CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 11 juillet 1988

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DD997A9 { width:19.46pt; display:inline-block }      Applications Nos. 10522/83, 11011/84 and 11070/84             Leopold MELLACHER and others     against       AUSTRIA         REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 11 July 1988)         TABLE OF CONTENTS       I.       INTRODUCTION         (paras. 1 - 20) .......................................     1           A.       The applications                 (paras. 2 - 6) ................................     1           B.       The proceedings                 (paras. 7 - 15) ...............................     1           C.       The present Report                 (paras. 16 - 20) ..............................     3     II.      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS         (paras.   21 - 48) .....................................     4           A.       The particular circumstances of the cases                 (paras. 21 - 53) ..............................     4           1.       Application No. 10522/83                 (paras. 22 - 31) ..............................     4           2.       Application No. 11011/84                 (paras. 32 - 43) ..............................     5           3.       Application No. 11070/84                 (paras. 44 - 53) ..............................     7           B.       Relevant domestic law                 (paras. 54 - 101) ...............................   8           1.       The development of the rent control                 legislation until 1981 (paras. 54 - 62) .........   9           2.       The 1981 Rent Act (Mietrechtsgesetz)                 (paras. 63 - 86) ................................ 11                   a)   Provisions on rent control                     (paras. 66 - 78) ............................ 12                       aa) Square metre rent                         (paras. 67 - 70) ........................ 12                       bb) Continued application of earlier rent                         restrictions (paras. 71 - 73) ........... 13                               cc) Moderation of agreed rent                         (paras. 74 - 76) ......................    13                       dd) Text of the relevant rent control                         provisions (paras. 77 - 78) ...........    14                   b)   Provisions on the maintenance of buildings                     (paras. 79 - 82) ..........................    19                   c)   Provisions on the termination of tenancy                     contracts (paras. 83 - 84) ................    20                   d)   Procedural provisions (paras. 85 - 86) ....    20           3.       Criticism of the legislation and review of                 its constitutionality (paras. 87 - 97) ........    20           4.       Assessment of the value of real property                 (paras. 88 - 101) .............................    22       III.     SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES         (paras. 102 - 171) ....................................    24           A.       The applicants                 (paras. 102 -136) .............................    24           1.       Article 1 of Protocol No. 1                 (paras. 104 - 134) ............................    24                   a)   General (paras. 104 - 126) ................    24                   b)   Concerning the individual cases                     (paras. 127 - 134) ........................    28           2.       Article 14 of the Convention                 (paras. 135 - 136) ............................    30           B.       The Government                 (paras. 137 - 171) ............................    30           1.       Article 1 of Protocol No. 1                 (paras. 137 - 168) ............................    30           2.       Article 14 of the Convention                 (paras. 169 - 171) ............................    36       IV.      OPINION OF THE COMMISSION         (paras. 172 - 231) ....................................    37           A.       Points at issue                 (para. 172) ...................................    37           B.       Article 1 of Protocol No. 1                 (paras. 173 - 227) ............................    37           1.       Nature and scope of the interference                 with the applicants' property rights                 (paras. 173 - 199) ............................    37           2.       Justification of the interference                 with the applicants' property rights                 (paras. 200 - 225) ............................    42                   Conclusions                 (paras. 226 - 227) ............................    47           C.       Article 14 of the Convention                 (paras. 228 - 230) ............................    47                   Conclusion (para. 230) ........................    47           D.       Recapitulation                 (para. 231) ...................................    47   Partly dissenting opinion of Mr.   H.G. Schermers ...............    48   APPENDIX I       :   HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS .................    50   APPENDIX II      :   DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY ..............    53     I.     INTRODUCTION     1.       The following is an outline of the cases as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.     A.       The applications   2.       