Lexploria

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF DRAHOÅ AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

(Application s no s . 47922/14 and 7 others – see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

9 January 2018

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Drahoš and Others v. Slovakia ,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Helen Keller, President, Pere Pastor Vilanova, Alena Poláčková , judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 12 December 2017,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1 . The case originated in eight applications (nos. 47922/14, 49902/14, 55307/14, 76478/14, 13285/15, 34749/15, 9738/16 and 45303/16) against the Slovak Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by eighty-six applicants. The particulars of the applicants and the dates of introduction of the applications appear in Appendices 2 ‑ 9.

2 . The applicants Mr W.A. Rauscher- Nachwalger and the applicant organisation Cirkevný zbor Evanjelickej cirkvi Augsburského vyznania na Slovensku Bratislava Staré mesto (hereinafter “ the Old Town Evangelical Church”) were represented before the Court by Mr P. Zelenay and Mr M. Kluka , respectively, while the rest of the applicants were represented by Mr J. Brichta . All of these representatives are lawyers practising in Bratislava.

The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková .

3 . The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, both alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, about restrictions which the rules governing rent control imposed on their right to peacefully enjoy their possessions.

4 . The applications were communicated to the Government on 2 February and 18 November 2016 respectively.

5 . The applicants and the Government each submitted written observations (Rule 59 § 1) on the admissibility, merits and just satisfaction, and replied in writing to each other ’ s observations.

6 . The Government objected to the examination of the applications by a Committee. Having considered their objection, the Court dismisses it.

7 . The applicants are all Slovak nationals, with the exception of Ms J. Formanová , Ms N. Skružná and Ms H. Miňovská , who are Czech nationals, Mr W.A. Nachwalger , who is an Austrian national, and Mr E. Quastler , Ms I. Taussig and Ms O.F. Quastler , who are Israeli nationals. The Czech and Austrian Governments have been informed of their right to intervene under Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 1 (a) of the Rules of Court but did not avail themselves of this right.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

8 . The applicants are owners of residential buildings or apartments which were subject to the rent-control scheme. Under the relevant legislation they were obliged to let their flats to tenants while charging no more than the maximum amount of rent fixed by the State. The legislation precluded them from unilaterally terminating the leases or selling the flats in question to anyone other than the respective tenants. The particulars of the flats affected by the rent control are set out in Appendices 10 ‑ 17 (columns A ‑ F).

9 . The situation of the applicants is structurally and contextually the same as that of the applicants in Bittó and Others v. Slovakia (no. 30255/09, 28 January 2014 (merits) and 7 July 2015 (just satisfaction)), and subsequently decided cases concerning the rent-control scheme in Slovakia (see Krahulec v. Slovakia , no. 19294/07; Bukovčanová and Others v. Slovakia , no. 23785/07; Rudolfer v. Slovakia , no. 38082/07 , 5 July 2016; Riedel and Others v. Slovakia, nos. 44218/07, 54831/07, 33176/08, 47150/08; and Mečiar and Others v. Slovakia , no. 62864/09, 10 January 2017; Matuschka and Others v. Slovakia [Committee], nos . 33076/10, 14383/11 , Balan and Others v. Slovakia [Committee], nos . 51414/11, 46098/12, and Bajzík and Others v. Slovakia [Committee], nos. 46609/13, 9892/14, 27 June 2017).

A. P roperty at 27 Panenská St. and 14 Konventná St. in Bratislava (application no. 34749/15)

10 . T wo residential building at 27 Panenská St. and 14 Konventná St. in Bratislava were acquired in 2002 by a religious organisation with legal personality, Cirkevný zbor Evanjelickej cirkvi Augsburského vyznania na Slovensku Bratislava (hereinafter “the Bratislava Evangelical Church”). This body established three other entities with legal personalities, including the applicant organisation the Old Town Evangelical Church.

11 . The property in question was conveyed by the Bratislava Evangelical Church to the Old Town Evangelical Church by way of donation on 6 February 2013. On 15 February 2013 the previous owner ceased legally to exist and was legally succeeded by the Old Town Evangelical Church and the other two entities.

B. Flat no. 11 at 27 Panenská St. in Bratislava (application no. 34749/15)

12 . On 22 February 2012 the Old Town Evangelical Church gave formal notices of termination of their lease to the two tenants residing in flat no. 11 situated in the residential building at 27 Panenská St. in Bratislava. By law, these tenants had under certain circumstances the right to claim that the municipality provide them with a substitute flat on the termination of their lease. They did not avail themselves of that right.

13 . On 6 August 2013 the Old Town Evangelical Church applied to the Bratislava I District Court for an eviction order against the occupants of this flat who had failed to vacate it by the expiry of the twelve ‑ month notice period. As the occupants eventually vacated the flat on 25 February 2015, the Old Town Evangelical Church withdrew its action and the proceedings in respect of it were discontinued on 9 March 2015. Until the vacation of the flat, the occupants had paid the Old Town Evangelical Church compensation in an amount equal to the regulated rent.

C. Other relevant facts (applications nos. 49902/14 and 76478/14)

14 . The tenants residing in flats nos. 1 and 9 on 22 Moyzesova St. in Žilina moved in 2002 into flats nos. 5 and 12 within the same building owing to rebuilding of the original flats. The tenants continued to pay the regulated rent.

In 2003 flat no. 5 was rebuilt and its area was changed from 110.27 sq. m to 59.18 sq. m.

15 . A similar situation arose in the residential building on 33 Pražská St. in Bratislava where in 2014 the tenant residing in flat no. 16 moved to flat no. 9, and in the residential building located on 15 Vrbovská cesta St. in Piešťany , where the tenant living in the flat no. 14 moved to flat no. 25.

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE

16 . The relevant domestic law and practice governing the rent-control scheme in Slovakia and its historical background are set out in the Court ’ s judgment in the case of Bittó and Others , ((merits), cited above , §§ 7 ‑ 16 and 32 ‑ 72).

17 . On 15 September 2011, the Termination and Settlement of Tenancy (Certain Apartments) Act (Law no. 260/2011) came into force; this legislation was enacted with a view to ending the rent-control scheme by 31 December 2016. The owners of apartments whose rent had been regulated were entitled to increase rent by 20% once a year as of 2011 and to give notice by 31 March 2012 of the termination of a tenancy contract. Such termination of tenancy took effect after a twelve ‑ month notice period. However, if a tenant was exposed to material hardship and applied for a substitute flat with the municipality, he or she would be able to continue to use the apartment while still paying a regulated rent, even after the expiry of the notice period, until a new tenancy contract with a municipality had been set up. Municipalities were obliged to provide a person exposed to material hardship with a municipal apartment at a regulated rent. If a municipality did not comply with that obligation by 31 December 2016, the landlord could claim from the municipality the difference between the free-market rent and the regulated rent.

THE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

18 . The Court considers that given their common factual and legal background the eight applications should be joined, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court.

