CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 28 janvier 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s85A66119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8ED1F3C2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s26671568 { margin-left:4.4pt; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s9047E8B1 { height:45.4pt } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8EDCF97E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:5.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s191F7FEB { width:4.06pt; display:inline-block } .sB993B0A7 { height:16.15pt } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2637CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF441B31A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:32.55pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .sEEAEA5DC { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:77.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF8C8B0A7 { height:15.55pt } .s9E7DF94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .s8A7F31D3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:6.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .s1479B0A7 { height:13.85pt } .sADC94CD6 { height:15pt } .s2C26B0A7 { height:19.75pt } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC31874BD { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sEBA8B701 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s11EE8375 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sB2D0B857 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s98DB73F0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFCF63115 { width:173.58pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s6CDEDE67 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-21.25pt; text-align:justify } .s6893305C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-21.25pt } .sC8636342 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .s9CF35727 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#f3f3f3 } .sA28FE10C { margin:0pt 44.8pt 0pt 30.05pt; text-align:center; font-size:11.5pt } .s3561545 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#333333 } .s2B501324 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#f3f3f3 } .sF8ED3D27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11.5pt } .s6C2EF4F5 { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#f3f3f3 } .sB38FF07F { height:90.35pt } .sDB7C1D36 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC9E698B2 { margin:0pt 44.8pt 0pt 30.05pt; font-size:11.5pt } .sE966E8C { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s858CF1B6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11.5pt } .sAE73F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:10pt } .s7D0F1B84 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFCF9118E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:8.8pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-8.8pt; text-align:right; font-size:10pt } .sF21DF07F { height:97.05pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sC120E4DE { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4FE28A4B { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5B7C3856 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s8DF6C4 { font-family:Arial; color:#333333 } .s2C0BCC49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:9pt } .sD503FFAD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11.5pt } .sF5B34857 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt; font-weight:bold } .s28EA6D70 { height:42.65pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s217C4F66 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1DD86833 { margin:0pt 44.8pt 0pt 30.05pt; font-size:10pt } .s60674F89 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB5D7E71E { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }       THIRD SECTION             CASE OF BITTÓ AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA   (Application no. 30255/09)           JUDGMENT ( Merits )   This version was rectified on 12 March 2014 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court     STRASBOURG   28 January 2014     FINAL   28/04/2014   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Bittó and Others v. Slovakia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Josep Casadevall, President ,   Alvina Gyulumyan,   Ján Šikuta,   Luis López Guerra,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Johannes Silvis,   Valeriu Griţco, judges , and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 7 January 2014, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 30255/09) against the Slovak Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by twenty-one Slovakian nationals on 28 May 2009. On   16   January 2011, one of the applicants, Ms   H. Vojtášová, (see point 17   of Appendix 1) died. Mr B. Vojtáš (see point 18 of Appendix 1), her son and sole heir, expressed the wish to pursue the application in his late mother’s stead. 2.     The applicants were represented 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. 3.     The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, both taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, about restrictions which the rules governing rent control imposed on their right to peacefully enjoy their possessions. 