CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 23 février 2016

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9E2767E4 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s382C212A { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:61.8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sEBAC8C2A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:50.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFB30C84 { width:4.01pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s96B22F9F { width:184.93pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s57421ECC { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       THIRD SECTION             CASE OF GARIB v. THE NETHERLANDS   (Application no. 43494/09)                 JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   23 February 2016       THIS CASE WAS REFERRED TO THE GRAND CHAMBER WHICH DELIVERED JUDGMENT IN THE CASE ON 06/11/2017   This judgment may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Garib v. the Netherlands, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Helena Jäderblom,   George Nicolaou,   Helen Keller,   Johannes Silvis,   Branko Lubarda,   Pere Pastor Vilanova, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 7 October 2014, on 5 January 2016 and on 26 January 2016, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 43494/09) against the Kingdom of the Netherlands lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Netherlands national, Ms Rohiniedevie Garib (“the applicant”), on 28 July 2009. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr R.S. Wijling, a lawyer practising in Rotterdam. The Netherlands Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr R.A.A. Böcker of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3.     The applicant alleged that the restrictions to which she was subjected in choosing her place of residence were incompatible with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. 4.     On 7 October 2014 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1971 and now lives in Vlaardingen. 6.     On 25 May 2005 the applicant moved to the city of Rotterdam. She took up residence in rented property at the address A. Street 6b. This address is located in the Tarwewijk district in South Rotterdam. The applicant had previously resided outside the Rotterdam Metropolitan Region ( Stadsregio Rotterdam ). 7.     The owner of the property asked the applicant, who by this time had two young children, to vacate the property as he wished to renovate it for his own use. He offered to let the applicant a different property at the address B. Street 72A, also in the Tarwewijk area. The applicant stated that, since it comprised three rooms and a garden, the property was far more suitable for her and her children than her A. Street dwelling which comprised a single room. 8.     In the meantime, Tarwewijk had been designated under the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act ( Wet bijzondere maatregelen grootstedelijke problematiek , see below) as an area in which it was not permitted to take up new residence without a housing permit ( huisvestingsvergunning ). Accordingly, on 8 March 2007 the applicant lodged a request for a housing permit with the Burgomaster and Aldermen ( burgemeester en wethouders ) of Rotterdam in order to be permitted to move to B. Street 72A. 9.     On 19 March 2007 the Burgomaster and Aldermen gave a decision refusing such a permit. They found it established that the applicant had not been resident in the Rotterdam Metropolitan Region for six years immediately preceding the introduction of her request. Moreover, since she was dependent on social-security benefits under the Work and Social Assistance Act ( Wet Werk en Bijstand ), she did not meet the income requirement that would have qualified her for an exemption from the residence requirement. 10.     The applicant lodged an objection ( bezwaarschrift ) with the Burgomaster and Aldermen. 11.     On 15 June 2007 the Burgomaster and Aldermen gave a decision dismissing the applicant’s objection. Adopting as their own an advisory opinion by the Objections Advisory Committee ( Algemene bezwaarschriftencommissie ), they referred to housing permits as an instrument to ensure the balanced and equitable distribution of housing and the possibility for the applicant to move to a dwelling not situated in a “hotspot” area. 12.     The applicant lodged an appeal ( beroep ) with the Rotterdam Regional Court ( rechtbank ). As relevant to the case, she argued that the hardship clause ought to have been applied. She relied on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 of the Convention and Article 12 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 13.     The Regional Court gave a decision dismissing the applicant’s appeal on 4 April 2008. As relevant to the case before the Court, its reasoning was as follows: “Section 8(1) of the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act provides for the possibility of temporary restrictions on freedom of residence in areas to be indicated by the Minister [sc. the Minister of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment ( Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer )]. The aim of these restrictions is to reverse a process of overburdening and decreasing quality of life, particularly by striving towards districts whose composition is more mixed from a socioeconomic point of view. The restrictions are also intended actively to counteract the existing segregation of incomes throughout the city through the regulation of