The applicants in the first case, Leopold and Maria Mellacher, a married couple, are residing in Feldkirchen.   The applicants in the second case, Johannes, Ernst and Anton Mölk and Maria Schmid, are all members of the same family and are residing in Innsbruck.   The applicants in the third case, Christiane Weiss-Tessbach and Maria Brenner-Felsach, are residing in Vienna.   All applicants are Austrian citizens.   3.       The applicants in the first case are represented by Rechtsanwalt Dr.   H.G. Medwed of Graz, the applicants in the second case by Rechtsanwalt Dr.   L. Hoffmann of Innsbruck, and the applicants in the third case by Rechtsanwalt Dr.   O. Weiss-Tessbach and Rechtsanwalt Dr.   F. Leon, both of Vienna, who have subsequently instructed Rechtsanwalt Dr.   G. Benn-Ibler of Vienna.   4.       The applications are directed against Austria whose Government were represented by their Agent, Botschafter Dr.   Helmut Türk of the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   5.       The applicants in the first and second cases are joint owners of apartment houses in Graz and Innsbruck respectively.   The applicants in the third case are the owner and usufructuary of an apartment house in Vienna.   All applicants complain that their contractual rents were reduced by judicial decisions under new legislation restricting rents.   The relevant decisions were based on Section 44 paras. 2 and 3 of the 1981 Rent Act (Mietrechtsgesetz, Fed.   Law Gazette No. 520/1981), which entered into force on 1 January 1982.   6.       The applicants claim that the reduction of their rents amounted to an unjustified interference with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   The applicants in the second case further allege that the reduction was discriminatory and contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.     B.       The proceedings   7.       Application No. 10522/83 was introduced on 5 August and registered on 12 August 1983.   Application No. 11011/84 was introduced on 22 May and registered on 19 June 1984.   Application No. 11070/84 was introduced on 4 July and registered on 6 August 1984.   8.       The Commission began its examination of the admissibility of Application No. 10522/83 on 14 May 1984, but decided to adjourn the further consideration.   The examination of admissibility was resumed on 4 December 1984, when the Commission had also before it Applications Nos. 11011 and 11070/84.   The Commission decided to give notice of all three applications to the respondent Government, in accordance with Rule 42, para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, and to invite them to submit before 22 March 1985 their observations in writing on the admissibility and merits of these applications.   9.       The Government submitted observations concerning the first case on 4 March 1985 and observations concerning the other two cases on 19 March 1985.   The applicants in the first case submitted observations in reply on 11 April 1985 and the applicants in the second and third cases on 9 May 1985.   10.      The Commission decided on 8 July 1985 to join the cases and to invite the parties, in accordance with Rule 42, para. 3 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, to a hearing on the admissibility and merits of the applications.   11.      The hearing was first scheduled for 6 March 1986, but at the Government's request postponed.   At the hearing on 8 May 1986 the parties were represented as follows:           - the Government by their Agent, Botschafter Dr.   Helmut Türk, Head of the International Law Department, Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who was assisted by Ministerialrat Dr.   Wolf Okresek, Federal Chancellery, Constitutional Law Department, and Ministerialrat Dr.   Robert Tschugguel, Federal Ministry of Justice, Advisers;           - the applicants in the first case by Rechtsanwalt Dr.   Hans Günther Medwed and Rechtsanwalt Dr.   Gerold Kleinschuster, Graz;   the applicants in the second case by Rechtsanwalt Dr.   Ludwig Hoffmann, Innsbruck;   the applicants in the third case by Rechtsanwalt Dr.   Gerhard Benn-Ibler, Vienna.   12.      Following the hearing, the Commission declared the applications admissible.   The text of this decision, approved by the Commission on 16 July 1986, was on 22 October 1986 transmitted to the parties who were invited to submit before 31 December 1986 any supplementary observations on the merits which they wished to make. The Government and the applicants in the third case subsequently requested extensions of this time-limit which were granted by the President (until 28 February 1987 for the Government and 20 January 1987 for the applicants).   13.      The applicants in the first case submitted their observations on 17 November 1986, the applicants in the second case on 13 January and the applicants in the third case on 19 January 1987.   The Government submitted their observations on 26 February 1987.   The applicants in the first case submitted observations in reply on 17 March 1987.   14.      On 10 December 1986, 9 May, 8 July and 11 December 1987 and 7 May 1988 the Commission considered the state of proceedings.   15.      After declaring the cases admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 (b) of the Convention, placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the cases.   In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.     C.       The present Report   16.      The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:                MM.   