4.     By a decision of 4 January 2012 the Court declared the application partly admissible. 5.     The applicants and the Government each filed further written observations (Rule 59 § 1) on the merits. The Chamber having decided, after consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 3 in fine ), the parties replied in writing to each other’s observations. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.     The particulars of the applicants appear in Appendix 1. A.     Background information on rent control 7.     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. 8.     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. 9.     As regards flats in residential houses, tenancies were replaced by the “right of lasting use”. 10.     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. 11.     After 1991 some residential houses were restored to their former owners; however, flats in these houses were mostly occupied by tenants with regulated rent. 12.     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 chargeable for similar housing let on the principles of a free-market economy. 13.     In situations similar to that of the applicants, the owners of residential houses had practically no means of terminating tenancies and evicting tenants without providing them with “housing compensation”. Furthermore, owners were not allowed to transfer ownership of a flat rented by an individual to any third person other than the tenant. 14.     The Government of the Slovak Republic have dealt with the issue of rent control on several occasions as indicated below. 15.     Documents of the Ministry of Construction and Regional Development indicate that, by 20 January 2009, registration forms had been submitted by tenants in respect of 923 flats where rent control was applied. 2,311 persons lived in those flats, the average surface area of which was 71.38 square metres. The documents indicate that it was envisaged that substitute accommodation would be made available to the persons concerned by the planned reform so long as this was justified by their social situation. 76.5% of the tenants thus registered lived in flats located in Bratislava. 16.     On the basis of those data, the authorities estimated that the rent ‑ control scheme concerned approximately 1,000 flats, that is, 0.24% of rented flats in houses that existed in 1991 and 0.06% of the inhabited housing facilities which were available in Slovakia in 2001. B.     Particular circumstances of the applicants’ cases 17.     The applicants are owners or co-owners of residential buildings in Bratislava and Trnava to which the rent-control scheme applies, or has applied, (further details are set out in Appendix 2). They obtained the ownership of the flats by various means, such as restitution, donation or inheritance from their relatives to whom the flats had been restored in the early 1990s. In two cases the applicants purchased further shares of ownership from the other co-owner, the Bratislava Municipality. Mr   Dobšovič and Ms Dobšovičová (applicants listed in points 6 and 7 of Appendix 1) purchased the flats from individuals in 2005. The majority of the other applicants acquired ownership in the course of the 1990s. In the meantime, the rent-control scheme has ceased to be applicable to several of the flats concerned. 18.     The applicants maintained that the rent to which they are, or were, 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. 19.     The parties submitted the following information as regards the impact of the rent-control scheme on the applicants. 1.     Documents submitted by the applicants 20.     Initially, and by way of example, the applicants pointed out that the controlled rent in respect of a flat with a surface area of 72.56 square metres was 71.50 euros (EUR) per month, which corresponds to EUR 0.99 per square metre. However, the monthly free-market rent in respect of such a flat was approximately EUR 830, that is EUR 11.40 per square metre. 21.     The applicants further relied on the opinion of an expert provided at their request on 19 July 2010. It set out the difference between the free ‑   market rent and the controlled rent in respect of a residential house located at Trenčianska St. in Bratislava-Nivy for the period from 1993 to 2010 (for further details see Appendix 3). 22.     Following the Court’s decision to declare the application admissible, the applicants submitted voluminous opinions of experts concerning their properties. 23.     The opinion of expert I. no. 51/2012 of 26 April 2012, which the applicants relied on by way of example, concerns a residential house where rent control applied to five out of the eight flats. It was situated on Tallerova St. in Bratislava – in the Staré Mesto district – and several applicants are co ‑ owners of the flats concerned (see also Appendix 4). The opinion indicated that the relevant legislation allowed for regulated rent which corresponded, on average, to 0.69% of the acquisition value of a flat in 1994. That ratio was 0.79% in 2001 and 1.96% in 2011. 24.     According to expert opinion no.   51/2012, the regulated rent amounted to 2.2% of the free-market rent in 1993. In 2002 it corresponded, on average, to 4.5% of the free-market rent, and in 2011 the average regulated rent corresponded to 14.3% of the free-market rent.   