the supply of housing in certain districts and in so doing improve quality of life for the inhabitants of those districts (Parliamentary Documents, Lower House of Parliament ( Kamerstukken II ) 2004/2005, 30   091, no. 3, pages 11-13). In view of the aims of the law, as set out, these temporary restrictions on the freedom to choose one’s residence cannot be found not to be justified by the general interest in a democratic society. Nor can it be found that, given the considerable extent of the problems noted in certain districts in Rotterdam, the said restrictions are not necessary for the maintenance of ordre public . The Regional Court takes the view that the legislature has sufficiently shown that in those districts the ‘limits of the capacity for absorption’ have been reached as regards care and support for the socioeconomically underprivileged and that moreover in those districts there is a concentration of underprivileged individuals in deprived districts as well as considerable dissatisfaction among the population about inappropriate behaviour, nuisance and crime.” 14.     The applicant lodged a further appeal ( hoger beroep ) with the Administrative Jurisdiction Division ( Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak ) of the Council of State ( Raad van State ). 15.     On 4 February 2009 the Administrative Jurisdiction Division gave a decision dismissing the applicant’s further appeal. As relevant to the case before the Court, its reasoning included the following: “The Administrative Jurisdiction Division finds that, considering that the area in issue is one designated under section 5 of the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act, the Burgomaster and Aldermen were entitled to take the view that the restriction [on freedom to choose one’s residence] is justified in the general interest in a democratic society within the meaning of Article 12 § 3 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The area in issue is a so-called ‘hotspot’, where, as has not been disputed, quality of life is under threat. The restriction resulting from section 2.6(2) of the 2003 Housing Bye-law ( Huisvestingsverordening 2003 ) is of a temporary nature, namely for up to six years. It is not established that the supply of housing outside the areas designated by the Minister in the Rotterdam Metropolitan Region is insufficient. What [the applicant] has stated about waiting times does not lead the Administrative Jurisdiction Division to reach a different finding. The Administrative Jurisdiction Division further takes into account that pursuant to section   7(1), introductory sentence and under b of the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act, the Minister is empowered to rescind the designation of the area if it turns out that persons seeking housing do not have sufficient possibility of finding suitable housing within the region in which the municipality is situated. In view of these facts and circumstances the Administrative Jurisdiction Division finds that the restriction in issue is not contrary to the requirements of a pressing social need and proportionality. The Administrative Jurisdiction Division therefore finds, as the Regional Court did, that section 2.6(2) of the 2003 Housing Bye-law does not violate Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 of the Convention or Article 12 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.” II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW A.     The Housing Act 16.     As relevant to the case before the Court, the Housing Act ( Huisvestingswet ) provides as follows: Section 2 “1.     If the local council finds it necessary to lay down rules concerning the taking into use, or permitting the use, of housing ..., or concerning changes to the housing supply ..., it shall adopt a housing bye-law ( huisvestingsverordening ). 2.     For the purpose of applying the first paragraph, the local council shall investigate, in any case, the extent to which the effect can be achieved that in permitting the use of relatively low-cost housing priority is given to house-seekers who, in view of their income, are especially dependent on such housing. ...” B.     The Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act 1.     Relevant provisions 17.     The Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act applies to a number of named municipalities including Rotterdam. It empowers those municipalities to take measures in certain designated areas including the granting of partial tax exemptions to small business owners and the selecting of new residents based on their sources of income. It entered into force on 1 January 2006. 18.     As in force at the relevant time, provisions of the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act relevant to the case were the following: Section 5 “1.     The Minister [of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment] can, if so requested by the local council ( gemeenteraad ), designate areas in which persons seeking housing may be made subject to requirements under sections 8 and 9 of this Act. 2.     The indication referred to in the first paragraph shall be for a term of up to four years. At the request of the local council, this term can be extended once only for up to four more years. [Section 7] shall apply by analogy.” Section 6 “1.     When making the request referred to in section 5(1), the local council shall satisfy the Minister of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment that the intended designation of the areas mentioned in the request: (a)     is necessary and appropriate to combat inner-city problems in the municipality; and (b)     meets requirements of subsidiarity and proportionality. 