THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos . 11809/12 and 35284/13 Kristián STRAKA and O thers against Slovakia and Svetlana BORODINOVÁ and O thers against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section ), sitting on 4 November 2014 as a Chamber composed of:

J osep Casadevall, President, Luis López Guerra, Ján Šikuta , Dragoljub Popović , Johannes Silvis, Valeriu Griţco , Iulia Antoanella Motoc , judges, and Stephen Phillips , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on 23 February 2012 and 21 May 2013 respectively,

Having regard to the decision to grant priority to application no. 11809/12 unde r Rule 41 of the Rules of Court;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applications were lodged by 256 individual Slovak nationals, whose particulars appear in the A ppendix (“the applicants”) . They were represented by Mr P. Chra šč , a la wyer practising in Bratislava .

The applications were also lodged by the c ivic a ssociation Right to Housing ( Pr ávo na bývanie – “the applicant association”), whose registered office is in Bratislava and of whom the applicants are members. The applicant association was represented by Mr K. Straka , its President.

A. The circumstances of the case s

2. The facts of the case s , as submitted by the applicants and the applicant association , may be summarised as follows.

3. B etween 1945 and 2002 public authorities allotted flats to the applicants or their predecessors in accordance with the law then in force . Following the developments described below, their rights of use were transformed in to tenanc ies and the houses in which the flats were located were restored to their original owners or denationalised. The applications concern the public authorities ’ actions in connection with the denationalisation of the housing fund in Slovakia, the dismantling of rent control and the impact this has had on the individual applicants. The following facts are relevant.

1. Situation prior to the fall of the communist regime

4. Prior to the fall of the communist regime in 1989, the housing system in Czechoslovakia was part of a planned S tate-run economy. Citizens in cities and towns lived mostly in flat s owned by the State or “legal persons”, such as State-owned companies. The c onstruction of flat s and their use and allocation were managed, financed and controlled by publ ic authorities through a centralised management structure .

5. Others lived in flats which had been built by housing cooperatives of which they were members. Cooperative housing was also funded primarily from public sources . U nder the relevant legislation , direct and non ‑ refundable government grants represented more than 60% of the total cost s of construction .

6. Mostly in rural areas, inhabitants built their own family homes which were in their “personal” ownership. Their construction was also subsidised and promoted by the State by various means.

7. Persons liv ing in flats owned by the State were holders of a right of use ( osobné užívani e ) under the Civil Code. They were entitled to use their flats for an indefinite period. Members of the same household as a person having a right of use were entitled to continue living in the flat after the latter ’ s death. H older s of a right of use were allowed to participate in the decision-making processes regarding alterations and reconstruction of the house s in which they lived . Exchanges of flats between holders of a right of use were permissible and frequent. The y were subjected to approval by the owner, which was generally only a formal ity . The amount payable for the use of flats was regulated in accordance with the central wage policy. It did not reflect the costs of construction and maintenance. Users could be evicted only in exceptional circumstances, for example if they had failed to pay the sum due for three consecutive months or had committed a serious breach of the law in the ir use of a flat .

2. Restitution of property and housing reforms in the context of the country ’ s transition to wards a market-oriented economy

8. In the former Czechoslovakia, to which Slovakia has been one of the successor States as of 1 January 1993, housing reforms started in 1990 in the context of ( i ) measures aimed at redressing certain wrongs that had been committed under the communist regime and (ii) the country ’ s transition towards a market-oriented economy. It involved the restitution of houses to former owners, the denationalisation of State-owned housing stock and later the gradual deregulation of rent.

(a ) Restitution laws and the denationalisation of compan y -owned flats

9. New laws allowed for the restitution of property which had been taken away from owners under the communist regime. A number of dwelling houses, especially in towns, were returned to the original owners or their successors. The r estitution of dwelling houses as such did not formally affect the legal position of those who had a right of use of individual flats.

10. In 1991 the process of “large - scale privati s ation” was started. It consisted of the denationalisation of State-owned enterprises. In some cases , new owners divided the property of the company of which part , including the company ’ s housing stock, was transferred to third parties . In such cases, the users ’ position was similar to that described in the preceding section. I n 1999 a law was passed prohibiting the transfer of company -owned flats to persons other than their actual tenants.