II. ADMISSIBILITY

A. Victim status of the Old Town Evangelical Church prior to 6 February 2013 (application no. 34749/15 )

19 . In their observations of 3 November 2016 on the applicants ’ claims for just satisfaction, the Government objected to the victim status of the Old Town Evangelical Church prior to 6 February 2013 – the date on which it had acquired the property concerned.

20 . By way of a reply, the Old Town Evangelical Church objected that the Government could and should have raised this point earlier and that, as they had failed to do so, they should be prevented from raising it by operation of Rule 55 of the Rules of Court. As to the substance, the Old Town Evangelical Church argued that it had become a victim of the alleged violations already in 2002 when its legal predecessor – the Bratislava Evangelical Church – had acquired the property.

21 . The Court reiterates that it is obliged to examine the question of its jurisdiction at every stage of the proceedings and that it is therefore not precluded from considering the compatibility ratione personae of the relevant part of the present application with the provisions of the Convention even on its own motion (see Blečić v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, §§ 65-69, ECHR 2006 ‑ III ).

22 . The Court reiterates that in order to be able to lodge an application in accordance with Article 34, the applicant must be able to show that he or she was “directly affected” by the measure complained of (see, among many other authorities, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 96, ECHR 2014).

23 . In the present case, it is not disputed that the Old Town Evangelical Church acquired the property on 6 February 2013, that prior to that date the property had been owned by the Bratislava Evangelical Church, that that entity was by no means prevented from applying to the Court under Article 34 of the Convention in its own name, which, however, it did not do.

The Court further notes that the Old Town Evangelical Church became directly affected by the rent-control scheme only once it acquired title to that property on the date mentioned and that in its subsequent application to the Court it asserts its Convention complaint in its own name, making no distinction between the time prior to and after that date. In so far as the Old Town Evangelical Church ’ s argument has been substantiated, the Court has found no material or other interest to justify the Old Town Evangelical Church in asserting its Convention complaint in relation to a period when the property in question was still owned by the Bratislava Evangelical Church (for a summary of the applicable principles, see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], cited above, §§ 96-97; see also Nassau Verzekering Maatschappij N.V. v. the Netherlands , no. 57602/09, §§ 19-20, 4 October 2011 ). Therefore, in so far as its application under Article 34 of the Convention concerns that property while it was still owned by that other entity, it is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention (see Petrová and Val o v. Slovakia ( dec. ), no. 49103/09, § 44, 5 November 2013).

In this context, the Court wishes to point out that the situation of the Old Town Evangelical Church differs from situations when a person or entity is permitted to continue pursuing an application lodged under Article 34 of the Convention by another person or entity which has died or ceased to exist in the course of the Strasbourg proceedings (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania , cited above, § 97, and Bittó and Others v. Slovakia (merits), no. 30255/09, § 74, 28 January 2014 ).

24 . Accordingly, the part of the application of the Old Town Evangelical Church concerning the application of the rent-control scheme prior to 6 February 2013 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

B. Six ‑ month time-limit in respect of flat no. 11 in the residential building at 27 Panenská St. in Bratislava (application no. 34749/15 )

25 . The Government further objected that rent control had ceased to apply to flat no. 11 in the residential building at 27 Panenská St. in Bratislava more than six months prior to the introduction of the present application on 13 July 2015. They argued that the Old Town Evangelical Church had given the tenants residing in that flat notices of termination of their lease in February 2012 and that these tenants had accordingly been obliged to vacate the flat within a notice period of twelve months, that is to say before 28 February 2013. As the tenants did not claim a substitute flat from the municipality, the flat concerned had ceased to be subject to rent control on the expiry of the notice period. Thus, in the Government ’ s submission, the relevant part of the application no. 34749/15 was lodged out of time.

26 . The Old Town Evangelical Church disagreed, arguing that the occupants of the flat had failed to vacate the flat voluntarily, that it had accordingly been forced to apply for an eviction order, in response to which the occupants had eventually moved out, but for the entire period of their occupation of the flat they had only paid the Old Town Evangelical Church compensation equal to the regulated rent. In sum, the Old Town Evangelical Church considered that the six ‑ month time-limit should be calculated from the date when the tenants had actually moved out of the flat, 25 February 2015, and that accordingly its application to the Court of 13 July 2015 was in time.

27 . Under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the Court may only deal with a matter “within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken”. Where the alleged violation constitutes a continuing situation against which no domestic remedy is available, such as the application of a rent-control scheme in the present case, the six-month period starts to run from the end of the situation concerned (see Bittó and Others (merits), cited above, § 75).

28 . The Court observes that according to the Government the rent control ceased to apply to the flat concerned on 28 February 2013 as a result of the expiry of the twelve-month notice period, combined with the fact that the occupants had not applied for substitute accommodation, and that after that date the Old Town Evangelical Church could have sought the occupants ’ eviction and/or charged them market rent. The Court observes that in reply to that argument the Old Town Evangelical Church submitted that the occupants had remained in the flat, paying no more than the equivalent of regulated rent and disrespecting the expiry of the notice period. The Court fails to see how the Old Town Evangelical Church ’ s counter-argument should serve to rebut that of the Government. To the contrary, the Old Town Evangelical Church ’ s course of action appears rather to support it, in particular in as far as the Old Town Evangelical Church sought an eviction order before the courts. There is nothing to suggest that it was prevented from complementing that action by a claim for damages. In these circumstances, the Court takes it as established that rent control ceased to apply to the flat in question on 28 February 2013.

Accordingly, the relevant part of the application of 13 July 2015 has been introduced out of time and must be rejecte d in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

C. T he six-month time-limit in a situation when a tenant has moved to another flat to which rent control continued to apply (applications nos. 49902/14 and 76478/14)

29 . The applicants who own the flats mentioned in paragraphs 14 - 15 above, where the tenants moved to another flat within the same residential building, considered these situations as continuing for the purposes of the calculation of the six ‑ month time-limit.

30 . The Government admitted that in certain situations where moving a tenant from one flat to another within the housing facility may be caused by circumstances which could be a reason for the cancellation of rent with the obligation to provide the tenant a substitute flat, and that in such cases the situation might be continuing for the purposes of calculation of six ‑ month time ‑ limit. However, they did not have sufficient information to assess this matter in the present cases.

31 . The Court observes that in all situations described above the tenants moved to other flats within the same residential building and that the relevant applicants could still charge them no more than the maximum regulated rent for using those flats. The Court had previously regarded a similar situation as continuing for the purposes of the calculation of the six ‑ month time-limit (see Bajzík and Others v. Slovakia , [Committee] nos. 46609/13 and 9892/14, § 25, 27 June 2017) and sees no reason to hold otherwise in the present cases. It therefore considers that the situations described in paragraphs 14 - 15 above as continuing for the purposes of the calculation of the six-month time-limit.