S. TRECHSEL, Acting President                   G. SPERDUTI                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J. C. SOYER                   H. G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER                   H. VANDENBERGHE              Sir   Basil HALL   17.      The text of this Report was adopted on 11 July 1988 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   18.      The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention is:   i)       to establish the facts, and   ii)      to state an opinion as to whether the facts found         disclose a breach by the State concerned of its         obligations under the Convention.   19.      A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the applications as Appendix II.   20.      The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.     II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.       The particular circumstances of the cases   21.      The facts are not in dispute between the parties.   They may be summarised as follows:           1.   Application No. 10522/83   22.      The applicants in the first case jointly own a block of flats in Graz with several apartments leased out to tenants.   23.      They bought this house in 1978 from the compensation for another real property which had been expropriated.   They considered this to be a safe investment having regard to the legislation then in force which allowed to freely negotiate the rent in any new tenancy contracts.   There were several unoccupied apartments in the house at the time of acquisition and this was reflected in the price which the applicants had to pay for the house.   24.      Of the seven apartments in the house two were let to tenants whose contracts had been concluded before 1968 and whose rent was accordingly frozen at the level of 1914 (AS 23.75 and AS 23.80 monthly rent respectively).   Five apartments were subsequently let under freely negotiated contracts pursuant to the 1967 legislation.   One was let for a limited period of time (on the basis of a monthly rent of AS 1,300.-) and thus could not be struck by a measure of rent reduction under Section 44 of the 1981 Rent Act.   The other four contracts were concluded on a permanent basis and could be subjected to such measures, but so far only one tenant has requested a reduction.   In the other three cases the tenants allegedly wish to await the outcome of the present proceedings before they apply for a reduction.   It would bring the rent down from AS 750.- to AS 232.-, from AS 2,850.- to AS 546.- and from AS 1,841.60 to AS 314.- respectively.   25.      The apartment in respect of which a reduction was requested consists of two rooms and a kitchen (with a total surface of 40 m²). It was let on 15 September 1978 under a freely negotiated tenancy contract according to Section 16 para. 1 of the 1922 Rent Act as amended in 1967.   The rent in this particular case was set at AS 1,870.- per month.   26.      In application of the 1981 Rent Act, the tenant of the above apartment on 5 February 1982 applied to the competent Arbitration Board (Schlichtungsamt) of the City of Graz to reduce his rent to AS 330.- (= 150% of the regular rent for class D) as from 1 March 1982.   After holding a hearing on 25 May 1982, the Board on 7 June 1982 allowed the application.   27.      The applicants, dissatisfied with this decision, took the case to the courts, and the Board's decision thereby lost its effect.   The tenant claimed that the apartment was in class D because when he rented the apartment it was without running water and toilet facilities.   These facilities were subsequently installed in the apartment at the tenant's cost.   28.      By a decision of 22 October 1982, the District Court (Bezirksgericht) of Graz confirmed that the apartment was in class D and that under Section 16 para. 2 of the Rent Act the regular monthly rent therefore should not exceed AS 5.50 per m².   Under Section 44 para. 2, the rent had to be reduced to 150% of the regular amount, i.e.   AS 8.25 per m², the total rent thus being AS 330.-.   The overcharge as from 1 March 1982 (AS 12,320.-) had to be paid back to the tenant by virtue of Section 37 of the Act.   29.      The applicants appealed claiming in particular that the restrictions resulting from the application of Section 44 of the Rent Act were unconstitutional.   They invoked the Commission's decision on Application No. 8803/77 (Dec. 3.10.79, D.R. 17 p. 80) concerning the earlier rent protection legislation and argued that the Commission had found the restrictions under that legislation to be at the very limit of permissible interferences with property rights.   The new legislation, being more restrictive, was in the applicants' view not permissible.   The reduction of a freely and lawfully negotiated rent amounted to an expropriation of the landlord's property without compensation.   For these reasons, the applicants suggested that the appellate court refer the matter to the Constitutional Court for an examination of the constitutionality of the relevant legislation.   30.      In addition, the applicants claimed that in the absence of a specific request by the tenant, the Court should not have ordered the reimbursement of the overcharged rent, and that the amount to be reimbursed was exaggerated because it included tax which the applicants had already paid but could not recover from the revenue office.   31.      The Regional Civil Court (Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen) of Graz, however, rejected this appeal on 18 February 1983.   