(b) Further developments in housing policy

11. The main objective of the housing reform s after 1989 was the introdu ction of private ownership of housing stock. The reform s w ere primarily related to housing in flat s .

( i ) Replacement of right s of use by tenanc ies

12. With effect from 1 January 1992 the Civil Code was amended so that rights of use in respect of flats were cancelled and replaced by tenancies. Rents remained regulated. In the event of death of a tenant of a flat rented by spouses, the survivor is entitled to become the sole tenant. In other cases, tenancies are transferrable to a deceased tenant ’ s children, grandchildren, siblings or son s or daughter s- in - law , if they can prove they shared the same household at the time of death and do not have their own flat. The same right may be enjoyed by other persons who took care of the deceased tenant ’ s household or were dependent on him or her for at least three years prior to his or her death, and who do not have their own flat.

13. The relevant provisions of the Civil Code restrict a landlord ’ s ability to terminate a tenancy to a limited number of cases, such as where the latter needs the flat for their own or their next of kin ’ s purposes, or where the tenant did not need the flat or failed to comply with his or her obligations. Termination of a tenancy by a landlord must be approved by a court, and in most cases tenants may only have to vacate the flat once they have been provided with substitute accommodation.

(ii) Legislation allowing for the transfer of ownership of flats to members of housing cooperatives and tenants in publicly-owned dwelling houses

14. Law no. 42/1992 provided for the transformation of cooperatives in the context of the country ’ s transition towards a market-oriented economy. Members of housing cooperatives were entitled to have ownership of the flats in which they lived transferred to them. They only had to pay the outstanding part of the S tate loan which had been provided in respect of the dwelling. In practice, tenants acquired ownership of cooperative flats either at a nominal price or , where the S tate loan had already been repaid, at no additional cost .

15. The Ownership of Flats and Non- Dwelling Premises Act 1993 (Law n o. 182/1993 ) was enacted with effect from 1 September 1993. It allowed tenants in publicly- owned dwelling houses to buy their flat s on favo u rable terms. The basis for calculating the price was the statistical value of a dwelling as defined in the period of the centrally planned economy. Tenants had a number of further advantages and benefits. As a result, they obtained ownership of flats at a nominal price which was only a fraction of the ir actual market value . The applicants indicated that one of the reasons for the large-scale denationalisation of public housing stock was so that the majority of the population could be compensated in a situation where the denationalisation of a substantial part of State property, such as companies, had resulted in it being transferred to a limited number of persons.

16. Subsequent amendments to Law no. 182/1993 extended its scope to cover flats the ownership of which had been transferred to a number of legal persons, such as consumption, agricultural and production cooperatives and companies. In its findings in case PL. ÚS 26/00, the Constitutional Court dismissed a challenge by the Prosecutor General to some of the amendments. It held, among other things, that the denationalisation of housing stock , in addition to being part of the economic transformation process, aimed at eliminati ng discrimination against residents of flat s as compared to owners of individual ho uses who had acquired them with the help of public resources .

17. The large-scale denationalisation of housing stock in Slovakia, especially in big towns, resulted in a lmost all flats being transferred to private ownership . T he rental sector nearly ceased to exist , with rental flat s remain ing mostly in rest ored and privatised houses.

(iii) Deregulation of rent

18. From 1992 a number of instruments of subordinate legislation were issued providing for a gradual increase in regulated rent .

19. On 25 September 2008 t he Ministry of Finance issued Measure no. 02/R/2008 . It allow ed the rent-control scheme to continue to apply after 31 December 2011 where ( i ) tenants or persons sharing their household did not own or co-own, on 1 October 2008, a comparable flat or inhabitable real property in the same municipality or within 50 kilometres of its boundaries; (ii) the landlord and the tenant did not reach a different agreement on the rent before 1 January 2012; and (iii) the tenants concerned submitted a registration form to the Ministry of Construction and Regional Development before 31 December 2008.