2.     The designation referred to in section 5(1) shall be given only if the requirements of the first paragraph have been met, and if the local council has satisfied the Minister of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment that persons seeking housing to whom, as a result of such designation, a housing permit for taking housing in the designated areas into their use cannot be granted retain sufficient possibility to find housing suitable for them within the region in which the municipality is situated. ...” Section 7 “1.     The Minister shall rescind the designation referred to in section 5 if it is apparent to him that: ... b.     persons seeking housing to whom a housing permit allowing them to take into use housing within the designated areas cannot be granted as a result of the designation referred to in section 5 have insufficient possibility to find housing suitable for them within the region in which the municipality is situated. ...” Section 8 “1.     The local council can, if it considers [such a measure] necessary and appropriate for combating inner-city problems ( grootstedelijke problematiek ) within the municipality and it meets the requirements of subsidiarity and proportionality, determine in the housing bye-law that persons seeking housing who have been resident without interruption of the region within which the municipality is situated for less than six years can only be eligible for a housing permit allowing them to take into use housing belonging to categories designated in that bye-law if they dispose of: (a)     an income from work under a contract of employment; (b)     an income from an independent profession or business; (c)     an income from an early retirement pension; (d)     an old age pension within the meaning of the General Old Age Pensions Act ( Algemene Ouderdomswet ); (e)     an old age pension or survivor’s pension within the meaning of the Wages (Tax Deduction) Act 1964 ( Wet op de loonbelasting 1964 ); (f)     a student grant within the meaning of the Student Grants Act 2000 ( Wet op de studiefinanciering 2000 ). 2.     The local council shall determine in the housing bye-law that the Burgomaster and Aldermen can grant a person seeking housing who does not meet the requirements set out in the first paragraph a housing permit allowing them to take into use housing as referred to in that paragraph if denying them that housing permit would lead to iniquity of an overriding nature ( een onbillijkheid van overwegende aard ). ...” Section 17 “The Minister shall send a report to Parliament on the effectiveness and effects of this Act in practice to Parliament every five years after the entry into force of this Act.” 2.     Legislative history of the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act (a)     The advisory opinion of the Council of State and the Further Report 19.     The Council of State scrutinised the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Bill and submitted an advisory opinion to the Queen. The Government forwarded the opinion to Parliament, together with their comments (Advisory Opinion of the Council of State and Further Report ( Advies Raad van State en Nader Rapport ), Parliamentary Documents, Lower House of Parliament, 2004/2005, 30 091, no. 5). 20.     The applicant, in her observations, draws attention to several remarks made by the Council of State. As relevant to the case before the Court, these included concerns about the unwanted side effects of regulating access to housing in inner-city areas on the availability of housing for low-income groups in surrounding municipalities and about persons with income from sources other than social welfare being compelled to accept housing in depressed neighbourhoods against their wishes; concerns about compatibility with human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Protocol No. 4 to the Convention; and concerns about the implicit distinction based on income, which might lead to indirect distinctions on grounds of race, colour or national or ethnic origin. 21.     The Government responded to these concerns. Side effects affecting surrounding municipalities were to be expected only if the municipality concerned could not guarantee the availability of alternative housing itself; at all events, other local authorities would be consulted before the Minister gave a decision and the number and extent of the urban areas to be designated were expected to be limited. It was normally left to those seeking housing whether to react to an offer of housing or not; there was thus no compulsion. Moreover, while the effect of designation under the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act might well be to shorten waiting lists and encourage persons with income from sources other than public welfare to take up residence there, this was actually an intended effect. The measures in issue were justified in terms of Article 12 § 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 2 § 3 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. It could not be excluded that members of minority groups might be affected indirectly, but the aim thereby served was legitimate, the means chosen were appropriate to that aim, alternative means were not available and the requirement of proportionality had been met. In the latter connection, the Government pointed to the requirement that sufficient alternative housing be available within the region for those in need of it before an urban area could be designated under the Act; if after all this proved not to be the case, the Minister would withdraw the designation. 