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. 44218/07
Rudolf RIEDEL and Eva STÍNOVÁ
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 27 September 2007,
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, Mr Rudolf Riedel and Ms Eva Stínová,
are Slovak nationals who were born in 1954 and 1917 respectively and
live in Bratislava. They were represented before the Court by Mr P.
Čavojský, a lawyer
practising 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.
- 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
- On
23 November 1992 a house situated in Bratislava-Staré
Mesto was restored to the applicants under the Extra-Judicial
Rehabilitations Act 1991. The house comprises four flats and the
rent-control scheme applies in respect of three of them. The flats
have a surface area of between 77 and 98 square metres. The monthly
rent which the applicants currently obtain in respect of the smaller
flat amounts to EUR 76. In respect of the two bigger flats the
regulated rent has been EUR 84 a month.
- The
applicants maintained that the average rent for comparable flats in
similar locations was EUR 956 a month.
- The
Government were in disagreement with the market price put forward by
the applicants. They relied on the opinion of an expert indicating
that the average market price for the lease of comparable flats in
the Bratislava- Staré Mesto municipality was between EUR 6.134
and EUR 6.476 per square metre depending on the number of rooms.
The regulated rent per square metre in the flats owned by the
applicants was between EUR 0.86 and EUR 0.99.
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 further complained that the restrictions imposed by the
rent-control scheme amounted to discrimination in the enjoyment of
their right to peacefully enjoy their possessions. They alleged, in
substance, a breach of Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction
with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
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.
- 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 right to peaceful
enjoyment of their property imposed a disproportionate burden
on them, for which there existed no relevant justification.
- In
particular, the applicants argued that the extent of the limitations
imposed on the use of their property and their duration were
excessive and could not be considered as necessary. The figures put
forward by the Government indicated that the number of persons in
respect of whom the rent-control scheme applied was relatively low.
The need for ensuring appropriate housing conditions for them by
means of rent control at the expense of the house owners could not,
therefore, be considered as corresponding to a pressing public
interest. Nothing showed that providing the house owners with
appropriate compensation would jeopardise the State’s economic
situation.
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 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. The
Court considers it appropriate to examine this complaint under
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 and the Civil
Code guaranteed equal rights and protection to all owners. The mere
fact that the property was restored to the applicants by the State
did not justify their different treatment as to the scope to which
they could enjoy their property.
- 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.
C. Article 13 of the Convention
- Upon
communication of the application to the Government the Court decided,
of its own motion, to put a question as to whether the applicants had
an effective remedy at their disposal as required by Article 13 of
the Convention.
- Since
the applicants made no comment on that question in their
observations, the Court considers that no further examination of this
issue is called for.
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;
Decides that it is no longer required to examine whether the
facts of the case amount to a breach of Article 13 of the Convention.
Santiago Quesada Josep Casadevall
Registrar President