20. Documents of th at Ministry 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 documents indicate that it was envisaged that substitute accommodation would be made available to those concerned by the reform s where this was justified by their social situation. 76.5% of the tenants thus registered lived in flats located in Bratislava.

21. On the basis of that data, the authorities estimated that the rent-control scheme concerned approximately 1,000 flats, that is to say 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.

22. On 15 September 2011 the Termination and Settlement of Tenancy ( Certain Flats) Act came into force . It was enacted with a view to eliminating rent restrictions concerning individual owners (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below) .

(c) Impact on the individual applicants

23. In application no. 11809/12 , 135 of the 201 individual applicants had received notice of termination of their tenancies by 23 January 2013 . By that date the applicants ’ claim for substitute accommodation had been granted in thirty-six cases and refused in eight.

24. In application no. 35284/13, fifty-one individual applicants had received notice by the time their applications had been lodged on 21 May 2013. With the exception of four, the applicants in that case considered that they met the criteria of persons in “material need” of housing within the meaning of Law no. 260/2011.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

25. Details of the relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the case of Bittó and Others v. Slovakia (no. 30255/09, §§ 32-70, 28 January 2014). In addition, the following information is relevant.

1. Law no. 260/2011

26. The Termination and Settlement of Tenancy (Certain Flats ) Act 2011 (Law no. 260/2011) , as amended, appli es in particular to flat s used by individuals whose rent has been regulated. It entitled l andlords , until 31 December 2012, to give notice of termination of a tenancy which was to take effect after twelve month s . Tenants who are entitled to substitute accommodation or whose corresponding claim has not yet been determined do not have to vacate the ir flats until a municipality has provided substitute housing to them. Law no. 260/2011 further entitles landlords to increase rent by 20% once a year from 2012 to 2015 (sections 1 to 4) .

27. Pursuant to section 5(1) to (3), tenants who received notice under the above provisions are entitled to substitute accommodation subject to them ( i ) submitting a claim in compliance with the provisions of Law no. 260/2011 and (ii) being in “material need” of housing, namely where they or persons sharing their household do not own an appropriate flat within the boundaries of the same municipality or district and where it is justified by their financial situation.

Subsections (4) to (6) of section 5 define the substitute accommodation to be made available, namely rental flats in the same municipality comprising of one room for a single tenant, two rooms for two to three tenants, three rooms for four to five tenants, and four rooms for six or more individuals.

28. Persons applying for substitute accommodation must submit a declaration of their property and indicate its overall value (section 6). Applications must also indicate the particulars of the tenants and persons living with them, including their date of birth, family status, identity card number and address. They must also comprise the claimants ’ consent to the data contained therein being processed and published in conformity with the Personal Data Protection Act (section 8).

29. A municipality ’ s decision on a request for substitute accommodation is reviewable by the courts (section 9(6)).

30. Under section 9(8), municipalities keep lists of persons applying for substitute accommodation. The lists are public and to be made accessible on public noticeboards and, where available, websites of the municipalities.

31. Section 12 obliges municipalities to provide successful claimants with substitute accommodation by 31 December 2016, or else they must pay the flat owners the difference between the free market rent and regulated rent.

2. Law no. 261/2011

32. Law no. 261/2011 governs the funding of flats in which substitute accommodation is to be provided.

33. Section 11 defines the size of such flats and how they should be equipped. Their surface area may not exceed 45 square metres in single ‑ room flats and 90 square metres in four-room flats. Standards are set as regards heating, personal hygiene facilities and kitchen equipment.

3. Personal Data Protection Act 2013

34. The aim of the Act has been, among other things, to protect individuals against an unjustified interference with their private life in the processing of their personal data (section 1(a)). It sets out in detail the requirements for personal data to be obtained and processed with or without the consent of the person concerned, and its storage and destruction. Those intending to publish personal data must not interfere in an unjustified manner with the personal rights and privacy of those concerned (section 12(5)).

35. The Act further entitles those concerned to obtain information as regards the storage and processing of their personal data, and request redress where appropriate. If they consider the relevant legal provisions to have been disregarded, they are entitled to apply to the Personal Data Protection Office, which may order any shortcomings found to be remedied and sanction those liable. Its decisions in that regard are reviewable by the courts.