D. Remainder of the applications

32 . The Court notes that the remaining complaints (other than that dealt with under A and B above) are not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

I II . ALLEGED VIOLA TION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No . 1

33 . The applicants complained that their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions had been breached as a result of the implementation of rules governing rent control that applied to their property. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which reads as follows :

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

34 . The applicants argued that the restrictions applied to the use of their property under the rent ‑ control scheme had imposed a disproportionate burden on their ownership rights. They argued that the rent which they had been allowed to charge for letting their property had been disproportionately low compared with similar flats to which the rent ‑ control scheme had not applied and that d espite a number of increases in the regulated rent, this had remained much lower than the market rent . The applicants supported their arguments by submitting expert opinions or other evidence showing the difference between the regulated and the market rent . Furthermore, the legislation enacted with a view to eliminating the rent ‑ control scheme did not provide for compensation for persons in their position .

35 . The Government conceded that the rent ‑ control scheme had resulted in a restriction on the use of the applicants ’ property, but argued that it had been in accordance with the law and had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting tenants against unaffordable increases in rent. As to the requirement of proportionality, they challenged the method used to calculate market rent in the expert opinions submitted by the applicants and argued that the restrictions imposed on the applicants ’ property had not been disproportionate. They submitted their own expert opinion, which set out the average monthly market rent for flats comparable to those of the applicants. Lastly, they maintained that the situation had been resolved by the legislation enacted in 2011, which had provided for the elimination of all rent control by the end of 2016.

36 . The relevant case-law of the Court is summarised in Bittó and Others ((merits), cited above , §§ 94 ‑ 100).

37 . In Bittó and Others (merits) and subsequent rent-control cases (see, among other authorities, Mečiar and Others v. Slovakia , no. 62864/09, 10 January 2017 ), the Court found ( i ) that the rent ‑ control scheme had amounted to an interference with the applicants ’ property, (ii) that that interference had constituted a means of State control of the use of their property to be examined under the second par agraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, (iii) that it had been “lawful” within the meaning of that Article, (iv) that it had pursued a legitimate social-policy aim, and (v) that it had been “in accordance with the general interest”, as required by the second paragraph of that Article (see Bittó and Others (merits), cited above, §§ 101 ‑ 04).

38 . As to the requirement of proportionality, the Court noted in Bittó and Others (merits) and the subsequent rent-control cases that regardless of the difference in the calculation methods on which the parties relied, the evidence submitted by both parties was sufficient to conclude that the regulated rent had remained considerably lower than the market rent, even after several increases in the regulated rent provided for by the relevant legislation (see Bittó and Others (merits), cited above, § 113 , and Mečiar and Others v. Slovakia , cited above , § 26) . The Court also took into account the fact that the legislation allowing for gradual increases in the regulated rent did not serve as a basis for obtaining compensation for the use of the property under the rent-control scheme with any retrospective effect (see Bukovčanová and Others v. Slovakia , no. 23785/07 , § 42, 5 July 2016 ). The Court concluded that in implementing the rent ‑ control scheme the authorities had failed to strike the requisite fair balance between the general interests of the community and the protection of the applicants ’ property rights, as a result of which there had been a violation of their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Bittó and Others (merits), cited above, § 116) .

39 . The Court observes that the present cases follow the pattern of Bittó and Others and subsequent rent-control cases. The Government voiced the same objections regarding the proportionality of the interference in question as it did in Bittó and Others and subsequent rent-control cases , and have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading the Court to reach a different conclusion in the present cases. Having regard to its well ‑ established case-law on the subject, the Court considers that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

I V. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION, TAKEN TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL N o . 1

40 . The applicants maintained that the restrictions imposed by the rent ‑ control scheme amounted to discriminatory treatment. The Court considers it appropriate to examine this complaint under Article 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Article 14 reads as follows:

“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.”

41 . The Government disagreed and argued that the applicants ’ situation was not similar in any relevant respect to that of owners of buildings to which the rent ‑ control scheme did not apply.

42 . The Court dealt with essentially the same complaint in Bittó and Others ((merits), cited above, §§ 120-25) and found that in view of its conclusion that there had been a breach of the applicants ’ rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, no separate issue arose under Article 14 of the Convention. The Court sees no reason to hold otherwise in the present cases. Accordingly, it is not necessary to examine the merits of the applicants ’ complaint under those provisions.

V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

43 . Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

A. Damage

44 . The applicants claimed compensation for the pecuniary damage which they had suffered as a result of the obligation to let their flats under the conditions imposed by the rent ‑ control scheme.

45 . Most of the applicants submitted expert opinions determining the claimed amounts as the difference between the market rent applicable to similar dwellings and the regulated rent which the applicants had been able to charge under the relevant legislation throughout the period of their ownership of the property in question and the application of the rent ‑ control scheme. Those sums were then increased by the default interest applicable under Slovakian law. The applicant Mr A.W. Rauscher- Nachwalger based the calculation of pecuniary damage on the difference between the regulated rent and the market rent determined by the expert in the expert report submitted by the Government. The Old Town Evangelical Church calculated the pecuniary damage as the difference between the regulated rent paid by the tenants and the market rent based on a rental-price map of the National Association of Real Estate Agencies for a comparable apartment in the relevant year.

As for the scope of the applicants ’ claims, the applicants in applications nos. 9738/16 and 45303/06 asserted that the level of award should reflect that in Bittó and Others v. Slovakia ((just satisfaction), no. 30255/09 , 7 July 2015) and objected that the Court ’ s awards in the post Bittó judgments had been lower. The applicant ’ s specific individual claims in respect of pecuniary damage are set out in Appendices 10 ‑ 17 (column G).

In addition, the applicants claimed 50,000 euros (EUR) each in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage, with the exception of the applicant Mr Rauscher ‑ Nachwalger who claimed EUR 40,000.

46 . The Government objected to the applicants ’ claims in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as being excessive. They also contested the method by which the applicants had determined the alleged pecuniary damage and the alleged difference in the level of awards in Bittó and the subsequent judgments . Besides, the Government argued that claims in respect of pecuniary damage should be rejected with regard to those applicants who had acquired the flats by purchase because they must have been aware of the rent ‑ control scheme and could reflect that limitation in the purchase price.

47 . The applicable case ‑ law principles are summarised in Bittó and Others v. Slovakia ((just satisfaction), cited above, §§ 20 ‑ 29) . In line with its findings in that case, the Court acknowledges that the applicants must have sustained damage for which they are to be compensated with an aggregate sum covering all heads of damage. As to the scope of the applicants ’ claim, the Court points out that any such compensation may only be befitting in respect of the part of the application that, having previously been declared admissible, h as given rise to a finding of a violation of the applicants ’ Convention rights.

48 . The Court has held in similar cases that the protection provided under the Convention should not be linked to the way applicants acquired their landlords ’ rights. In any event, the applicants who acquired flats by purchase could have reasonably expected that the rent ‑ control scheme would soon be dismantled in view of the Government ’ s plans and declarations (see Bittó and Others v. Slovakia (just satisfaction), cited above, § 26).