The applicants submitted that the other opinions concerning their properties were in line with that conclusion. The above opinion contains the following valuation of the flats concerned for the period from 1   January to 31 March 2012:   Flat no.   Monthly market   rent EUR/m2   Monthly controlled rent EUR/m2   Percentage controlled/ market rent     1 8.28 1.58 19% 2   N/A in 2012   5 8.28 1.55 18.7% 6 7.92 1.11 14% 7   8.16   1.12   13.7%   25.     As regards the maintenance costs of their properties, the applicants submitted that most of them did not have sufficient means to ensure renovation and maintenance of the houses because of low incomes under the rent-control scheme. They relied on the expert opinions which determined the “cost-based rent” in respect of the houses owned by them, namely, the rent calculated on the basis of the current technical value of the buildings and on the costs necessary for their ordinary and adequate periodic maintenance, while taking into account the gradual wear and tear of the buildings. Thus according to expert opinion no. 51/2012, the regulated rent amounted to 3.3% of the “cost-based rent” in 1993. In 2002 it corresponded, on average, to 5.3% of the “cost-based rent”, and in 2011 the average regulated rent corresponded to 26.4% of the “cost-based rent”. 26.     With reference to the experts’ conclusions, the applicants maintained that they had suffered pecuniary damage on account of the application of the rent-control scheme to their property. This was determined as the difference between the free-market rent applicable to similar dwellings and the controlled rent which the applicants were allowed to charge throughout the period of ownership and application of the rent-control scheme. The damage which the individual applicants claimed to have suffered is specified in Appendix 5. 2.     Documents submitted by the Government 27.     The Government initially submitted the opinion of a different expert, drawn up in 2010, according to which the average free-market monthly rent for flats comparable to those of the applicants in the municipality of Bratislava-Staré Mesto was between EUR 6.13 and 6.48 per square metre. In the broader centre of Trnava the free-market rent was between EUR   3.37   and EUR 3.87 per square metre at that time. 28.     In response to the detailed expert opinions submitted by the applicants, the Government first submitted an opinion by the Forensic Engineering Institute in Žilina. It pointed to errors in several of the expert opinions, challenged the methods applied by the experts and their standing to determine the amount of profit lost by the applicants. The view was expressed that direct comparison with dwellings where the rent-control scheme did not apply was the most appropriate method for determining the damage suffered by the applicants. 29.     Subsequently, the Government submitted an opinion drawn up by the Forensic Engineering Institute in Žilina on 15 November 2012. It indicated that lack of statistical data for the overall period of rent control prevented the flat owners’ lost profit from being determined in an objective manner. In order to establish appropriate compensation for the applicants, it was therefore appropriate to use a methodology similar to determination of compensation for tolerating an easement over the property. Among other data, the opinion indicated that, under the regulation in force between 1964 and the end of June 1992, the rent in respect of a three-room flat corresponded to EUR 0.08 per square metre. As from 1 July 1992 a 100% increase was applied. 30.     By means of comparison, the opinion established that, in 2012, the monthly market rental value of flats in Bratislava varied between EUR   4.71   and EUR 5.97 per square metre depending on the location, number of rooms and equipment. It amounted to EUR 4.51/4.52 in respect of one/two-room flats in Trnava. At the same time, the rental value of the applicants’ flats under the rent ‑ control scheme was between EUR 1.20 and 1.60 in most cases, the extreme and exceptional values being EUR 0.45 and EUR 2.21 in Bratislava. In Trnava the controlled rent of the applicants’ flats varied between EUR 1.24 and EUR 1.60 in 2012. In determining the rental value of the applicants’ flats in 2012 a 40% increase was applied (as provided for by Law no.   260/2011 in 2011 and 2012). The relevant data are set out in Appendix 4 (columns A – F). 31.     According to the expert opinion, appropriate compensation payable to the applicants should be calculated as the difference between the net monthly income (profit) which they were able to obtain for renting their flats under the rent-control scheme and the net monthly income (profit) which could be drawn from letting comparable flats at the market price. The calculation is based on (i) the technical value of the flats in 2012, (ii) their rental value (both on the free market and under the rent-control scheme) in 2012; (iii) duration of application of the rent-control scheme; (iv) the ownership share of individual applicants; and (v) the marginal interest rate of the European Central Bank. The amounts of compensation to which the individual applicants are entitled in accordance with the above method of calculation for the period covered by the opinion are set out in Appendix 4 (column G). II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     Constitution 32.     