It did not feel prompted to seize the Constitutional Court with the question of the constitutionality of Section 44 of the Rent Act, having regard to the Constitutional Court's case-law concerning similar issues.   As regards the reimbursement, the Regional Court found that under the applicable provisions it had to be ordered ex officio, and the question of taxation was not in issue in the civil proceedings.             2.   Application No. 11011/84   32.      The applicants in the second case jointly own an apartment house in Innsbruck as a community of heirs.   There are 15 apartments in this house of which 4 were let before 1968 on the basis of rent frozen at the level of 1914 (monthly rent AS 32.-, 90.-, 640.- and 212.- respectively).   The other 11 apartments and business premises were let under freely negotiated contracts pursuant to the 1967 legislation, and could thus be made subject of measures of rent reduction under Section 44 of the 1981 Rent Act.   However, so far only one tenant has requested such a measure.   The other tenants (i.e. two firms with monthly rents of AS 25,120.50 and 4,655.- and eight private tenants with monthly rents of AS 3,660.-, 3,300.-, 3,093.-, 2,873.-, 2,735.-, 2,082.-, 1,827.- and 1,229.- respectively) allegedly wish to await the outcome of the present proceedings before making analogous requests.   33.      The apartment in respect of which a reduction of rent was requested has a total surface of 68 m² and consists of three rooms and a kitchen, plus toilet and water facilities accessible through the corridor outside the apartment.   It was let on 7 December 1972 under a freely negotiated tenancy contract according to Section 16 para. 1 of the 1922 Rent Act as amended in 1967.   34.      The rent in this particular case was set at AS 800.- per month until August 1975, and at AS 1,500.- per month as from 1 September 1975 having regard to certain investments to be made by the tenants (including in particular the transfer of the water installations to the apartment).   The rent was furthermore subject to an indexing provision on the basis of the consumer price index for 1966.   As of April 1983, the rent would therefore have been AS 2,985.- per month.   For reasons not explained by the parties, the tenants actually paid AS 1,308.30 as from November 1982.   35.      On 4 October 1982, in application of the 1981 Rent Act, the tenants applied to the competent Arbitration Board (Schlichtungs- stelle) of the City of Innsbruck to reduce the rent to 150% of the regular rent for class D.   The Board allowed the application by a decision of 6 April 1983.   36.      However, the applicants then took the case to the courts, and the Board's decision thereby lost its effect.   A new decision had accordingly to be taken by the District Court of Innsbruck.   37.      Before the District Court, the applicants argued in particular that the apartment in question was in class B.   Although the improvement of standard had not been financed by themselves, but by the tenants, the improvements at the tenants' costs had been agreed in the original contract and had led to a reduction of the rent for the initial period.   The tenants objected that the costs of their investments had by far exceeded the amount by which the rent had temporarily been reduced.   38.      The District Court held on 22 June 1983 that the chargeable rent was in fact to be based on class D because the apartment had been in this class when the tenancy contract was concluded and the standard had not been improved by the landlords.   It accordingly reduced the rent to AS 561.- as from November 1982.   At the same time, it ordered the applicants to pay back to the tenants the overpayments received since that time (amounting to some AS 4,000.-).   39.      The applicants appealed against this decision, claiming in particular that the application of the new legal provisions to them amounted to an expropriation or other disproportionate interference with their property rights as guaranteed by Article 5 of the Basic Law (Staatsgrundgesetz 1867) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   They suggested that the question of constitutionality should be referred to the Constitutional Court.   Apart from that they again claimed that the chargeable rent should in any event be based on class B and not class D.   40.      The Regional Court (Landesgericht) of Innsbruck partially allowed the appeal by a decision of 15 November 1983.   It found that the District Court had failed to take into account the indexing provision of the initial contract.   Apart from that it confirmed the District Court's decision.   In particular it found that the apartment had rightly been classified as a class D apartment having regard to its standard at the time of the conclusion of the tenancy contract.   41.      The Regional Court had no doubts as to the constitutionality of the applicable legislation.   Section 44 of the 1981 Act provided for an expropriation which was in conformity with the requirements of the Constitution and of the Convention.   The public interest served by this legislation was the safeguarding of stable, socially and economically justified housing rents for apartments which as a rule served the urgent needs of those broad sectors of the population who depended on tenancy contracts.   Such apartments were often provided by the landlords without any considerable expenditure of their own.   In those circumstances it could hardly be maintained that the legislator had not acted in the public interest.   