4. Implementation of Law nos. 260/2011 and 261/2011 by municipalities

36. The website of the Bratislava municipality contains, among other things, lists of persons whose claims for a rental flat, within the meaning of Law no. 260/2011, have been granted by a final decision. Separate lists are kept according to the number of rooms to which claimants are entitled. They indicate the first name, surname and address of those concerned.

37. The website further contains guidelines explaining the procedure under Law no. 260/2011 and forms which persons claiming substitute accommodation are required to complete. These comprise a claim form setting out the particulars of the claimant and persons living with him or her, information about the flat to be vacated and an indication whether the claimant and/or persons living with him or her have their own flat elsewhere.

38. Claim forms are to be accompanied by a declaration of property pursuant to section 6 of Law no. 260/2011. The claimant and persons concerned have to provide full details of their immovable property and its value. They are further required to declare any movable property exceeding 20,000 euros in value.

39 . In addition, those concerned have to confirm in writing that they voluntarily consent to the above data being processed, in accordance with the Data Protection Act, by the municipality concerned, for the purposes of and to the extent that it is necessary for the decision on their claim for substitute accommodation, the granting of such accommodation and verification of the information submitted. The validity of the consent is expressly limited to the duration of the examination of the claim or , as the case may be, conclusion of a tenancy agreement in respect of a substitute flat.

40. The Bratislava municipality also publishes on its website lists of persons to whom municipal flats have been allocated outside the procedure set out in Law no. 260/2011. They contain the first name and surname of persons to whom a municipal flat has been rented and its size. The accompanying comment indicates that the information has been made public with a view to increasing the control and involvement of the public in municipal life.

41. Lists of persons whose claims for a rental flat within the meaning of Law no. 260/2011 have been granted, similar to those described in paragraph 36 above, are published on the websites of other municipalities, for example Tren čín , Žilina and Banská Bystrica.

C. Other relevant documents

42. Information about relevant international documents and comparative law in respect of housing policies is set out in the case of Berger-Krall and Others v. Slovenia (no. 14717/04 , §§ 87-92 and 112-16, 12 June 2014).

43. On 9 November 2010 the Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber) delivered a judgmen t in joined cases C-92/09 and C ‑ 93/09 ( Volker und Markus Schecke GbR and Hartmut Eifert v. Land Hessen ) , which concerned the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data. It held that, by requiring publication of the names of all natural persons who were beneficiaries of aid from agricultural funds and the exact amounts received by them , the Council of the European Union and the European Commission had “ exceeded the limits which compliance with the pri nciple of proportionality impose [d]” .

COMPLAINTS

44. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, both taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, the applicants complained that their rights of use of the flats which had been allocated to them had been revoked and that the subsequent rent deregulation legislation had further impaired their rights in respect of those flats. Unlike a large number of persons who had lived in flats the construction of which had been financed or supported by public means , that is to say funds accumulated by the citizens of Slovakia, the applicants as sitting tenants had been prevented from acquiring ownership of the flats in which they lived. Furthermore, they had not been provided with compensation in that respect.

45. Under Article 8 of the Convention the applicants complained that u nlike their fellow citizens , who were able to acquire ownership of the flats which they had used, their rights as sitting tenants had been affected. Law no. 260/2011 and related legislative amendments had further weakened their l egal protection and allowed flat owners to terminate existing tenancies. The substitute housing required to be provided by law was of a lower quality than the flats in which the applicants lived.

46. In addition, the applicants complained under Article 8 of the Convention that Law no. 260/2011 had violated the ir right to the protection of their personal data by obliging ( i ) those seeking substitute housing to submit a declaration of their financial situation t o local authorities ; and (ii) local authorities to publish lists of those who had applied for substitute accommodation. They referred to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in c ase s C-92/09 and C-93/09 (see paragraph 43 above ) .

47. According to its representative, the applicant association had been affected by the above violations of the Convention and its Protocols indirectly, in that the rights of its members had been breached.

THE LAW

A. Preliminary issues

48. The Court notes that the applications have the same factual and legal background. It is therefore appropriate to join them, pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court.