Pursuant to Article 20 § 1, the ownership right of all persons has the same legal content and enjoys the same protection. B.     Civil Code 33.     Article 124 guarantees the same rights and obligations to all owners. Equal legal protection is to be granted to all owners. 34.     Provisions concerning the lease of flats are set out in Articles 685 to 716 of the Civil Code. 35.     Pursuant to Article 687, a landlord is obliged to put a flat at a tenant’s disposal in a fit state for normal use and to secure to the tenant the full and uninterrupted enjoyment of rights in connection with the use of the flat. 36.     Article 696 § 1 provides, inter alia , that the method of calculating the rent, the service charges related to the use of the flat, the method of paying the rent and service charges, and the conditions under which a landlord is entitled to unilaterally increase the rent and service charges and amend other terms of the lease are governed by special legislation. 37.     Under Article 706, after a tenant’s death the right to the lease passes to the tenant’s relatives if they can prove that they were living with the tenant in a shared household on the day of his or her death and do not have their own flat. The same right is to be enjoyed by persons who have taken care of a shared household and lived with the tenant in a shared household for at least three years and do not have their own flat. 38.     Article 707 § 1 entitles the surviving spouse to become the sole tenant of a jointly leased flat upon the other spouse’s death. 39.     The provisions of Article 706 and Article 707 § 1 are also applicable in the event that a tenant permanently leaves a shared household. 40.     Pursuant to Article 871 § 1, enacted with effect from 1 January 1992, “the right of lasting use” of flats and other premises under the law previously in force and subsisting on that date was transformed into a tenancy with regulated rent. C.     The Flats (and other Premises) Ownership of Act (Law no.   182/1993) 41.     Section 16(1) governs the transfer of ownership of a flat. Where a flat is rented by an individual, unless the right to rent the flat was agreed for a fixed period, a landlord can transfer ownership of it only to the tenant. This provision does not affect the co-owner’s pre-emption right. D.     The Price Act 1996 (Law no. 18/1996) 42.     As a general rule, the price of goods, including the amount of rent, is determined on the basis of an agreement between the seller and the buyer (sections 1-3). 43.     Part Three of the Price Act 1996 allows State measures to be taken in response to undesired price developments. They include regulation of prices and a prohibition on agreeing a price which is inappropriate. 44.     Under section 4a (formerly section 4), price regulation is permissible where, inter alia , an extraordinary market situation arises, where there is a threat to the market as a result of an insufficiently developed competitive environment, or where it is required for the purpose of protecting consumers or on grounds of another public interest. 45.     Price regulation can be achieved through the fixing of prices by the authorities, the setting of conditions for agreements on prices or a combination of those two methods (section 5). 46.     Section 8, enacted with effect from 1 November 2008, provides that, when regulating prices, the authorities must take into account justified costs and an appropriate profit. 47.     Pursuant to section 20(1) and (2), the Ministry of Finance sets conditions for price regulation and decides on related matters. Until 1 March 2005 the Ministry of Construction and Regional Development was authorised to regulate rent. The scope of regulation is to be determined by a generally binding legal rule (section 11). 48.     Law no. 68/2005 of 3 February 2005 introduced a number of amendments to the Price Act 1996. Pursuant to section 1(12) of Law no. 68/2005, the 2003 Ordinance (see below) was repealed. Law no. 68/2005 came into force on 1 March 2005 with the exception of section 1(12), which took effect on 1 July 2007. 49.     Another amendment to the Price Act 1996 was introduced by Law no. 200/2007 of 29 March 2009, with effect from 1 July 2007. Pursuant to that amendment, the date when the 2003 Ordinance would cease to have effect was postponed until 31 December 2008. E.     Law no. 260/2011 50.     On 15 September 2011, the Termination and Settlement of Tenancy (Certain Apartments) Act (Law no. 260/2011) came into force. It was enacted with a view to eliminating rent restrictions concerning individual owners. 51.     Its provisions are applicable, in particular, to apartments of individuals whose rent has so far been regulated. In those cases, landlords were entitled to give notice of termination of a tenancy contract by 31   March 2012. Such termination of tenancy takes 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 expiry of the notice period, until a new tenancy contract with a municipality has been set up. Law no. 260/2011 further entitles landlords to increase the rent by 20% once a year until 2015. 