Insofar as the legislation did not provide for any compensation for the landlords in respect of the above expropriation, the Court referred the applicants to the possibility to claim such compensation in the appropriate proceedings, i.e. non-contentious proceedings under the Railway Expropriation Act (Eisenbahn-Enteignungsgesetz).   42.      Following this suggestion of the Regional Court, the applicants made an application to the District Court of Innsbruck on 28 December 1983 in which they claimed compensation from the State for legal expropriation, in the amount of AS 26,600.- (concerning the 14-month period between November 1982 and December 1983).   The application was rejected on 5 July 1984 and the applicants did not appeal in time against this decision.   Their subsequent application to be granted leave to appeal out of time was finally rejected by the Innsbruck Regional Court on 3 April 1986.   43.      The applicants also filed an appeal against the Regional Court's above decision of 15 November 1983 claiming that the applicable legislation was unconstitutional.   On 6 March 1984, the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) rejected this appeal as inadmissible.   It found that the appeal was directed against that part of the Regional Court's decision which had confirmed the District Court's decision.   An appeal against a decision of an appellate court was, however, admissible only insofar as it had not confirmed the decision of the court of first instance or if the appellate court itself had granted leave to appeal in view of the fundamental importance of the legal issue involved.   In the present case leave to appeal had not been granted.   In these circumstances there was no room for dealing with the applicants' arguments, in particular as regards the alleged unconstitutionality of the 1981 Rent Act.             3.   Application No. 11070/84   44.      The applicants in the third case are the owner and the usufructuary (Fruchtniesser) of a house in Vienna with several apartments leased out to tenants.   Six further premises in the house are let for other than dwelling purposes under freely negotiated contracts (Section 16 para. 1 sub-para. 1 of the 1981 Rent Act).   45.      Of the ten apartments let to private tenants two come under the provisions on the freeze of rent at the level of 1914; two are renovated apartments for which a freely negotiated rent is admissible under Section 16 para. 1 sub-para. 2; and two are class B apartments with a surface of more than 130m² for which a freely negotiated rent is admissible under Section 16 para. 1 sub-para. 4.   46.      The remaining four apartments come within the scope of the maximum rent provisions of the 1981 Rent Act:   In one case a new tenancy contract was concluded in 1986 under Section 16 para. 2 on the basis of square metre rent for class B (monthly rent AS 2,200.-), and in the other three cases freely negotiated rent agreements which now may be affected by measures of rent reduction under Section 44 were concluded in 1971, 1978 and 1979 respectively.   Two of the tenants concerned who occupy class B apartments (monthly rent AS 6,132.25 and 5,847.- respectively) have not asked for a reduction of their rent.   The third tenant has done so.   47.      The relevant apartment consisting of six rooms, a kitchen, a corridor, a room with washing facilities and a toilet (total surface 200 m²) was let on 1 April 1979 under a freely negotiated tenancy contract according to Section 16 para. 1 of the 1922 Rent Act as amended in 1967.   The rent was set at AS 3,800.- per month, subject to an indexing provision on the basis of the consumer price index for 1976.   The rent had risen to AS 4,236.51 by January 1982.   48.      In application of the 1981 Rent Act, the tenant of the above apartment wrote to the house administration on 23 December 1981 asking them to reduce his rent to AS 3,300.- (= 150% of the regular rent for class C) as from 1 January 1982.   The applicants' lawyer replied on 13 January 1982 that the request was unjustified.   49.      On 19 February 1982, the tenant applied to the competent Arbitration Board (Schlichtungsstelle) of the City of Vienna to reduce the rent to AS 3,300.- as from January 1982 according to the above legal provisions.   After holding a hearing on 24 February 1982, the Board decided on 28 May 1982 to allow the application.   50.      The applicants, dissatisfied with this decision, took the case to the courts, and the Board's decision thereby lost its effect.   The applicants observed in particular that the tenant had in his original application referred to a square metre rent of AS 16.50, i.e. the rent corresponding to class B apartments.   They submitted that this qualification of the apartment was correct and that the reduction of the rent was inadmissible in the case of apartments of class B exceeding a surface of 130 m² (Section 16 para. 1 sub-para. 4 of the Act).   They further submitted that the house was situated in a zone of protection of monuments, and that the reduction of the rent was inadmissible also under Section 16 para. 1 sub-para. 3.   The tenant contested these arguments.   51.      After holding several hearings, the District Court of Vienna City (Bezirksgericht Wien - Innere Stadt) decided on 31 August 1983 to reduce the rent to AS 3,300.- per month as from 1 January 1982.   It held that the apartment had in fact been in class C at the date of the conclusion of the tenancy contract because the bathroom had not been fully equipped, and that Section 16 para. 1 sub-para. 4 of the Act was therefore inapplicable.   