49 . As regards the scope of the award, the Court refers to the criteria further developed in Bukovčanová and Others v. Slovakia (cited above, § 51), where it took into account all the circumstances, including ( i ) the purpose and the context of the rent control and the level of the awards in Bittó and Others (cited above), (ii) the size of the property in question, (iii) the duration of the application of the rent ‑ control scheme in relation to each individual part of the property, (iv) its location, and (v) the ownership shares of the respective applicants in the property. These criteria have subsequently been applied in Krahulec v. Slovakia , Rudolfer v. Slovakia , Riedel and Others v. Slovakia, Mečiar and Others v. Slovakia , Matuschka and Others v. Slovakia [Committee], Balan and Others v. Slovakia [Committee], and Bajzík and Others v. Slovakia [Committee] (all cited above), and the Court finds no reasons to depart from the approach taken in those cases.

As regards the situation when a tenant moved to another flat while rent control continued to apply (see paragraph 29 above), the Court will take into account the size of the flat in which the tenant was living at the relevant time (see Appendices 11 and 13 ). As regards the flat which had been rebuilt during the application of rent control, the Court will take into account the actual size of the flat at the relevant time (see Appendix 11).

50 . As to the temporal scope of the applicants ’ claims, the Court observes that under the Termination and Settlement of Tenancy (Certain Apartments) Act the owners of property which remained subjected to rent control after 31 December 2016 are entitled to claim from the municipality in question the difference between the free ‑ market rent and the regulated rent for that property (see paragraph 17 above). The Court finds that, in such circumstances and in the absence of arguments from the parties to the contrary, there is no scope for just ‑ satisfaction awards for the period subsequent to 31 December 2016 (see Matuschka and Others [Committee] , nos. 33076/10 and 14383/11, § 44, 27 June 2017 ).

51 . In the light of the above, the Court finds it appropriate to award aggregate sums covering all heads of damage specified in respect of each individual applicant in Appendices 10 ‑ 17 (column H) in a total amount of EUR 3,628,380, plus any tax that may be chargeable in respect of these amounts.

B. Costs and expenses

52 . The applicants ’ claims in respect of costs and expenses and the documents submitted by the applicants to support their claims are listed in separate Appendix 18 (columns A ‑ D).

53 . The Government challenged the costs claimed by the applicants as being excessive.

54 . Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see Bittó and Others (just satisfaction), cited above, § 36, and Mečiar and Others , cited above, § 45) the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums specified in Appendix 18 (column E). In applications in which expert opinions have been submitted and the applicants claim compensation in respect of their costs, the Court awards 25% of the amounts claimed. The total award in respect of costs of expert opinions in the given application is to be apportioned pro rata among the individual applicants concerned according to the respective costs of their individual expert opinions.

The award in respect of costs and expenses therefore totals EUR 197,310, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

C. Default interest

55 . The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications ;

2. Declares application no. 34749/15 inadmissible in so far as it concerns the application of the rent-control scheme in respect of the property of the applicant organisation Cirkevný zbor Evanjelickej cirkvi Augsburského vyznania na Slovensku Bratislava Staré mesto prior to 6 February 2013 and in so far as it concerns flat no. 11 located at 27 Panenská St. in Bratislava ;

3. Declares the remainder of the applications admissible;

4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;

5. Holds that it is not necessary to examine the merits of applicants ’ complaint under Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;

6. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months the following amounts:

( i ) EUR 3,628,380 (three million six hundred and twenty-eight thousand three hundred and eighty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage (to be distributed among the applicants according to Appendices 10 ‑ 17, column H);

(ii) EUR 197,310 (one hundred and ninety-seven thousand three hundred and ten euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses (to be distributed among the applicants according to Appendix 18, column E);

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

7. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants ’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 January 2018 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Fatoş Aracı Helen Keller Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX 1

List of applications

APPENDIX 2

List of applicants

Application no. 47922/14

The application was lodged on 11 June 2014 by the following twelve applicants.

APPENDIX 3

Application no. 49902/14

List of applicants

The application was lodged on 30 June 2014 by the following twenty ‑ seven applicants.

APPENDIX 4

Application no. 55307/14

List of applicants

The application was lodged on 31 July 2014 by the following applicant .

APPENDIX 5

Application no. 76478/14

List of applicants

The application was lodged on 28 November 2014 by the following fourteen applicants .

APPENDIX 6

Application no. 13285/15

List of applicants

The application was lodged on 10 March 2015 by the following thirteen applicants.

APPENDIX 7

Application no. 34749/15

List of applicants

The application was lodged on 13 July 2015 by the following six applicants.

APPENDIX 8

List of applicants

Application no. 9738/16

The application was lodged on 12 February 2016 by the following six applicants.

APPENDIX 9

List of applicants

Application no. 45303/16

The application was lodged on 27 July 2016 by the following seven applicants.

APPENDIX 10

Application no. 47922/14

A.

Applicant

B.

Residential building address

C.

Flat no.

D.

Area

[m 2 ]

E.

Period of application of rent control

F.

Ownership share

G.

Pecuniary damage claimed

[€]

H.

Just satisfaction awarded

[€]

Jiří DRAHOÅ

Jakubovo nám . 17, Bratislava - Staré Mesto

1

2

3

49.09

87.66

26/02/1998 -

1/1

1,377,659.63

62,300

Jiří DRAHOÅ

Jakubovo nám . 19, Bratislava - Staré Mesto

2

3

49.09

87.66

26/02/1998 -

1/1

45,800

Eva PECIAROVÁ

Špitálska 37,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

3

5

6

115.73

97.82

115.73

19/06/1991 - 29/11/2016

19/06/1991 -

1/2: 19/6/1991 - 17/4/2000

1/4: 18/4/2000 - 18/11/2010

1/2: 19/11/2010 -

935,410.80

58,200

Milan KOVÁČ

Špitálska 37,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

3

5

6

115.73

97.82

115.73

19/06/1991 - 29/11/2016

19/06/1991 -

1/4

609,555.88

36,800

Jozef KOVÁČ

Špitálska 37,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

3

5

6

115.73

97.82

115.73

19/06/1991 - 29/11/2016

19/06/1991 -

1/4

609,555.88

36,800

Viera JUNGOVÁ

ÄŒajakova 36,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

1

75.11

18/03/1992 -

2/3: 18/3/1992 - 30/12/1994

1/1: 31/12/1994 -

313,088.72

32,600

Ľubomír ŠČASNÝ

Heydukova 19,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

1

2

3

4

7

12

14

10

11

107.38

94.22

27.84

51.26

103.61

99.74

54.44

27.01

99.60

10/12/2010 -

10/12/2010 - 14/08/2014

10/12/2010 - 01/05/2014

1/6: 10/12/2010 - 22/11/2011

1/3: 23/11/2011 - 04/2/2016

2/3: 5/2/2016 -

103,616.57

26,500

Ľudovít LABÍK

Beata LABÍKOVÁ

Šancová 76,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

7

8

9

11

41.11

32.45

48.65

32.00

08/03/2001 -

1/2*

106,999.98

21,600*

PRIVÉEFINA s.r.o .