22.     Changes were made to the Explanatory Memorandum ( Memorie van Toelichting ) reflecting the points raised. (b)     The Explanatory Memorandum 23.     It is stated in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Bill (Parliamentary Documents, Lower House of Parliament 2004/2005, 30 091, no. 3) that it was enacted in response to a specific wish expressed by the authorities of the municipality of Rotterdam. The emergence of concentrations of “socioeconomically underprivileged” in distressed inner-city areas had been observed, with serious effects on quality of life owing to unemployment, poverty and social exclusion. Many who could afford to move elsewhere did so, which led to the further impoverishment of the areas so affected. This, together with antisocial behaviour, the influx of illegal immigrants and crime, was said to constitute the core of Rotterdam’s problems. The need therefore existed to give impetus to economic improvement locally. Quick results were not expected, for which reason the Act was intended to remain in force indefinitely; however, its effects would be reviewed in five years’ time. 24.     In addition to the local authorities of Rotterdam, those of other cities had been asked for their input. Interest in the aims and measures of the Act had been expressed by the four major cities – Amsterdam, The Hague and Utrecht, in addition to Rotterdam – and other municipalities, large towns in particular. It would, however, be left to each municipality to choose for itself the measures to adopt in response to local needs. 25.     Measures available under the Act included offering tax incentives and subsidies with a view to promoting economic activity in affected areas. Other measures were aimed at regulating access to the housing market in particular areas. 26.     In the longer term, measures including the sale of rental property, the demolition of substandard housing and its replacement by higher-quality, more expensive residential property were envisaged. As a short-term temporary measure, intended to offer a “breathing space” for more permanent measures to produce their effects, it was proposed on the one hand to encourage settlement by persons with an income from employment (or past employment), professional or business activity or student grants and on the other to stem the influx of socioeconomically deprived house-seekers with a view to increasing population diversity. 27.     At the same time it was recognised that those denied settlement in the areas in issue should be provided with suitable housing elsewhere in the city or region concerned. If that was not secured, the areas affected would not be designated under the legislation proposed or an existing designation would have to be withdrawn as the case might be. 28.     The question of compatibility with human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, was addressed. The measures proposed were considered to serve the interests of “public order” within the meaning of Article 12 § 3 of the Covenant and ordre public within the meaning of Article 2 § 3 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention by halting the concentration in particular areas of socioeconomically deprived groups and enabling municipalities to prevent segregation on the basis of income. The influx of socioeconomically underprivileged groups, after all, led to increased reliance on social welfare, reduced what economic activity might remain and hindered the integration of immigrant communities, potentially causing social isolation of households of both native and foreign ethnic origin. (c)     Parliamentary discussions 29.     The Lower House of Parliament discussed the Bill on 6, 7 and 15   September 2005. Members proposed numerous amendments. As relevant to the case before the Court, amendments adopted included a provision requiring the Minister of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment before designating an area within which the housing permit requirement would apply to ascertain that persons refused a housing permit retained adequate access to suitable housing elsewhere in the region (see section 6(2) of the Act, as adopted); and requiring municipalities introducing a housing permit system to adopt a hardship clause in every case (see section 8(2) of the Act, as adopted). 30.     The Lower House of Parliament adopted the Act by 132 votes to 12 of the members present and voting. 31.     In the Upper House of Parliament, concern was expressed about the compatibility of the Act with internationally guaranteed human rights, Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention and Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in particular. In reply, the Government stressed the supervisory role of the Minister of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment and drew attention to the legal remedy constituted by proceedings before the competent administrative tribunals (Memorandum in Reply ( Memorie van Antwoord ), Parliamentary Documents, Upper House of Parliament ( Kamerstukken I ) 2005/2006, 30   091, C). 32.     On 20 December 2005, after discussion, the Upper House of Parliament adopted the Act by 60 votes to 11 of the members present and voting. B.     The Housing Bye-law of the municipality of Rotterdam 1.     2003 version 33.     