Section 16 para. 1 sub-para. 3 was likewise inapplicable because it had not been proven that the house was situated in a zone of monument protection.   It was true that the applicants had made considerable investments (in the total amount of AS 563,745.-), but this did not change the situation.   52.      The applicants appealed from this decision alleging in particular that the apartment had been wrongly classified in class C, and that Section 16 para. 1 sub-para. 3 applied.   53.      The Regional Civil Court (Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen) of Vienna rejected the appeal by a decision of 13 December 1983.   It found that the District Court had correctly assessed the evidence and had rightly concluded that neither Section 16 para. 1 sub-para. 4 nor Section 16 para. 1 sub-para. 3 of the Act were applicable.   In particular it had not been proven that the investments made by the applicants had been financed from other means than their rent income which they were legally obliged to use for maintenance purposes.   It had therefore not been shown that they had borne a considerable financial risk of their own.   In these circumstances the legal conditions for reducing the rent were fulfilled.   B.       Relevant domestic law           1.   The development of the rent control legislation until 1981   54.      A system of rent control has existed in Austria since World War I.   The 1922 Rent Act (Mietengesetz, Fed.   Law Gazette No. 872/1922) which, subject to numerous amendments, remained in force until 1981, provided for the freezing of rents at the 1914 level (Section 2).   The landlord was entitled to levy extra charges on account of current costs of administration, taxes, and special equipment (Betriebskosten, Sections 4 and 5).   In case of the conclusion of new tenancy contracts he could ask for a supplement not exceeding a maximum amount laid down in the law (Neuvermietungszuschlag, Section 16 of the pre-1967 version).   55.      The landlord was obliged to use the rent income for the normal maintenance costs of the building but he was not obliged to carry out any improvement measures (Section 6), which, however, could be undertaken with the agreement of the tenants concerned subject to a supplement to the rent to be paid by them (Section 5 first sentence). If the necessary maintenance costs were not covered by the rent income of the last seven years, the landlord could ask for an increased amount of rent (erhöhter Hauptmietzins) to be fixed by the court for a period not exceeding ten years.   In that case the landlord was required to use the entire additional rent income during that period for the necessary maintenance measures (Section 7).   56.      The 1922 Rent Act further provided for an important number of restrictions on the landlord's right to terminate tenancy contracts (Sections 19-23).   In principle, such contracts could be terminated only for important reasons (Section 19 para. 1).   The law specified what was to be regarded as an important reason within the meaning of this provision (Section 19 para. 2) and in practice the grounds of admissible termination of contract were interpreted in a restrictive manner.   The contract did not terminate when the tenant died.   The law provided for a right of succession (Eintrittsrecht) of near relatives (spouse, children and adoptive children, brothers and sisters) and other persons who had lived in the household of the tenant (Section 19 para. 2 sub-para. 11).   When the landlord or near relatives wished to use the apartment in question the contract could only be terminated if there existed an "urgent need" (which in practice was interpreted as meaning a "genuine emergency"), and if adequate alternative accommodation was put at the disposal of the tenant (Section 19 para. 2 sub-para. 6).   57.      However, the above restrictions, in particular the restrictions on the claimable amount of rent, were not of universal application.   No rent restrictions applied to apartments in buildings constructed after 1917 and to certain other apartments including apartments newly created after the entry into force of the 1922 Act (Section 1).   A split housing market was therefore created which privileged the owners of newly constructed houses or apartments whose rental claims were subject only to the limitations resulting from the general provisions of the Civil Code (Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) concerning the law of contracts.   58.      Under the German rule in Austria a price stop was introduced also in respect of certain tenancy agreements which did not come within the scope of the 1922 Rent Act (Mietzinsregelungsverordnung, Gesetzblatt für das Land Oesterreich, No. 159/1938).   The price stop was maintained by Austrian legislation introduced in 1954 (Zinsstoppgesetz, Fed.   Law Gazette No. 132/1954).   In respect of tenancy contracts existing on 30 June 1954 the freely negotiated rent resulting from an earlier agreement could no longer be increased unless this was authorised by a judicial decision taken by analogous application of the relevant provisions of the 1922 Rent Act concerning rent increases.   However, no restrictions applied to new contracts in respect of apartments which did not come within the scope of the 1922 Rent Act, i.e. first of all apartments in new houses.   59.      In 1967, an amendment of the Rent Act (Mietrechtsänderungs- gesetz, Fed.   Law Gazette No. 281/1967) brought about an important liberalisation also in respect of apartments which came within the scope of this Act.   