CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 février 1999

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 3 February 1999 Larkos v. Cyprus [GC] - 29515/95 Judgment 18.2.1999 Article 14 Discrimination Disadvantageous position of tenants of State-owned housing: violation   Facts : The applicant, a Cypriot national, was born in 1936 and lives in Nicosia. He is a retired civil servant. On 1 May 1967 the applicant rented a house from the Government under the terms of a tenancy agreement which had many of the features of a typical landlord-tenant agreement for the lease of property. On 3 December 1986 the Ministry of Finance, his employer, gave him notice to quit the property by 30 April 1987. The applicant refused to do so claiming that he was a protected tenant within the meaning of the Rent Control Law 1983. On 5 February 1992 the District Court of Nicosia upheld the Government’s request for a possession order and ordered the applicant to vacate the premises before 30 June 1992. On 22 May 1995 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of the District Court. The applicant has been threatened with imminent eviction ever since. The applicant complains that as a Government tenant living in an area regulated by the Rent Control Law 1983 he has been unlawfully discriminated against in the enjoyment of his right to respect for his home. He maintained that, unlike a private tenant living in accommodation in such an area rented from a private landlord, he was not protected from eviction at the end of his lease. He alleges a breach of Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with both Article 8 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Law : Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8: The Court noted that the applicant could rely on Article 14 of the Convention since the facts of the case fell within the ambit of Article 8 having regard in particular to the judgment of the District Court of Nicosia ordering him to leave his home. The Court observed in this respect that it was irrelevant for the purposes of the applicability of Article 14 that the applicant had not contended that there had been a breach of Article 8 or that he had not yet been evicted from his home. What was important was the fact that the 1983 Law had been applied to his detriment since he and his family have been living with the threat of eviction since the start of the eviction proceedings. As to the merits of the applicant’s complaint, the Court recalled that, in accordance with its established case law, a difference in treatment is discriminatory if it has no objective and reasonable justification, that is if it does not pursue a legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised. Moreover, the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment. Against the background of that statement of principles, the Court rejected the Government’s argument that the applicant could not be considered to be in a relevantly similar situation to that of a private individual renting from a private landlord. For the Court it was clear from the terms of the tenancy agreement that the property in question had not been leased to the applicant in his capacity of civil servant and that the Government had acted not in a public-law but in a private-law capacity when signing the tenancy agreement. The Court observed that the respondent State had sought to justify the difference in treatment in the instant case by relying on the duties which the Constitution imposes on the authorities as regards the administration of State property. However, it considered that in the applicant’s case the respondent Government had not provided any convincing explanation of how the general interest would be served by evicting him. While it accepted that public interest considerations may justify treating differently persons in a relevantly similar situation, the Court noted that the Government had not adduced any preponderant interest which would warrant the withdrawal from the applicant of the protection accorded to other tenants under the 1983 Law. As to the Government’s contention that they could not be equated to a private landlord when disposing of State property, the Court recalled that the authorities had leased the house to the applicant acting as a party to a private-law transaction. It also observed that a decision not to extend the protection of the 1983 Law to Government tenants living side-by-side with tenants in privately-owned dwellings in a regulated area requires specific justification, more so since the Government are themselves protected by that Law when renting property from private individuals. For these reasons the Court concluded that the Government had not adduced any reasonable and objective justification for treating the applicant differently. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: Having regard to its earlier conclusion the Court considered that it was not necessary to give separate consideration to the applicant’s complaint under this head. Conclusion : not necessary to examine (unanimously). Application of Article 41 of the Convention: The applicant claimed compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and reimbursement of legal costs and expenses. The Court dismissed his claim for pecuniary damage since he had not established any causal connection between the breach of his Convention rights and the damage allegedly suffered. On the other hand, the Court awarded him the sum of 3,000 Cyprus pounds (CYP) given that he (and his family) have lived with the threat of eviction since 1986 and can reasonably be considered to have suffered stress and anxiety brought on by the uncertainty of losing a home which he had occupied since 1967. The Court awarded the applicant CYP 5,000 by way of compensation for legal costs and expenses.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes