CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 mars 2011

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom: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. 139 March 2011 Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź v. Poland (dec.) - 3485/02 Decision 8.3.2011 [Section IV] Article 37 Article 37-1-b Matter resolved Implementation of general measures to remedy defects in housing legislation following pilot judgment and availability of redress at domestic level: struck out   Article 46 Article 46-2 Execution of judgment Implementation of general measures to remedy defects in housing legislation following pilot judgment and availability of redress at domestic level: pilot-judgment procedure closed   Facts – The applicants were or represented some of the estimated 100,000 landlords in Poland who were affected by legislation concerning rent control, maintenance obligations and security of tenure. They complained to the European Court of a violation of their rights under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, but their applications were adjourned as part of the procedure instituted in the pilot judgment in the case of Hutten-Czapska v. Poland * in which the Court noted the systemic malfunctioning of the Polish housing legislation and directed the State to secure in its domestic legal order a mechanism maintaining a fair balance between the interests of landlords and the general interest of the community. In its friendly-settlement judgment in the same case**, the Court noted that a number of general remedial measures had been taken. Further measures have since been taken including a system of subsidies for maintenance and renovation works, an obligation on local authorities to provide social accommodation and a special compensation scheme for persons adversely affected by the rent-control legislation. In the light of these developments, the Court, as a preliminary issue, invited the parties to the present case to indicate whether the matter had been resolved for the purposes of Article 37 §   1   (b) of the Convention. Law – Article 37 § 1 (b): It was a fundamental feature of the pilot-judgment procedure that the Court’s assessment of whether the matter involved in the case had been resolved was not limited to relief afforded to an individual applicant and to solutions adopted in his case, but necessarily encompassed general measures applied by the State to resolve the general underlying defect in the domestic legal order. In that connection, the Court noted that the global solutions adopted by the respondent State had addressed, in a satisfactory manner, the previous lack of legal provisions enabling landlords to recover costs involved in the maintenance of property, thus protecting them against financial losses in situations where the rent paid by tenants was insufficient. The new legal rules also allowed landlords to include in rent charged a gradual return of capital investment for the acquisition or modernisation of property, while their right to derive profit from rent had been expressly guaranteed by law. As regards redress for the past prejudice suffered by persons affected by the defective operation of the rent-control scheme, the Court reiterated that its role after the delivery of the pilot judgment and after the State had taken remedial action in conformity with the Convention could not be converted into providing individualised financial relief in each and every repetitive case arising from the same systemic situation. In the present case the redress scheme that had been introduced offered reasonable prospects of recovering compensation for damage caused by the systemic violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 identified in the pilot case. Consequently, the authorities had established a mechanism enabling the practical treatment of reparation claims for the Convention breach. Accordingly, the matter giving rise to the present application and the remaining “rent-control” applications against Poland had been resolved for the purposes of Article 37 §   1   (b) and it was no longer justified to continue the examination of these cases. Conclusion : struck out (unanimously). Article 46: While it still remained for the Committee of Ministers to supervise the execution of the Hutten-Czapska merits and friendly-settlement judgments and the discharge by the Polish State of its obligation to ensure the implementation of the general measures indicated by the Court, the Court’s task under Article   19 had been fulfilled. In these circumstances, the continued application of the pilot-judgment procedure was no longer justified and was closed in respect of Polish rent-control cases. That ruling was, however, without prejudice to any decision the Court might take to restore the present application and the remaining adjourned applications to the list of cases or to deal substantively with subsequent cases if the circumstances so justified. Conclusion : pilot-judgment procedure closed (unanimously). * Hutten-Czapska v. Poland [GC], no.   35014/97, 19   June 2006, Information Note no.   87. **   Hutten-Czapska v. Poland (friendly settlement) [GC], no.   35014/97, 28   April 2008, Information Note no.   107.   © 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