities in principle had more direct knowledge of
the general interest and that spheres such as housing, as a prime
social need, often called for some form of regulation by the State.
- As
to the requirement of proportionality, the Government maintained that
a swift deregulation of rent would have had unfavourable social
implications, and that therefore the rights of tenants which had been
established in the earlier non-market environment had to be protected
while the State found a means of gradually resolving the issue. The
rent-control scheme was therefore compatible with the general
interest within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
There had been several increases in permissible rent levels and other
measures had been taken with a view to resolving the issue.
- The
Government further pointed to the fact that many of the tenants were
elderly and that the municipalities concerned did not have enough
housing stock for those socially dependent on regulated rent schemes.
- With
respect to the amount of rent chargeable under the rent-control
scheme, maintenance costs would also have had to be borne by owners
if their flats had not been rented out at all. Thus, the amount of
rent and the allegedly higher costs of maintaining the property could
not automatically be associated.
- The
applicants had failed to submit detailed calculations of the
maintenance and other costs during the relevant period. The
Government objected to the applicants’ estimation of the amount
of rent they could have obtained had the rent-control scheme not
applied to the flats in their houses.
- Since
the rent-control scheme currently affected only about
1,000 dwellings, amounting to 0.06% of the overall number of
permanently inhabited housing facilities, it was questionable whether
the situation in question was “systemic”.
- The
Government concluded that the rent-control scheme met the general
interest of society and was compatible with the interests of house
and flat owners, as the maximum level of rent chargeable had been
regularly increased and the number of houses to which the
rent-control scheme would be applicable after 2011 had been reduced,
while a legal framework for ending the rent-control system was
devised.
(b) The applicants
- The
applicants alleged that the interference with their ownership rights
was contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In particular, the
limitations imposed on the use of their property and their nearly
twenty-year duration were excessive. A disproportionate burden had
been thereby imposed on the applicants for which there existed no
relevant justification.
- The
aim pursued, namely to ensure housing for persons in need, could have
been achieved by different means, such as providing housing
allowances for those persons. Continued implementation of the
rent-control scheme ran contrary to the general interest, as it
hampered the development of a free market in the area of rental
housing including appropriate maintenance of the existing housing
facilities and the construction of new ones.
- Despite
several increases in the maximum rent permissible under the
rent-control scheme, the controlled rent corresponded to some 10 to
20% of free-market rent during the period from 1993 to 2010. The
amounts in issue did not even suffice to cover the maintenance costs
inherently associated with the houses to which the rent-control
scheme applied. The figures put forward by the Government did not
allow a different conclusion to be reached. Furthermore, the
amendments as regards the maximum controlled rent did not
automatically entitle the applicants to charge the tenants
corresponding amounts as, in accordance with domestic courts’
practice, any increase of rent had to be subject to an agreement
between landlords and the tenants.
2. The Court’s assessment
- The
Court considers, in the light of the parties’ submissions, that
the complaint raises serious issues of fact and law under the
Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the
merits. The Court concludes therefore that this complaint is not
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of
the Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has
been established. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Article 13 of the Convention taken together with Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1
- The
applicants further complained that they had no effective remedy
available as regards their complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No.
1. They alleged a breach of Article 13 of the Convention, which
provides:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth
in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy
before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has
been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
- The
Government stated that the alleged breach resulted from the relevant
law as it stood.
- It
has been confirmed by the Constitutional Court, and it has not been
disputed between the parties, that the alleged breach of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 stemmed from the legal framework governing the
rent-control scheme in Slovakia.
- In
this respect the Court reiterates that Article 13 cannot be
interpreted as requiring a remedy against the state of domestic law
(see Iordachi and Others v. Moldova, no. 25198/02, §
56, 10 February 2009, or Leander v. Sweden, 26
March 1987, § 77(d), Series A no. 116).
- It
follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be
rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the
Convention.
C. Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1
- The
applicants maintained that the restrictions imposed by the
rent control scheme amounted to discriminatory treatment. They
alleged a breach of Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction
with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Article 14 reads:
“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set
forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on
any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political
or other opinion, national or social origin, association with
a national minority, property, birth or other status.”
- The
Government argued that the applicants’ situation was not
relevantly similar to that of other house owners to whose property
the rent control scheme did not apply. In particular, persons
like the applicants, to whom the houses had been restored at the
beginning of the 1990s, had been aware that the persons living in the
flats concerned would retain the right to use them. Unlike in the
case of publicly owned flats, those inhabitants had had no right of
purchasing the flats in houses which had been restored to the
original owners. There was therefore a requirement to provide legal
protection to those persons by means of the rent-control scheme.
- The
applicants disagreed. They argued that the Constitution guaranteed
equal rights and protection to all owners. The mere fact that the
property was restored to the applicants by the State did not imply
that their position was different from other house owners and it did
not justify their different treatment as to the scope of their
ownership rights.
- The
Court considers, in the light of the parties’ submissions, that
the complaint raises serious issues of fact and law under the
Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the
merits. The Court concludes therefore that this complaint is not
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of
the Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has
been established. It must therefore be declared admissible.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares admissible, without prejudging the merits, the
applicants’ complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, both
taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention,
concerning the restrictions which the rent-control scheme has imposed
on their right to peacefully enjoy their possessions;
Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.
Santiago Quesada Josep
Casadevall Registrar President
Appendix
1
List
of applicants
- Ms
Mária Bittó, who was born in 1945
and lives in Kráľová pri Senci.
2.