The 2003 Housing Bye-law of the municipality of Rotterdam set rules for, among other things, the distribution of low-rent housing to low ‑ income households by empowering the Burgomaster and Aldermen to issue housing permits. In designated areas it was forbidden to take up residence without a housing permit if the rent was lower than a specified amount. The Bye-law set out criteria for the Burgomaster and Aldermen to apply in granting such housing permits; these criteria included a correlation between rent and income levels and another between the number of rooms in particular dwellings and the number of persons comprising a household. 34.     On 1 October 2004 the municipality of Rotterdam introduced, on an experimental basis, a bye-law under which only households with an income between 120 per cent of the statutory minimum wage and the upper limit for compulsory public health insurance ( ziekenfondsgrens ; approximately double the statutory minimum wage at the time) were entitled to a housing permit allowing them to take up residence in moderate-cost rented housing. 2.     2006 version 35.     In January 2006 the 2003 Housing Bye-law of the municipality of Rotterdam was amended to give detailed rules implementing the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act locally. As relevant to the present case, these rules echoed section 8 (1) and (2) of the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act (section 2.6 of the 2003 Housing Bye-law). 36.     The 2003 Housing Bye-law was replaced, with effect from 1 January 2008, by a new Housing Bye-law (Designated Areas (Rotterdam)) ( Huisvestingsverordening aangewezen gebieden Rotterdam ). This bye-law, which remains in force, includes provisions corresponding to those outlined in the preceding paragraph. C.     The designation decisions 37.     On 13 June 2006 the Minister of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment designated under section 5 of the said Act four Rotterdam districts, including Tarwewijk, and several streets for an initial period of four years. These designated areas are generally referred to using the English-language expression “hotspots”. 38.     In 2010 the designations were extended for a second four-year term and a first designation was made for a fifth district. D.     The opinion of the Equal Treatment Commission 39.     The Equal Treatment Commission ( Commissie Gelijke Behandeling ) was a Government body set up under the General Equal Treatment Act ( Algemene wet gelijke behandeling ). Its remit was to investigate alleged direct and indirect distinctions between persons. It existed until 2012 when it was absorbed by the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights ( College voor de Rechten van de Mens ). 40.     In December 2004 the Equal Treatment Commission was approached by Regioplatform Maaskoepel (“Maas Delta regional coordinating platform”), a federative organisation comprising social housing bodies active in the Rotterdam area, with the request to consider the experimental Rotterdam bye-law then in force (see paragraph 34 above). 41.     The Equal Treatment Commission decided to include in its examination of the case the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Bill, which at that time was still pending in the Lower House of Parliament. While recognising that the Bill did not apply to certain categories of cases covered by the experimental bye-law, the Equal Treatment Commission found it relevant given that it could be applied to entire areas of the city. 42.     The Equal Treatment Commission gave its opinion on 7 July 2005. It expressed the view that persons with non-Western European immigrant roots, such as persons of Turkish, Moroccan, Surinamese or Netherlands Antilles descent ( afkomst ) and single-parent families (i.e. working mothers and mothers on social welfare) were overrepresented among the unemployed and among those earning less than 120 per cent of the statutory minimum wage. For that reason the measures in issue constituted an indirect distinction based on race in the case of persons of non-European immigrant descent and on gender in the case of working mothers. These distinctions were unjustified given the availability of alternative policy choices, such as demanding testimonials of prospective tenants; regular checks by officials; improving the quality of housing; expropriating or purchasing low-quality housing from private landlords; suppressing illegal tenancy and sub-tenancy; and actively pursuing antisocial tenants. 43.     Commenting on the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Bill, the Equal Treatment Commission added that it failed to address the said indirect distinctions and the justification given in the Explanatory Memorandum was too general. 44.     The Government state that the Equal Treatment Commission wrote to the Lower House of Parliament in “more nuanced” terms on 5 September 2005. However, a copy of this document has not been submitted. III.     OTHER FACTS A.     Subsequent developments concerning the city of Rotterdam 1.     The 2007 evaluation report 45.     An evaluation report after the first year following the introduction of the housing permit in Rotterdam, commissioned by Rotterdam’s own City Construction and Housing Service ( Dienst Stedebouw en Volkshuisvesting ), was published on 6 December 2007 by the Centre for Research and Statistics ( Centrum voor Onderzoek en Statistiek ), a research and advice bureau collecting statistical data and carrying out research relevant to developments in Rotterdam in areas including demographics, the economy and employment (hereafter “the 2007 evaluation report”). 46.     