Šancová 76,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

7

8

9

11

41.11

32.45

48.65

32.00

31/12/2010 -

1/2

36,183.98

8,700

Emília BALÁŽOVÁ

Šancová 102,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

11

12

14

15

68.56

86.59

86.64

20.74

31/05/1991 -

31/05/1991 - 19/10/2016

31/05/1991 -

1/3: 31/5/1991 - 12/11/2013

1/1: 13/11/2013 -

1,217,429.82

48,900

AKJ s.r.o .

Žilinská 2,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

3

10

33.55

72.00

29/04/2009 - 14/12/2014

1/1

64,808.12

9,900

PERFEKT a.s .

Karpatská 7,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

1

72.11

25/04/1995 - 10/02/2016

1/1

280,753.50

28,200

Total

416,300

* joint marital ownership

APPENDIX 11

Application no. 49902/14

A.

Applicant

B.

Residential building address

C.

Flat no.

D.

Area

[m 2 ]

E.

Period of application of rent control

F.

Ownership share

G.

Pecuniary damage claimed

[€]

H.

Just satisfaction awarded

[€]

Jana MARTINOVIČOVÁ

Štefánikova 16, Bratislava - Staré Mesto

1

4

7

38.41

72.29

113.42

27/09/1991 -

27/09/1991- 31/12/2013

1/2

502,492.59

46,900

Eva ČEŘOVSKÁ

Štefánikova 16, Bratislava - Staré Mesto

1

4

7

38.41

72.29

113.42

27/09/1991 -

27/09/1991- 31/12/2013

1/2

502,492.59

46,900

Jana FORMANOVÁ

Grösslingová 43, Bratislava - Staré Mesto

3

5

6

9

155.3

126.14

127.05

74.33

15/11/1991 -

1/4

549,169.63

54,900

Nadežda SKRUŽNÁ

Grösslingová 43, Bratislava - Staré Mesto

3

5

6

9

155.3

126.14

127.05

74.33

15/11/1991 -

1/4

549,169.63

54,900

Július VAŇURA

Trenčianska 15, Bratislava II

8

72.57

13/11/2012 -

1/4

4,820.96

1,400

Ján VAŇURA

Trenčianska 15, Bratislava II

8

72.57

13/11/2012 -

1/4

4,820.96

1,400

Ján BIENIK

Budyšínska 2,

Bratislava - Nové Mesto

5

6

9

10

13

15

16

18+19

45.75

63.65

49.64

59.72

33.79

49.46

56.72

65.17

25/09/2009 -

25/09/2009 - 30/05/2016

25/09/2009 -

7/42: 25/9/2009 - 20/1/2013

19/42:21/1/2013 - 3/2/2014

11/42: 4/2/2014 -

58,068.58

13,000

Anna BIENIKOVÁ

Budyšínska 2,

Bratislava - Nové Mesto

5

6

9

10

13

15

16

18+19

45.75

63.65

49.64

59.72

33.79

49.46

56.72

65.17

25/09/2009 -

25/09/2009 - 30/05/2016

25/09/2009 -

5/42: 25/9/2009 - 3/2/2014

11/42: 4/2/2014 -

39,369.83

8,900

Renáta VONGREJOVÁ

Budyšínska 2,

Bratislava - Nové Mesto

5

6

9

10

13

15

16

18+19

45.75

63.65

49.64

59.72

33.79

49.46

56.72

65.17

25/09/2009 -

25/09/2009 - 30/05/2016

25/09/2009 -

2/21

24,015.63

5,300

Jaroslava EDEDYOVÁ

Budyšínska 2,

Bratislava - Nové Mesto

5

6

9

10

13

15

16

18+19

45.75

63.65

49.64

59.72

33.79

49.46

56.72

65.17

25/09/2009 -

25/09/2009 - 30/05/2016

25/09/2009 -

1/21

12,007.82

2,700

Katarína MURÁŇOVÁ

Budyšínska 2,

Bratislava - Nové Mesto

5

6

9

10

13

15

16

18+19

45.75

63.65

49.64

59.72

33.79

49.46

56.72

65.17

25/09/2009 -

25/09/2009 - 30/05/2016

25/09/2009 -

1/21

12,007.82

2,700

Anna LALKOVIČOVÁ

Budyšínska 2,

Bratislava - Nové Mesto

5

6

9

10

13

15

16

18+19

45.75

63.65

49.64

59.72

33.79

49.46

56.72

65.17

25/09/2009 -

25/09/2009 - 30/05/2016

25/09/2009 -

5/42

30,019.53

6,600

Ferdinand LALKOVIÄŒ

Budyšínska 2,

Bratislava - Nové Mesto

5

6

9

10

13

15

16

18+19

45.75

63.65

49.64

59.72

33.79

49.46

56.72

65.17

25/09/2009 -

25/09/2009 - 30/05/2016

25/09/2009 -

5/42

30,019.53

6,600

Anna SOPKOVČÍKOVÁ

Budyšínska 2,

Bratislava - Nové Mesto

5

6

9

10

13

15

16

18+19

45.75

63.65

49.64

59.72

33.79

49.46

56.72

65.17

25/09/2009 -

25/09/2009 - 30/05/2016

25/09/2009 -

6/21: 25/9/2009 - 20/1/2013

2/42: 4/2/2014 -

46,655.28

9,800

Boris ŠTEFÁNEK

Moyzesova 22

(ul. 1. mája 18), Žilina

1 →

5 [1]

5 [2]