As from 1 January 1968 rent restrictions were continued only for earlier tenancy contracts which remained in force, including contracts maintained on the basis of the right of succession of another person than the original tenant.   Here the freeze of rent continued to operate on the basis of conversion of each Crown of the 1914 rent into 1 Schilling for apartments and into 2 Schillings (3 Schillings as from 1 January 1969) for business premises.   However, the parties could fix a higher rent by mutual agreement once the contract had lasted more than six months.   New contracts were no longer subjected to any restrictions on the amount of rent even in respect of apartments which had previously been subject to rent control, provided that these apartments were relet within 6 months after the entry into force of the new legislation, or 6 months after vacation by the previous tenant (Section 16 para. 1, new version).   The landlord was obliged to use at least half of his additional rent income for maintenance purposes (Section 16 para. 2).   60.      The liberalisation of the market led to relatively high rents even for newly let apartments in old houses.   The continued freeze of rent applied to existing contracts favoured a tendency for the perpetuation of old contracts, and a corresponding scarcity of vacancies in this category of apartments which had repercussions on the free market for new contracts.   The relatively high amount of rent which could now be obtained for newly let apartments in old houses was also favoured by the existence of high rents in the market for newly constructed apartments which were exempted from the system of rent controls already before 1968.   In 1981 a landlord could obtain on the free market up to thirty times the amount of rent frozen at the 1914 level.   61.      The unfavourable development of the housing market led to the re-introduction of rent controls for so-called substandard apartments in 1974.   By a further amendment to the Rent Act (Mietengesetznovelle, Fed.   Law Gazette No. 409/1974) fresh restrictions were introduced for new leases of such apartments.   While the existing contracts in respect of these apartments remained unaffected (even if they were based on a free agreement concluded since 1968), new contracts could be concluded as from 1 August 1974 only on the basis of a legal square metre rent of AS 4.- (Section 16 para. 3 of the Rent Act as amended in 1974).   As this amount was regarded as insufficient by many landlords, they preferred to leave vacant apartments in this category unoccupied, a fact which put an additional strain on the housing market and tended to favour higher rents for the remaining categories of apartments.   62.      Apart from the above rent control provisions which affected mainly apartments in old houses constructed before World War I, the Austrian legislation prior to 1981 also included rent control provisions applicable to certain houses constructed at a later date, in particular houses constructed with public subsidies (Wohnbauförde- rungsgesetz 1968, Fed.   Law Gazette No. 280/1967) or by non-profit housing associations (Wohnungsgemeinnützigkeitsgesetz 1979, Fed.   Law Gazette No. 139/1979).   This legislation contained detailed regulations on the calculation of rents which were based on the principle that they may not exceed the costs incurred by the owner. It has not been affected by the 1981 Rent Act.           2.   The 1981 Rent Act (Mietrechtsgesetz)   63.      The 1922 Rent Act (Mietengesetz) has been abrogated and replaced by a new Act (Mietrechtsgesetz, Fed.   Law Gazette No. 520/1981) which entered into force on 1 January 1982.   It was intended to bring about an overall reform of the law governing the relationship between landlords and tenants.   64.      However, like the previous Rent Act, the 1981 Act is not of universal application to all tenancy contracts.   Section 1 para. 2 exempts (i) premises let to certain types of enterprises, (ii) premises let as official residences, (iii) premises let for less than six months and (iv) premises let as secondary residences or for leisure purposes.   Section 1 para. 3 furthermore excludes the application of the rent control provisions of the Act to buildings constructed and owned by non-profit housing associations which in this respect are subject to the special rent control provisions of the Non-Profit Housing Act (Wohnungsgemeinnützigkeitsgesetz, cf. para. 62 above). Section 1 para. 4 finally stipulates that only certain provisions (concerning the termination of tenancy contracts, the right of succession to tenancy contracts and maintenance contributions) shall apply to (i) buildings constructed without public subsidies after 30 June 1953, (ii) houses with not more than two separate apartments and (iii) freehold flats (Eigentumswohnungen) in buildings constructed after 1945.   In these cases the amount of rent can be freely agreed without any restrictions.   65.      As regards apartments and premises which come within the scope of the Act, a fundamental change has taken place concerning the system of rent control (cf. paras. 66-78 below).   Further important modifications of the earlier legislation concern the landlord's obligations as to the maintenance of his property (cf. paras. 79-82 below).   The provisions on termination of tenancy contracts have in substance been maintained subject to certain minor amendments (cf. paras. 83-84   below).           a) Provisions on rent control   66. &#x