52.     Municipalities are obliged to provide a person exposed to material hardship with a municipal apartment with regulated rent. If a municipality does not comply with that obligation by 31 December 2016 in a given case, the landlord can claim the difference between the free ‑ market and the regulated rent. F.     Housing Development State Fund Act 2013 53.     Law no. 150/2013 amends the earlier legislation on the Housing Development State Fund. It will take effect on 1 January 2014. Among other things, with reference to Law no. 260/2011 it entitles owners of houses or flats which had been restored to the original owners to apply for a preferential loan for the purpose of modernisation of such buildings. G.     Subordinate legal rules governing rent 54.     Decree no. 60/1964 of the Central Authority for the Development of Local Economy on payment for the use of flats and related services was in force from 1964 until the end of 1999. It divided flats into four categories according to their status and fixed the yearly price for their use. 55.     On 12 March 1996 the Ministry of Finance issued Regulations no.   87/1996 implementing the Price Act 1996. They became operative on 1   April 1996. Regulation 3(1) and 3(2) requires economically justified costs and appropriate profit to be taken into account in the context of price regulation. 56.     In 1992, 2000 and 2001 and on 1 March 2003 the Ministry of Finance issued four instruments of subordinate legislation providing for an increase in controlled rent by 100%, 70%, 45% and 95% respectively. 57.     On 22 December 2003 the Ministry of Construction and Regional Development issued the 2003 Ordinance (Ordinance ( výnos ) no. V-1/2003 on Control of Rent for Lease of Flats). It fixes the maximum permissible amount of rent for a flat according to its surface area and category, without distinction as to its location. The ordinance ceased to have effect on 1 May 2008. 58.     On 23 April 2008 the Ministry of Finance issued Measure ( opatrenie ) no. 01/R/2008 on Control of Rent for Flats with reference to sections 11 and 20 of the Price Act 1996. It entered into force on 1 May 2008. 59.     Similarly to the previous rules, it fixes the maximum amount of rent per square metre of inhabitable space and annexes (section 1). An increase or reduction is possible depending on the furnishings available. In respect of flats built from public funds after 1 February 2001 the maximum rent is fixed at 5% of their acquisition value (section 2(1)). 60.     Section 3 allows an increase of the maximum rent by 15% in houses built without public funding or those which were restored to owners or their successors by way of redress for past wrongs. 61.     Pursuant to section 4, rent control does not apply to, inter alia , vacant flats in houses built without public funding or in houses restored to owners by way of redress for past wrongs, with the exception of cases which concern the transfer of a lease or the exchange of a flat (Articles 706 ‑ 08 of the Civil Code). Similarly, rent control does not apply to houses built without any public funding where construction officially ended after 1   February 2001. 62.     Lastly, section 5 of the Measure repeals the 2003 Ordinance. 63.     On 25 September 2008 the Ministry of Finance issued Measure no.   02/R/2008 amending the above Measure of 23 April 2008 on rent control. It entered into force on 1 October 2008. It does not affect the amount of permissible rent but specifies the conditions under which such rent can be charged after 31 December 2011. 64.     In particular, the newly introduced section 4a(1) allows the rent ‑ control scheme to continue to apply after the above date where, on 1   October 2008, (i) tenants or persons sharing their household did not own or co-own a comparable flat or inhabitable real property in the same municipality or within 50 kilometres of its boundaries; (ii) the landlord and the tenant have not reached a different agreement on rent before 1 January 2012; and (iii)   the tenants concerned have submitted a registration form to the Ministry of Construction and Regional Development before 31   December 2008. H.     Government policy and planning documents 65.     The Government’s plan on housing policy and construction of flats for the period between 1994 and 2000, drawn up in 1994, envisaged that rent in respect of flats owned by individuals should be increased with a view to covering the owners’ costs as from 1 January 1995. It further envisaged the introduction of rent levels based on market prices as from 1 January 1996. 66.     The Government Manifesto of November 2002 indicated that the Government would take measures for deregulation of rent before the envisaged accession of Slovakia to the European Union. Any regulatory measures thereafter were to be exclusively linked to the real increase of costs. 67.     Further plans on housing policy and construction of flats, drawn up in 2000 and 2005, also envisaged the introduction of market-level rent in the private sector. Housing capacity in municipal flats was to be increased so that substitute accommodation could be provided to indigent persons who would be affected by such liberalisation of rent. 68.     