11

9 →

12 1

85.15

110.27

59.18

96.08

32.51

19/08/2000 - 31/05/2002

01/06/2002 - 31/12/2003

01/01/2004 - 12/11/2016

19/08/2000 -

19/08/2000 - 31/01/2002

01/02/2002 - 02/04/2014

1/2

138,654.22

27,800

Boris ŠTEFÁNEK

Viera ŠTEFÁNKOVÁ

Moyzesova 22

(ul. 1. mája 18), Žilina

5

5 2

11

12

110.27

59.18

96.08

32.51

27/03/2003 - 31/12/2003

01/01/2004 - 12/11/2016

27/03/2003 -

27/03/2003 - 02/04/2014

1/2*

104,034.62

21,300*

Eleonóra ŽIDEKOVÁ

Obchodná 50,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

1

85.10

16/04/2002 -

20/360: 16/4/2002 - 17/6/2008

30/360: 18/6/2008 -

13,527

1,600

Katarína PISARČÍKOVÁ

Obchodná 50,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

1

85.10

16/04/2002 -

20/360: 16/4/2002 - 17/6/2008

30/360: 18/6/2008 -

13,527

1,600

Stanislav PAVÚK

Obchodná 50,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

1

85.10

26/12/1991 -

30/360

35,915.08

3,200

Eva NÉMETHOVÁ

Obchodná 50,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

1

85.10

26/12/1991 -

30/360

35,915.08

3,200

Lýdia MICHALČEKOVÁ

Obchodná 50,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

1

85.10

01/03/1991 -

15/360

17,957.48

1,600

Helena MIŇOVSKÁ

Obchodná 50,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

1

85.10

18/03/2004 -

15/360

6,817.94

800Helena WAGNEROVÁ

Sasinkova 1,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

3

4

72.23

99.41

17/12/1997 -

16/240:17/12/1997 - 29/12/1998

1/1: 30/12/1998 -

491,600.01

57,700

Štefánia KOPORCOVÁ

Trenčianska 11, Bratislava - Nivy

2

4

6

54.32

13/05/1992 - 24/11/2016

13/05/1992 -

1/2: 13/5/1992 - 21/5/1997

1/1: 22/5/1997 - 21/3/2013

1/2: 22/3/2013 -

745,202.15

60,700

Milena ZÁLESŇÁKOVÁ

Trenčianska 11, Bratislava - Nivy

2

4

6

54.32

22/03/2013 - 24/11/2016

22/03/2013 -

1/4

7,159.72

2,300

Pavel KOPOREC

Trenčianska 11, Bratislava - Nivy

2

4

6

54.32

22/03/2013 - 24/11/2016

22/03/2013 -

1/4

1,378,983.77

2,300

Pavel KOPOREC

Moravská 1,

Bratislava - Nové mesto

002 101 201 202 203 204 303 304 401 402 403 501 502 503

86.35

75.03

77.23

42.25

65.35

42.72

64.83

42.63

72.52

89.08

63.42

76.22

87.26

65.33

25/05/2004 -

25/05/2004 - 10/07/2014

25/05/2004 -

25/05/2004 - 31/08/2014

25/05/2004 -

1/1

207,700

Kongregácia sestier Najsvätejšieho Spasiteľa, Slovenská provincia

1

2

4

5

7

8

10

12

13

14

76.74

115.37

84.35

76.74

70.68

69.9

110.9

44.36

50.99

73.4

19/07/1990 -

19/07/1990 - 31/07/2014

19/07/1990 -

1/1

3,855,017.69

343,400

Total

997,200

* joint marital ownership

APPENDIX 12

Application no. 55307/14

A.

Applicant

B.

Residential building address

C.

Flat no.

D.

Area

[m 2 ]

E.

Period of application of rent control

F.

Ownership share

G.

Pecuniary damage claimed

[€]

H.

Just satisfaction awarded

[€]

Alexander RAUSCHER-NACHWALGER

Ul . 29. augusta 19, Bratislava

6

10

12

14

75.60

65.30

44.90

11/02/2011 - 28/09/2015

11/02/2011 - 26/06/2015

11/02/2011 - 28/09/2015

11/02/2011 - 09/02/2017

9/10: 11/2/2011 - 12/12/2012

1/1: 13/12/2012 - 09/2/2017

136,000

19,100

APPENDIX 13

Application no. 76478/14

A.

Applicant

B.

Residential building address

C.

Flat no.

D.

Area

[m 2 ]

E.

Period of application of rent control

F.

Ownership share

G.

Pecuniary damage claimed

[€]

H.

Just satisfaction awarded

[€]

Peter GÁLFY

Lešková 9,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

1

66.54

03/06/2005 -

6/24

25,026.44

3,500

Ivan KOVÁČ

Lešková 9,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

1

66.54

28/03/1984 -

4/24: 18/3/1992 - 19/8/1996

6/24: 20/8/1996 - 6/10/2002

8/24: 7/10/2002 -

80,768.47

8,500

Vladimír Slavomír FRŤALA

Beskydská 6,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

6

10

142.25

78.45

03/02/2000 -

21/09/1999 -

1/1

558,562.87

67,200

Dušan BADAL

Šancová 102,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

1

17

62.47

87.17

31/05/1991 -

1/3: 30/5/1991 - 12/11/2013

1/1: 13/11/2013 -

966,943.84

27,900

Eyal QUASTLER

Šancová 2,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

4

5

6

8

910 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

60.37

100.83

63.17

121.16

77.52

87.32

144.68

132.35

56.39

60.37

47.26

89.05

132.5

71.23

137.16

136.66

147.35

132.35

49.84

27/04/2007 -

27/04/2007 - 26/01/2015

27/04/2007 -

8/144: 27/4/2007 - 9/12/2013

18/144: 10/12/2013 -

157,231

24,200

Iris TAUSSIG

Šancová 2,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

8/144: 27/4/2007 - 18/9/2013

38/144: 19/9/2013 - 9/12/2013

18/144: 10/12/2013 -

165,331.92

26,400

Orly Froydental QUASTLER

Šancová 2,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

8/144: 27/4/2007 - 9/12/2013

18/144: 10/12/2013 -

157,231

24,200

Eva GÁLIKOVÁ

Obchodná 50,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

1

85.10

12/06/2000 -

15/1440

2,509.39

270Anna MARKOVÁ

Obchodná 50,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

1

85.10

12/06/2000 -

15/1440

2,509.39

270Vlasta VEČERÍKOVÁ

Obchodná 50,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

1

85.10

12/06/2000 -

15/1440

2,509.39

270Jozef REZEK

Obchodná 50,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

1

85.10

12/06/2000 -

15/1440

2,509.39

270NESTVEST, s.r.o . / Stepreal s.r.o .

Galandova 3,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

1

152.76

06/06/2000 -

1/1

398,973.16

45,500

IVOS - spol . s.r.o .

Pražská 33,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

512 14 17 19 23

8

16 →

9 [1]

66.60

71.40

70.50

71.40

70.50

51.51

69.80

89.50

70.50

27 /02/2009 -

27/02/2009 - 30/10/2015

27/02/2009 -

27/02/2009 - 31/08/2014

19/07/2010 - 31/08/2014

01/09/2014 -

1/1

404,682.43

68,500

STAVEBNÁ SPOLOČNOSŤ RAVING, a.s .

Vrbovská cesta 15, Piešťany

14 →

25 1

21 22 24 27 28 32 33 34

60.27

84.30

54.60

59.84

84.10

61.20

54.60

66.70

41.40

31.24

27/07/1998 - 31/07/2014

01/08/2014 -

27/07/1998 -

1/1

813,248.83

148,800

Total

445,780

APPENDIX 14

Application no. 13285/15

A.

Applicant

B.

Residential building address

C.

Flat no.

D.

Area

[m 2 ]

E.

Period of application of rent control

F.

Ownership share

G.

Pecuniary damage claimed

[€]

H.