The report notes a reduction of the number of new residents dependent on social-security benefits under the Work and Social Assistance Act in “hotspot” areas, though not, of course, a complete stop because Rotterdam residents of six years’ standing are not prevented from moving there. 47.     From July 2006 until the end of July 2007 there had been 2,835 requests for a housing permit. Of these, 2,240 had been granted; 184 had been refused; 16 had been rejected as incomplete; and 395 were still pending. The hardship clause (section 8(2) of the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act) had been applied in 38 cases. 48.     Three-quarters of the housing permits granted concerned housing let by private landlords; the remainder – 519 – had been granted through the intermediary of social housing bodies ( woningcorporaties ). The latter selected their tenants with due regard to the official requirements, so that refusals of housing permits with regard to social housing were unheard of. 49.     Of the persons refused a housing permit, 73 (40 % of all those who met with a refusal) had managed to find housing elsewhere relatively quickly. 50.     The 2007 evaluation report was presented to the local council on 15   January 2008. On 24 April 2008 the local council voted to maintain the housing permit system as was and have a new evaluation report commissioned for the end of 2009. 2.     The 2009 evaluation report 51.     A second evaluation report, also commissioned by Rotterdam’s City Construction and Housing Service, was published by the Centre for Research and Statistics on 27 November 2009. It covered the period from July 2006 until July 2009 (“the 2009 evaluation report”), during which the events complained of took place. 52.     During this period, the social housing bodies had let 1,712 dwellings in the areas concerned. Since the social housing bodies could only accept tenants who qualified for a housing permit, no applications for such a permit had been rejected in this group. 53.     Out of 6,469 applications for a housing permit relating to privately ‑ let housing, 4,980 had been accepted (77%); 342 had been refused (5%); and 296 had been pending at the beginning of July 2009. Examination of a further 851 (13%) had been discontinued without a decision being taken, generally because these applications had been withdrawn or abandoned; the assumption was that many of these applications would in any case have been rejected. It followed, therefore, that if the pending cases were not taken into account, approximately one-fifth of this category of applications had been either refused or not pursued to a conclusion. 54.     The reason to reject an application for a housing permit had been related to the income requirement in 63% of cases, sometimes in combination with another ground for rejection; failure to meet the income requirement had been the sole such reason in 56% of cases. 55.     Of 342 persons refused a housing permit, some two-thirds had managed to find housing elsewhere in Rotterdam (47%) or elsewhere in the Netherlands (21%). 56.     The hardship clause had been applied 185 times – expressed as a percentage of applications relating to privately-let housing, 3% of the total. These had been cases of preventing squatters from taking over housing left empty ( antikraak ), illegal immigrants whose situation had been regularised by a general measure ( generaal pardon ), assisted living arrangements for vulnerable individuals ( begeleid wonen ), cooperative living arrangements ( woongroepen ), start-up enterprises, the re-housing of households forced to clear substandard housing for renovation, and foreign students. In addition, in one-third of cases the hardship clause had been applied because a decision had not been given within the prescribed time-limit. 57.     The effects of the measure were considered based on four indicators: proportion of residents dependent on social-security benefits under the Work and Social Assistance Act, corrected for the supply of suitable housing; perception of safety; social quality; and potential accumulation of housing problems: (a)     It had been observed that in the areas where the housing permit requirement applied, the reduction of the number of new residents dependent on social-security benefits under the Work and Social Assistance Act had been more rapid in “hotspot” areas than in other parts of Rotterdam. In addition, the number of residents in receipt of such benefits as a proportion of the total population of those areas had also declined, although it was still greater than elsewhere. (b)     In two of the areas where the housing permit requirement had been introduced, the increase in the perception of public safety had been more rapid than the Rotterdam average. Tarwewijk had shown an increase initially, but was now back to where it had been before the measure was introduced. One other area had actually declined significantly in this respect. All of the areas where the housing permit requirement applied were perceived as considerably less safe than Rotterdam as a whole. (c)     In terms of social quality, there had been improvement in most of the parts of Rotterdam where problems existed, Tarwewijk among them. It was noted, however, that the effect of the housing permit in this respect was limited, since it only influenced the selection of new residents, not that of residents already in place. (d)     Housing problems – defined in terms of turnover, housing left unused, and house price development – had increased somewhat in the affected areas including Tarwewijk, though on the whole at a slower rate there than elsewhere. Reported reasons for the increase were an influx of immigrants of mostly non-European extraction ( nieuwe Nederlanders , “new Netherlands nationals”) and new short-term residents from Central and Eastern Europe; the latter in particular tended to stay for three months or less before moving on, and their economic activity was more difficult to keep under review as many were self-employed. 