The need for elimination of rent control was confirmed in the most recent plan of 2010, which covers the period until 2015. The document indicates that the private sector of rented housing is underdeveloped, particularly because of the past system of rent control and the excessive protection of tenants. 69.     In decision no. 357/2008 the Ministry of Construction and Regional Development was instructed to prepare a plan for settling relations between landlords and tenants in flats where rent control had been applied. The plan was approved on 16 September 2009 (decision no. 640/2009). That decision instructed the ministers concerned to prepare, before 31 December 2010, Bills on termination and settlement of certain landlord/tenant relationships and on rent control in the public sector, as well as regulations on housing allowances, to offer substitute housing facilities to the tenants concerned and to lay down the scope, conditions and manner of their acquisition. In addition, compensation of a structural nature was envisaged for owners of residential houses. 70.     Subsequently, the Minister of Construction and Regional Development asked the Mayor of Bratislava to identify suitable plots on which substitute housing facilities could be built for persons in need. I.     Proceedings before the Constitutional Court 71.     In an application to the Constitutional Court, lodged on 29 March 2007, the General Prosecutor challenged, inter alia , the 2003 Ordinance as being contrary to the Constitution. The application expressed the view that the Price Act 1996 did not entitle the Ministry of Construction and Regional Development to issue an ordinance on rent control; that the Ordinance was discriminatory and restricted the right of flat owners; that it was questionable whether such a restriction was in the public interest and necessary; and that the Ordinance should have ceased to have effect as from 1 March 2005. The absence of any compensation for landlords to whom the rent-control scheme applied was also criticised.   On 7 June 2007 the General Prosecutor supplemented the application by also challenging Law no.   200/2007 amending the Price Act 1996. 72.     On 8 April 2009 the Constitutional Court discontinued the proceedings without examination of the merits, on the ground that the application had been withdrawn. It noted that the Price Act 1996 had been amended and that the 2003 Ordinance had ceased to have effect. THE LAW I.     LOCUS STANDI OF THE SON OF THE DECEASED APPLICANT 73.     One of the applicants, Ms   H. Vojtášová, died on 16 January 2011. Mr   B. Vojtáš, her son and sole heir, who also lodged an application in respect of property which he had co-owned with his mother, expressed the wish to pursue the application in his late mother’s stead. 74.     The Court notes that the present application concerns a property right which is, in principle, transferable to the next of kin of the deceased person. Mr B. Vojtáš was a co-owner of the flats in question and inherited the ownership share of the deceased applicant. In these circumstances the Court considers that he has standing to continue the present proceedings in his mother’s stead (see Sharenok v. Ukraine , no. 35087/02, § 12, 22   February 2005). II.     COMPLIANCE WITH THE TIME-LIMIT OF SIX MONTHS 75.     Under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the Court may only deal with the matter “within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken”. Where the alleged violation constitutes a continuing situation against which no domestic remedy is available, such as application of rent-control scheme under the relevant legislation in the present case, the six-month period starts to run from the end of the situation concerned (see, among other authorities, Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, § 68, 17 January 2013). Pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention, the Court shall reject any application which it considers inadmissible under that Article. It may do so at any stage of the proceedings. 76.     Following the Court’s decision to declare the application admissible, the parties submitted further relevant information. It comprised expert opinions which specified the periods of application of the rent-control scheme in respect of the individual flats concerned. 77.     The documents submitted indicate (see Appendix 2) that rent control had ceased to apply in respect of the flats owned by the following applicants more than six months before the introduction of the application on 28 May 2009: - Mr M. Bittó: flats nos. 3, 5, 6, 7 and 14 in the house at Zámočnícka   11   St. in Bratislava and flats nos. 5, 9, 10, 13 and 14 in the house at Dunajská 38 St. in Bratislava; - Mr J. Zemko: flats nos. 3 and 6 in the house at Kalinčiakova 31 St. in Trnava; - Mr F. Spišák and Ms V. Spišáková: flats nos. 12, 15, 19 and 23 in the house at Štefánikova 31 St. in Bratislava; - Mr V. Dobšovič and Ms M. Dobšovičová: flats no. 3, 8 and 9 in the house at Jelenia 7 St. in Bratislava; - Mr J. Bíreš: flats nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7 in the house at Trenčianska   6   St. in Bratislava: and [1] - Ms Z. Studencová: flat no. 1 in the house at Šancová 30 St. in Bratislava. 