Just satisfaction awarded

[€]

Peter MIŠÍK

Zochová 18,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

5

113.27

17/06/1992 -

10/120: 17/6/1992 - 25/8/2008

13043/120000: 26/8/2008 -

44,505.97

4,700

Branislav MIŠÍK

Zochová 18,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

5

113.27

17/06/1992 -

6/120: 17/6/1992 - 9/7/2008

12/120: 10/7/2008 - 25/8/2008

15656/120000: 26/8/2008 -

33,611.18

4,000

Radovan MIŠÍK

Zochová 18,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

5

113.27

23/06/2009 -

13043/120000

9,593.21

1,700

Mária SOUKUPOVÁ

Zochová 18,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

5

113.27

10/03/1992 -

15/120: 10/3/1992 - 21/10/2003

20/120: 22/10/2003 - 25/8/2008

26086/120000: 26/8/2008 -

77,423.97

8,400

Eva SOFKOVÁ

Zochová 18,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

5

113.27

10/03/1992 -

15/120: 10/3/1992 - 21/10/2003

20/120: 22/10/2003 - 25/8/2008

26086/120000: 26/8/2008 -

77,423.97

8,400

Tomáš PLANK

Ingrid PLANKOVÁ

Námestie Slobody 10, Bratislava - Staré Mesto

1

4

5

52.54

64.18

44.05

16/08/1995 -

1/2*

298,187.3

31,400*

Dušan POHOVEJ

Soňa POHOVEJOVÁ

Námestie Slobody 10, Bratislava - Staré Mesto

1

4

5

52.54

64.18

44.05

16/08/1995 -

1/2*

298,187.3

31,400*

NOE, s. r. o.

Konventná 3,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

A5 A6 B1 B2

86.41

58.93

81.20

80.90

27/07/2004 -

1/1

525,257.36

68,700

DANY 20, s. r. o.

Cukrová 6,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

1

2

410 11 12 13 14

58.51

42.81

68.51

42.89

75.27

42.54

75.27

31/01/2014 - 09/06/2016

31/01/2014 - 31/08/2015

31/01/2014 - 09/06/2016

1/1

77,223.39

5,000

Konventná Apartments, s. r. o. /

Feiglerov dom a. s.

Konventná 5,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

1

2a

2b

3a

3b

4

5

6a

6b

8

22.64

30.27

75.12

44.80

91.47

44.56

74.67

112.26

47.00

86.27

14/03/2007 -

14/03/2007 - 31/05/2015

14/03/2007 -

18/48: 14/3/2007 - 22/5/2007

34/48: 23/5/2007 - 5/8/2013

1/1: 6/8/2013 -

600,880.55

84,700

W.O.C.H. REAL a. s.

Račianska 20,

Bratislava - Nové Mesto

2

3

4

5

6

7

910 11 12 15 17 18 19 21

69.85

78.59

78.65

71.66

69.85

78.59

71.66

69.85

78.59

78.65

71.66

37.60

31.85

55.37

27/09/2009 - 05/04/2016

27/09/2009 - 04/05/2016

27/09/2009 - 22/07/2016

27/09/2009 - 15/04/2016

27/09/2009 -

27/09/2009 - 05/04/2016

27/09/2009 - 01/07/2016

27/09/2009 - 15/12/2015

27/09/2009 - 28/04/2016

27/09/2009 - 17/12/2015

27/09/2009 - 22/07/2016

27/09/2009 - 04/04/2016

27/09/2009 -

27/09/2009 - 30/06/2016

1/1

718,538.41

124,100

Total

372,500

* joint marital ownership

APPENDIX 15

Application no. 34749/15

A.

Applicant

B.

Residential building address

C.

Flat no.

D.

Area

[m 2 ]

E.

Period of application of rent control

F.

Ownership share

G.

Pecuniary damage claimed

[€]

H.

Just satisfaction awarded

[€]

Pavol SLÁVIK

Štefánikova 31, Bratislava – Staré Mesto

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

13 14 17 18 20 21

34.25

150.58

171.69

119.41

148.57

154.50

119.29

83.57

140.97

76.28

79.74

86.90

56.85

30/04/2007 -

32/80

837,110.56

95,300

APOLLO

spa & living, s. r. o.

Nitrianska 1, Piešťany

1

77.50

22/02/2013 -

1/1

8,303.24

3,800

OTP BUILDINGS,

s. r. o.

Špitálska 61,

Bratislava – Staré Mesto

41 42 52 53 56 61

74.05

61.50

112.12

83.83

84.99

81.23

06/07/2005 -

1/1

805,520.72

101,900

Židovská náboženská obec Bratislava

Kupeľná 5,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

3

4

5

6

10

32.79

69.11

39.76

68.97

20/07/1994 -

1/1

3,932,091.55

102,500

Svoradova 5,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

1

7

102.26

108.30

20/07/1994 -

1/1

86,200

Panenská 4,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

6

146.47

20/07/1994 -

1/1

60,000

Palisády 42,

Bratislava - Staré mesto

2

5

144.24

168.42

07/06/1996 - 26/10/2015

1/1

110,500

Evanjelická cirkev Augsburského vyznania na Slovensku

Svoradova 3,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

2

6

56.85

98.67

14/01/1997 -

1/1

4,959,207.41

55,000

Palisády 46,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

16

23

125.45

44.87

18/03/1992 -

1/1

76,100

Palisády 48,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

1

6

8

10

64.51

151.49

117.65

114.71

18/03/1992 -

18/03/1992 - 22/06/2015

18/03/1992 -

1/1

198,000

Panenská 25,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

67.08

58.60

95.47

92.12

55.48

87.25

92.99

76.97

19/05/2004 -

1/1

139,800

Cirkevný zbor Evanjelickej cirkvi Augsburského vyznania na Slovensku Bratislava Staré mesto

Panenská 27,

Bratislava - Staré Mesto

1

5

6

7

9

10

12

74.50

46.50

29.33

43.00

66.26

40.13

49.08

06/02/2013 -

06/02/2013-

1/1

599,062.23

19,500

Konventná 14, Bratislava - Staré Mesto

1

3

4

5

6

911 12 14 15 16

76.20

105.50

69.30

70.70

69.80

48.00

83.70

75.20

67.60

43.60

93.50

06/02/2013-

1/1

973,888.50

44,900

Total

1,093,500

APPENDIX 16

Application no. 9738/16

A.

Applicant

B.

Residential building address

C.

Flat no.

D.

Area

[m 2 ]

E.

Period of application of rent control

F.

Ownership share

G.

Pecuniary damage claimed

[€]

H.

Just satisfaction awarded

[€]

Ladislav Palinay

Dolná 13,

Banská Bystrica

3

89.54

02/09/1991 - 20/09/2015

1/4

36,781.16

9,100

Marcela Hudecová

Dolná 13,

Banská Bystrica

3

89.54

02/09/1991 - 20/09/2015

1/4

36,781.16

9,100

Ladislav Palinay

Libuša Palinayová

Dolná 13,

Banská Bystrica

3

89.54

15/07/1992 - 20/09/2015

14/50*

41,194.86

10,100*

Milan Hudec

Marcela Hudecová

Dolná 13,

Banská Bystrica

3

89.54

15/07/1992 - 20/09/2015

11/50*

32,367.33

8,000*

Edita Lammová

Štefánikova 31,

Bratislava – Staré mesto

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

13 14 17 18 20 21

34.25

150.58

171.69

119.41

148.57

154.50

119.29

83.57

140.97

81.74

79.74

86.90

56.85

10/11/1997 -

14/80

1,012,601.20

88,400

SK Centre a. s.