58.     Social housing bodies tended to view the housing permit requirement as a nuisance because it created additional paperwork. They perceived the measure rather as an appropriate instrument to tackle abuses by private landlords, provided that it be actively enforced and administrative procedures be simplified. Others with a professional involvement in the Rotterdam housing market mentioned the dissuasive effect of the measure on would-be new residents of the affected areas. 59.     The report suggested that the housing permit requirement might no longer be needed for one of the existing “hotspots” (not Tarwewijk). Conversely, five other Rotterdam districts scored high for three indicators, while a sixth exceeded critical values for all four. 3.     The 2011 evaluation report 60.     A third evaluation report, this time commissioned by Rotterdam’s City Development Service (Housing Department), was published by the Centre for Research and Statistics in August 2012 (second revised edition). It covered the period from July 2009 until July 2011 (“the 2011 evaluation report”). 61.     Based on the same indicators and methodology as the previous report, it concluded that the housing permit system should be continued in Tarwewijk and two other areas (including one in which it had been introduced in the meantime, in 2010); discontinued in two others; and introduced in one area where it was not yet in force. 4.     Evaluation of the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act 62.     On 18 July 2012 the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations ( Minister van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties ) sent a separate evaluation report assessing the effectiveness of the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act and its effects in practice to the Lower House of Parliament, as required by section 17 of that Act. The Minister’s missive stated the intention of the Government to introduce legislation in order to extend the validity of the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act. Requests to that effect had been received from a number of affected cities. It was noted that not all of the cities concerned had made use of all of the possibilities offered by the Act; in particular, only Rotterdam used housing permits to select new residents for particular areas. Appended to the Minister’s letter was a copy of the 2009 evaluation report and a letter from the Burgomaster and Aldermen of Rotterdam in which, inter alia , the desirability was stated of extending beyond the first two four-year periods the indication of particular areas for applying the housing permit requirement: the measure was considered a success, and a twenty-year programme involving the large-scale improvement of housing and infrastructure (the “National Programme Quality Leap South Rotterdam” ( Nationaal Programma Kwaliteitssprong Rotterdam Zuid , see below)) had been started in the southern parts of Rotterdam in 2011. 5.     The National Programme Quality Leap South Rotterdam 63.     On 19 September 2011 the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (on behalf of the Government), the Burgomaster of Rotterdam (on behalf of the municipality of Rotterdam), and the presidents of a number of South Rotterdam boroughs ( deelgemeenten ), social housing bodies and educational institutions signed the National Programme Quality Leap South Rotterdam. This document noted the social problems prevalent in South Rotterdam inner-city areas, which it was proposed to address by providing improved opportunities for education and economic activity and improving, or if need be replacing, housing and infrastructure. It was intended to terminate the programme by the year 2030. 64.     On 31 October 2012 the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, Rotterdam’s Alderman for housing, spatial planning, real property and the city economy ( wethouder Wonen, ruimtelijke ordening, vastgoed en stedelijke economie ) and the presidents of three social housing bodies active in Rotterdam signed an “agreement concerning a financial impulse for the benefit of the Quality Leap South Rotterdam (2012-2015))” ( Convenant betreffende een financiële impuls ten behoeve van de Kwaliteitssprong Rotterdam Zuid (2012-2015) ). This agreement provided for a review of priorities in Government financing of housing and infrastructure projects in the South Rotterdam area within existing budgets and for a once-only additional investment of 122 million euros (EUR). Of the latter sum, EUR 23 million had been reserved by the municipality of Rotterdam until 2014; another EUR 10 million would be added for the period starting in 2014. These funds would be used to refurbish or replace 2,500 homes in South Rotterdam. A further EUR 30 million would be provided by the Government. The remainder would be spent by the social housing bodies on projects within their respective remit. B.     Subsequent legislative developments 1.     The Inner City Problems (Special Measures) (Extension) Act 65.     