49. Following the death of Mr Jurkovič , one of the applicants in application no. 11809/12, his wife and daughter, who lived in the same household, expressed the wish to continue the application in his stead (see Appendix, point 94) . It has been the Court ’ s practice, in cases where an applicant has died in the course of the proceedings, to take into account the statements of his or her heirs or close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings before it (see Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09 , §§ 98-101, ECHR 20 13). It finds no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present cases. Ac c ordingly, Ms J úlia Jurkovičová and Ms Oľga Jurkovičová m ay pursue application no. 11809/12 in so far as it was lodged by the late Mr Emil Jurkovič .

50. Finally, the Court notes that the applicant association lodged the application s along with the individual applicants who are i ts members . Its representative indicat ed that t he applicant association ha d been affected indirectly, in the form of a violation of the rights of its members (see paragraph 47 above).

51. The Court has considered associations to have standing allowing them to complain about a breach of Convention rights where they (and not their members) have been directly affected by the measures complained of (see, for example, Nencheva and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 48609/06 , § 90, 18 June 2013, and A.S.P.A.S. and Lasgrezas v. France , no. 29953/08 , § § 25 ‑ 26 , 22 September 2011 , both with further references) .

52. Since the above requirement has not been met in the present cases, the applicant association cannot be considered to have “victim” status within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention.

It follows that its complaint s are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

B. Complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, both taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention

53. The applicants complained that their rights of use of the flats which had been allocated to them had been revoked, that they had been prevented from acquiring ownership of th e flats in which they l ived as sitting tenants , and that they had been provided with no compensation in that respect . They alleged a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, both taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention. Those provisions read:

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

“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.”

Article 14

“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour , language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”

54. The Court notes at the outset that the rights of use the applicants had originally enjoyed were cancelled as of 1 January 1992 (see paragraph 12 above). Since Slovakia has been bound by the Convention since 18 March 1992, the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione temporis to determine whether the effects of the rights of use could give rise to any proprietary interest attracting the guarantees of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

55. As to the remaining complaints, t he Court reiterates that an applicant may allege a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 only in so far as the impugned measures relate to his or her “possessions” within the meaning of that provision. “Possessions” can be “existing possessions” or assets, including claims, in respect of which an applicant can argue that he or she has at least a “legitimate expectation” that they will be realised , that is to say that he or she will obtain effective enjoyment of a property right (see, inter alia , Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic ( dec. ) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002 ‑ VII , and Kopeck ý v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 35, ECHR 2004 ‑ IX).

56. As to the applicants ’ argument that under national law they had been unable to buy the flats in which they lived as tenants, the Court points out that there is no right to acquire possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Raviv v. Austria , no. 26266/05 , § 61 , 13 March 2012 ) .

57. The Court has also examined the applicants ’ argument that they considered themselves entitled to benefit, in the context of the housing reforms, from the denationalisation of State property in a similar way as persons living in publicly-owned houses or houses built with public subsidies. However, the belief that the law should be changed to the applicants ’ advantage cannot be regarded as a form of legitimate expectation , which must be of a nature more concrete than a mere hope and be based on a legal provision or a legal act such as a judicial decision to attract the guarantees of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see also Kopeck ý v. Slovakia [GC], cited above, §§ 45-51).

58. Finally, it remains to be examined whether the effects of Law no. 260/2011, including the right of the house owners to terminate the applicants ’ tenancies, were likely to have interfered with the latter ’ s right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.

59. I n th at connection, the Court reiterates that the right to live in a particular property not owned by an applicant does not as such constitute a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Bunjevac v. Slovenia ( dec. ), no. 48775/ 9 9, 19 January 2006 , Ga ć eša v. Croatia ( dec. ), no. 43389/02, 1 April 2008, and Gerasimov and Others v. Russia , nos. 29920/05, 3553/06, 18876/10, 61186/10, 21176/11, 36112/11, 36426/11, 40841/11, 45381/11, 55929/11 and 60822/11 , § 178, 1 July 2014, with further references).

60. Accordingly, the applicants have not shown that they had a claim sufficiently established to be enforceable, and they therefore cannot argue that they had a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see also, to the contrary, Gerasimov and Others , cited above, § 182) . Consequently , the facts of the case s do not fall within the ambit of that provision .