Mr Ján Bíreš, who was born in 1943 and
lives in Banská Bystrica.
- Ms
Zuzana Studencová, who was born in 1963
and lives in Bratislava.
- Mr
František Spišák, who was
born in 1934 and lives in Nitra.
- Ms
Vlasta Spišáková, who was
born in 1946 and lives in Nitra.
- Mr
Viktor Dobšovič, who was born in 1970
and lives in Bratislava.
7. Ms
Martina Dobšovičová, who was
born in 1945 and lives in Bratislava.
8. Mr
Marian Fridrichovský, who was born in 1970
and lives in Bratislava.
9. Ms
Eva Barányiová, who was born in 1944
and lives in Brno,
the
Czech Republic.
10.
Mr Juraj Fridrichovský, who was born in
1973 and lives in Bratislava.
-
Ms Kamila Getlíková, who was born in
1923 and lives in Bratislava.
-
Mr Alexander Suchal, who was born in 1959
and lives in Bratislava.
-
Ms Emília Suchalová, who was born in
1960 and lives in Bratislava.
-
Mr Samuel Babjak, who was born in 1965 and
lives in Bratislava.
-
Ms Jana Babjaková, who was born in 1971
and lives in Bratislava.
-
Mr Jozef Zemko, who was born in 1968 and
lives in Komárno.
17.
Ms Hildegarda Vojtášová, who
was born in 1924 and lives in Bratislava.
18. Mr
Boris Vojtáš, who was born in 1959
and lives in Bratislava.
-
Ms Lucia Ščasná, who was born
in 1977 and lives in Bratislava.
-
Ms Lucia Motešická, who was born in
1938 and lives in Bratislava.
-
Mr Juraj Motešický, who was born in
1934 and lives in Bratislava.
Appendix
2
Residential
houses owned by the applicants
|
Applicant
|
Residential house
address
|
Land
Registry
Entry
|
|
1.
|
Bittó
Mária
|
Dunajská 58,
Bratislava
|
4214
|
|
Zámočnícka
11, Bratislava
|
4314
|
|
2.
|
Bíreš Ján
|
Kukučínova
24,
Banská
Bystrica
|
2068
|
|
3.
|
Studencová Zuzana
|
Šancová
30, Bratislava
|
2465
|
|
4.
|
Spišák František
|
Štefánikova
31, Bratislava
|
4469
|
|
5.
|
Spišáková
Vlasta
|
Štefánikova
31, Bratislava
|
4469
|
|
6.
|
Dobšovič Viktor
|
Jelenia 7,
Bratislava
|
4174
|
|
7.
|
Dobšovičová
Martina
|
Jelenia 7,
Bratislava
|
4174
|
|
8.
|
Fridrichovský Marian
|
Tallerova 7,
Bratislava
|
4484
|
|
9.
|
Barányiová Eva
|
Tallerova 7,
Bratislava
|
4484
|
|
10.
|
Fridrichovský Juraj
|
Tallerova 7,
Bratislava
|
4484
|
|
11.
|
Getlíkova Kamila
|
Tallerova 7,
Bratislava
|
4484
|
|
12.
|
Suchal Alexander
|
Paulínyho 7,
Bratislava
|
4286
|
|
13.
|
Suchalová Emília
|
Paulínyho 7,
Bratislava
|
4286
|
|
14.
|
Babjak Samuel
|
Paulínyho 7,
Bratislava
|
4286
|
|
15.
|
Babjaková Jana
|
Paulínyho 7,
Bratislava
|
4286
|
|
16.
|
Zemko Jozef
|
Kalinčiakova 1,
Trnava
|
5489
|
|
17.
|
Vojtášová
Hildegarda
|
Medená 35,
Bratislava
|
212
|
|
18.
|
Vojtáš Boris
|
Medená 35,
Bratislava
|
212
|
|
19.
|
Ščasná Lucia
|
Medená 35,
Bratislava
|
212
|
|
20.
|
Motešická Lucia
|
Medená 35,
Bratislava
|
212
|
|
21.
|
Motešický Juraj
|
Medená 35,
Bratislava
|
212
|
Appendix
3
Difference
between the free-market rent and controlled rent as established by an
expert at the applicants’ request
|
Period
|
Free-market rent
(monthly price in euros for square metre)
|
Controlled rent
(monthly price in euros for square metre)
|
|
1993
|
3.18
|
0.06
|
|
1994
|
4.18
|
0.06
|
|
1995
|
4.72
|
0.06
|
|
1996
|
4.9
|
0.06
|
|
1997
|
4.75
|
0.06
|
|
1998
|
5.14
|
0.06
|
|
1999
|
5.9
|
0.06
|
|
2000
|
6.78
|
0.2
|
|
Until 31 January 2001
|
7.61
|
0.2
|
|
As from 1 February 2001
|
7.61
|
0.28
|
|
2002
|
7.6
|
0.28
|
|
Until 28 February 2003
|
7.4
|
0.28
|
|
As from 1 March 2003
|
7.4
|
0.54
|
|
Until 9 January 2004
|
8.12
|
0.54
|
|
As from 10 January 2004
|
8.12
|
0.86
|
|
2005
|
7.2
|
0.86
|
|
2006
|
6.98
|
0.86
|
|
2007
|
9.02
|
0.86
|
|
Until 30 April 2008
|
9.07
|
0.86
|
|
As from 1 May 2008
|
9.07
|
0.86
|
|
2009
|
7.02
|
0.86
|
|
2010
|
5.99
|
0.86
|