On 19 November 2013 the Government introduced a Bill proposing to amend the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act (Parliamentary Documents, Lower House of Parliament 2013/2014, 33 797, no. 2). The Explanatory Memorandum stated that its purpose was to empower municipalities to tackle abuses in the private rented housing sector, give municipalities broader powers of enforcement and make further temporal extension of the Act possible. 66.     The Inner City Problems (Special Measures) (Extension) Act ( Wet uitbreiding Wet bijzondere maatregelen grootstedelijke problematiek ) entered into force on 14 April 2014, enabling the designation of particular areas under section 8 of the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act to be extended the day before it was due to expire. It makes further extensions of the designation possible for successive four-year periods (section 5(2) of the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act, as amended). 2.     Amendment of the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act in connection with the selective allotment of housing in order to limit nuisance and criminal behaviour 67.     A further Bill was introduced on 8 October 2015 (Parliamentary Documents, Lower House of Parliament 2015/2016, 34 314, no. 2). It purports to grant municipalities powers to deny housing permits to individuals with a criminal record. According to its Explanatory Memorandum (Parliamentary Documents, Lower House of Parliament 2015/2016, 34 314, no. 3), the intention is to provide a legal basis for measures likely to constitute interferences with the right of freedom to choose one’s residence, as guaranteed by Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 of the Convention and Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and – since the measures in issue will of necessity entail the disclosure to local authorities of police information – with the right to private life as guaranteed by inter alia Article 8 of the Convention, Article   17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It is currently pending in the Lower House of Parliament. C.     Subsequent events concerning the applicant 68.     On 27 September 2010 the applicant moved to rented housing in the municipality of Vlaardingen. This municipality is part of the Rotterdam Metropolitan Region. 69.     As of 25 May 2011 the applicant had been resident in the Rotterdam Metropolitan Region for more than six years. She therefore became entitled to reside in one of the areas designated under the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act regardless of her sources of income. D.     Other information submitted by the parties 70.     The Government stated that no renovation or building permits were sought for the dwelling in A. Street inhabited by the applicant at the time of the events complained of between 2007 and 2010 and that no such permit was applied for in the period prior to 2007 either. IV.     RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL LAW 71.     Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides as follows: “1.     Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence. 2.     Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own. 3.     The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order ( ordre public ), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant. 4.     No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.” THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF PROTOCOL No. 4 TO THE CONVENTION 72.     The applicant complained that the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act and the 2003 Housing Bye-law of the municipality of Rotterdam, and in particular section 2.6 of the latter (as in force at the time), violated her rights under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, which provides as follows: “1.     Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence. 2.     Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own. 3.     No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are in accordance with law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the maintenance of ordre public, for the prevention of crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. 4.     The rights set forth in paragraph 1 may also be subject, in particular areas, to restrictions imposed in accordance with law and justified by the public interest in a democratic society.” 73.     The Government disputed this. A.     Admissibility 1.     The Government’s preliminary objections (a)     No longer a victim 74.     The Government submitted in the first place that the applicant was no longer a victim of the alleged violation. She had moved to rented housing in Vlaardingen in 2010; she had subsequently, as a resident of more than six years’ standing of the Rotterdam Metropolitan Region, become eligible in normal circumstances for a housing permit allowing her to reside in one of the areas designated under the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act. The restrictions complained of therefore no longer applied. 75.     The applicant responded that she had been forced to live in cramped and insalubrious conditions as a result of the denial of the housing permit that would have allowed her to move to housing that was both appropriate to her needs and available. She also claimed to have spent EUR 1,000 on improving the dwelling in B. Street before moving in. 76.     It is the Court’s constant case-law that a decision or measure favourable to the applicant may suffice to deprive him or her of the status of “victim” for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention provided that the national authoritie