62. It follows that this part of the applications is incompatible , partly ratione temporis (paragraph 54 above) and partly ratione materiae (paragraphs 60 and 61 above) , with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.

C. Complaint under Article 8 of the Convention

63. T he applicants complained that as a result of the developments described above their rights as sitting tenants had been affected. In particular, Law no. 260/2011 and related legislative amendments had weakened their legal protection and allowed flat owners to terminate existing tenancies of their own accord . The substitute housing which the municipalities had to provide to tenants in need was of a lower quality and in a less attractive location. Tenants who were not in material need of housing faced the risk of their tenancy agreement being terminated without the right to any substitute accommodation.

64. The applicants further complained that Law No. 260/2011 had breached their privacy by obliging ( i ) those applying for substitute accommodation to submit a declaration of their financial situation to local authorities, and (ii) local authorities to publish lists of those who had applied for substitute accommodation on public noticeboards and the ir websites .

65. The applicants relied on Article 8 of the Convention which in its relevant parts provides:

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private ... life, his home ...

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

1. As regards the elimination of rent control and the effects of Law no. 260/2011

66. The Court reiterates that A rticle 8 of the Convention does not recognise the right to be provided with a home. Whether a State provides funds to enable everyone to have a home is a matter for political not judicial decision (see Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27238/95, § 99, ECHR 2001 ‑ I).

67. However, where, as in the present cases, the national legislation allows for the deregulation of rent and termination of tenancies by landlords, and makes the provision of substitute accommodation subject to certain criteria, the Court is entitled to examine whether its effects on tenants are compatible with their right to respect for their home as guaranteed by Article 8 (see, mutatis mutandis , Bah v. the United Kingdom , no. 56328/07, § 40 , ECHR 2011 ) .

68. According to the information available (see paragraphs 23-24 above) the applicants ’ situations differ as regards the termination of their tenancies by their landlords, their eligibility for substitute accommodation, and the state of the proceedings or decision on their claims for such accommodation. In view of the arguments and documents before it, the Court does not consider it necessary to separately address the different situations of the individual applicants in the present case s.

69. The impugned legislation obviously impacted upon the applicants ’ rights to respect for their home as it amended the conditions of the tenancy by enabling landlords to serve notice. T heir eligibility for public assistance in obtaining substitute accommodation was subject to certain conditions . The Court therefore considers that the facts of th e case s qualify as an interference with the applicants ’ right to respect for their home and fall within the ambit of Article 8.

70. The interference complained of has a legal basis (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” above). It has not been argued and there is no indication that the relevant legislation did not comply with the requirement of being sufficiently clear and foreseeable.

71. The relevant legislation aimed at alleviating and ultimately eliminating the burden which the regulation of rent imposed on owners of houses and which, in a different case, the Court had found to be excessive (see Bittó and Others , cited above, § 116). The interference complained of therefore pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of others within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 8.

72. As regards the proportionality of the interference, the Court reiterates that a wide margin of appreciation is usually allowed to the State s under the Conve n tion when it comes to general measures of economic or social strategy. Because of their direct knowledge of their society and its needs, the national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to appreciate what is in the public interest on social or economic grounds, and the Court will generally respect the legislature ’ s policy choice unless it is “manifestly without reasonable foundation” . This margin is even wider when the issues involve an assessment of the priorities as to the allocation of limited State resources (see, for example, Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 83 , ECHR 2009 , and Koufaky and Adedy v. Greece ( dec .), nos. 57665/12 and 57657/12, § 31, 7 May 2013, with further references).

73. In the present cases, the Court considers it relevant that the law allow ed the rent - control scheme to continue to apply where ( i ) tenants exposed to financial hardship or persons sharing their household did not own or co-own a comparable flat or inhabitable real property in the same municipality or in its vicinity ; (ii) the landlord and tenant did not reach a different agreement on rent; and (iii) the tenants concerned justified that they are in material need. Under sections 5 to 14 of Law no. 260/2011, m unicipalities have to provide tenants exposed to financial hardship with a municipal flat with regulated rent . Otherwise, such tenant s have maintained the right to continue us ing the ir flat with regulated rent even after expiry of the notice period, until a new tenancy agreement with a municipality has been concluded (see Bittó and Others , cited above, § § 50-52 and 63-64, and paragraphs 26-31 above).