78.     To the extent that those applicants allege a breach of their rights as a result of rent control in respect of the flats indicated in the preceding paragraph, they failed to respect the time-limit of six months laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. III.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 79.     The applicants complained that their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions had been breached as a result of the implementation of the rules governing rent control in respect of their property. They relied on 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.” A.     The arguments of the parties 1.     The applicants 80.     The applicants alleged that the successive ministerial ordinances and measures governing rent control ran contrary to the Price Act 1996 and Regulations no. 87/1996 on the implementation of that Act. In particular, the subordinate legislation on rent control disregarded the requirement, laid down in Regulation 3(1) and 3(2) of Regulations no. 87/1996, that economically justified costs and appropriate profit should be taken into account in the context of price regulation. 81.     The limitations imposed on the use of their property, over a period of nearly twenty years, were excessive. A disproportionate and unjustified burden had been thereby imposed on the applicants. The controlled rent corresponded to some 10 to 20% of the free-market rent during the period from 1993 to 2010. Despite an increase which had been permissible as from 2011, controlled rent remained several times lower than free-market rent. The amounts in question 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. 82.     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 rented housing including appropriate maintenance of the existing housing facilities and the construction of new ones. 83.     Expert opinion no.   51/2012 of 26 April 2012 (see paragraph 23 above) indicated that in Slovakia the relevant legislation allowed for regulated rent which had corresponded, on average, to 0.69% of the acquisition value of a flat in 1994. That percentage had been 0.79% in 2001 and 1.96% in 2011. In contrast, section 2(1) of the Ministry of Finance Measure 1/R/2008 provided that the maximum permissible annual rent for flats which were built from public funds from 2001 onwards was 5% of their acquisition value (see paragraph 59 above). The State thus shifted a heavier burden onto private owners of the flats, including the applicants. 84.     Furthermore, the amendments as regards the maximum controlled rent did not automatically entitle the applicants to charge the corresponding amounts as, in accordance with the domestic courts’ practice, any increase of rent had to be the subject of an agreement between the landlords and tenants. 85.     The applicants also argued that, unlike in social flats built from public funds, there was no reliable system to check whether their tenants’ current situation justified their benefitting from regulated rent. As a result, the applicants were obliged to let their flats to the original users or their descendants regardless of their current financial or social situation. 86.     Slovak legislation foresaw no compensation for owners of residential houses in the applicants’ position and the rules enacted in 2011 unnecessarily prolonged the rent-control scheme until the end of 2016. 2.     The Government 87.     The Government conceded that the rent-control scheme had resulted in a restriction on the use of the applicants’ property. Such a measure was in accordance with the relevant domestic law. 88.     The interference pursued a legitimate aim, namely, to protect tenants against unaffordable increases in rent. The Government argued that the national authorities had, in principle, more direct knowledge of the general interest, and that areas such as housing, as a prime social need, often called for some form of regulation by the State. 89.     As to the requirement of proportionality, the Government maintained that a swift deregulation of rent would have had unfavourable social implications. For that reason, 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. The levels of regulated rent had been repeatedly increased and other measures had been taken with a view to reducing the burden imposed on flat owners. 90.     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. 91.     With respect to the amount of rent chargeable under the rent-control scheme, maintenance costs would also have had to be borne by the 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. 92.     The Government objected to the applicants’ estimation of the amount of rent they could have obtained had the rent-control scheme not applied to their flats. They also disagreed with the argument that the applicants were not able to automatically charge the maximum amount of controlled rent. Such situations could occur only in cases where they had made different arrangements with the tenants. 93.     The Government concluded that the rent-control scheme met the general interest of society and was compatible wi