74. Thus, the ongoing reforms are accompanied by guarantees preventing tenants who are demonstrably in need and who cannot afford to pay the market rent from being evicted without having been provided with substitute accommodation.

75. Furthermore, proceedings on claims for substitute accommodation by persons in need are accompanied by the appropriate procedural guarantees, as the municipal authorities ’ decisions on such claims are reviewable by independent courts (see paragraph 29 above and contrast McCann v. the United Kingdom , no. 19009/04, § 55 , ECHR 2008 ). It has not been argued that such guarantees proved ineffective in any of the present applicants ’ cases.

76. In these circumstances, and h aving regard to the State s ’ margin of appreciation in similar cases, the Court considers that the interference with the applicant s ’ right to respect for their home was not disproportionate or otherwise contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (compare also Berger ‑ Krall and Others , cited above, §§ 268-276) .

77. It follows that this part of the application s is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

2. As regards the processing and availability of tenants ’ personal data

78. The applicants further complained that Law n o. 260/2011 had breached their privacy by obliging ( i ) those applying for substitute accommodation to submit a declaration of their financial situation to local authorities, and (ii) local authorities to publish lists of those who had applied for substitute accommodation on public notice boards and the ir websites .

79. The Court has held that the concept of “private life” is a broad term not susceptible to exhaustive definition . I n determining whether the personal information retained by the authorities involves any of the private-life aspects within the meaning of Article 8 , the Court will have due regard to the specific context in which the information at issue has been recorded and retained, the nature of the records, the way in which these records are used and processed and the results that may be obtained (for a recapitulation of the relevant case-law see S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § § 66-67 , ECHR 2008 , and M.M. v. the United Kingdom , no. 24029/07 , § 187 , 13 November 2012 , both with further references).

80. In the present cases, the Court firstly notes that collecting and using data of tenants who have applied for substitute housing under Law no. 260/2011 is subject to their express consent. The information requested is limited to what is considered necessary with a view to determining their claim for a substitute flat, and its use outside the examination of this claim is excluded. The validity of the consent expires upon determination of the claim (see paragraph 39 above).

81. Secondly, the information available indicates that municipalities have made public, with reference to section 9(8) of Law no. 260/2011, information related to their decisions to grant substitute flats under that Law. In particular, the information sets out the first name and surname of those concerned, their address and the size of substitute accommodation to which they are entitled (see paragraphs 40-41 above). The Court has also noted that the Bratislava municipality, for example, has published similar information on the allocation of municipal flats outside the procedure set out in Law no. 260/2011 with a view to increasing the control and involvement of the public in municipal life (see paragraph 40 above).

82. Even assuming that the obligation of tenants to submit the above information in their claim for substitute accommodation and the publication of lists of persons to whom such substitute accommodation has been granted amount to an interference with their private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1, the Court takes the view that such interference is compatible with the requirements of the second paragraph of that Article. In particular, it has a legal basis (see paragraph 30 above), can be considered as pursuing the legitimate aims of ensuring the economic interests of the State in the context of the administration of public housing facilities and protecting the rights of persons contributing to public funds from which such housing is financed. Furthermore, the data in question appears to be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which it is collected and/or further processed . The Court finds no indication that the interference complained of is disproportionate to the aims pursued.

83. It follows that this part of the application s is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications;

Decides that Ms J. Jurkovi čová and O. Jurkovičová have standing to pursue application no. 11809/12 to the extent that it was lodged by Mr E. Jurkovi č ;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Stephen Phillips Josep Casadevall Registrar President

Appe ndix

1 . Application no . 11809/12

2. Application no . 35284/13

[1] Following the death of Mr Jurkovi č , his wife , Ms J úlia Jurkovičová , and daughter , Ms Oľga Jurkovičová , who lived in the same household , expressed the wish to continue the application in his stead.