Dunajská 7,

Bratislava – Staré mesto

B1 B2 B3 B5 B6 B7

B8

B10 B11

25.92

76.44

51.20

76.44

51.20

76.44

51.20

07/10/2008 -

07/10/2008 - 31/12/2015

07/10/2008 - 31/10/2015

07/10/2008 -

1/1

471,301.48

77,000

Total

201,700

* joint marital ownership

APPENDIX 17

Application no. 45303/16

A.

Applicant

B.

Residential building address

C.

Flat no.

D.

Area

[m 2 ]

E.

Period of application of rent control

F.

Ownership share

G.

Pecuniary damage claimed

[€]

H.

Just satisfaction awarded

[€]

Barbora Pitrunová

Moravská 3, Bratislava

8

75.11

10/01/2011 -

1/1

33,872.31

7,000

Ladislav Bodický

Nám . Sv . Anny 32 , Trenčín

13

15

17

18

71.49

69.10

72.87

70.65

17/02/1992 - 22/02/2016

17/02/1992 - 13/06/2016

17/02/1992 - 28/01/2016

17/02/1992 - 12/04/2016

1/6

281,296.31

19,900

Nám . Sv . Anny 34 , Trenčín

8

10

12

93.48

61.72

99.14

17/02/1992 - 22/02/2016

17/02/1992 - 15/04/2015

17/02/1992 -

1/6

17,700

Nám . Sv . Anny 36 , Trenčín

5

87.88

17/02/1992 - 15/02/2016

1/6

6,200

Michal Ruttkay

Nám . Sv . Anny 32 , Trenčín

13

15

17

18

71.49

69.10

72.87

70.65

20/08/2005 - 22/02/2016

20/08/2005 - 13/06/2016

20/08/2005 - 28/01/2016

20/08/2005 - 12/04/2016

1/18

29,568.13

3,100

Nám . Sv . Anny 34 , Trenčín

8

10

12

93.48

61.72

99.14

20/08/2005 - 22/02/2016

20/08/2005 - 15/04/2015

20/08/2005 -

1/18

2,700

Nám . Sv . Anny 36 , Trenčín

5

87.88

20/08/2005 - 15/02/2016

1/18

1,000

Matej Ruttkay

Nám . Sv . Anny 32 , Trenčín

13

15

17

18

71.49

69.10

72.87

70.65

20/08/2005 - 22/02/2016

20/08/2005 - 13/06/2016

20/08/2005 - 28/01/2016

20/08/2005 - 12/04/2016

1/18

29,568.13

3,100

Nám . Sv . Anny 34 , Trenčín

8

10

12

93.48

61.72

99.14

20/08/2005 - 22/02/2016

20/08/2005 - 15/04/2015

20/08/2005 -

1/18

2,700

Nám . Sv . Anny 36 , Trenčín

5

87.88

20/08/2005 - 15/02/2016

1/18

1,000

Juraj Ruttkay

Nám . Sv . Anny 32 , Trenčín

13

15

17

18

71.49

69.10

72.87

70.65

20/08/2005 - 22/02/2016

20/08/2005 - 13/06/2016

20/08/2005 - 28/01/2016

20/08/2005 - 12/04/2016

1/36

14,695.23

1,600

Nám . Sv . Anny 34 , Trenčín

8

10

12

93.48

61.72

99.14

20/08/2005 - 22/02/2016

20/08/2005 - 15/04/2015

20/08/2005 -

1/36

1,400

Nám . Sv . Anny 36 , Trenčín

5

87.88

20/08/2005 - 15/02/2016

1/36

500Zuzana Ruttkayová

Nám . Sv . Anny 32 , Trenčín

13

15

17

18

71.49

69.10

72.87

70.65

20/08/2005 - 22/02/2016

20/08/2005 - 13/06/2016

20/08/2005 - 28/01/2016

20/08/2005 - 12/04/2016

1/36

14,695.23

1,600

Nám . Sv . Anny 34 , Trenčín

8

10

12

93.48

61.72

99.14

20/08/2005 - 22/02/2016

20/08/2005 - 15/04/2015

20/08/2005 -

1/36

1,400

Nám . Sv . Anny 36 , Trenčín

5

87.88

20/08/2005 - 15/02/2016

1/36

500Vlastimil Mareš

Nám . Sv . Anny 32 , Trenčín

13

15

17

18

71.49

69.10

72.87

70.65

15/02/2010 - 22/02/2016

15/02/2010 - 13/06/2016

15/02/2010 - 28/01/2016

15/02/2010 - 12/04/2016

1/6

34,342.21

5,000

Nám . Sv . Anny 34 , Trenčín

8

10

12

93.48

61.72

99.14

15/02/2010 - 22/02/2016

15/02/2010 - 15/04/2015

15/02/2010 -

1/6

4,300

Nám . Sv . Anny 36 , Trenčín

5

87.88

15/02/2010 - 15/02/2016

1/6

1,600

Total

82,300

APPENDIX 18

Costs and expenses

A.

Application no.

B.

Costs and expenses

C.

Documents submitted

D.

Costs and expenses claimed

[€]

E.

Costs and expenses awarded

[€]

47922/14

Legal costs incurred before the Court

- legal assistance contracts

- declarations on obligation to pay

34,254.45

12,000

Expert opinions

- invoices

- declarations on obligation to pay

70,929.79

17,733*

Translation costs

- invoice

780

49902/14

Legal costs incurred before the Court

- legal assistance contracts

- declarations on obligation to pay

70,106.13

27,000

Expert opinions

- invoices

- declarations on obligation to pay

91,948.17

22,987*

Translation costs

- invoice

270

55307/14

Legal costs incurred before the Court

- invoice

3,750

3, 000

Translation costs

- invoice

108

76478/14

Legal costs incurred before the Court

- legal assistance contracts

- declarations on obligation to pay

34,846.26

14,000

Expert opinions

- invoices

- declarations on obligation to pay

73,210.35

18,303*

Translation costs

- invoice

210

13285/15

Legal costs incurred before the Court

- legal assistance contracts

- declarations on obligation to pay

28,676.85

13,000

Expert opinions

- invoices

- declarations on obligation to pay

41,413.89

10,353*

34749/15

Cirkevný zbor Evanjelickej cirkvi Augsburského vyznania na Slovensku Bratislava Staré mesto :

Legal costs incurred before the Court

- invoice

- payment confirmation

9,864

8,000

Expenses for drawing up the price maps by the National Association of the Estate Agencies

- invoice

- payment confirmation

720

720Other applicants:

Legal costs incurred before the Court

- legal assistance contracts

- declarations on obligation to pay

41,058.75

5,000

Expert opinions

- invoices

- declarations on obligation to pay

75,264.97

18,816*

9738/16

Legal costs incurred before the Court

- legal assistance contracts

- declarations on obligation to pay

15,127.62

6,000

Expert opinions

- invoices

- declarations on obligation to pay

22,360.67

5,590*

45303/16

Legal costs incurred before the Court

- legal assistance contracts

- declarations on obligation to pay

12,403.29

7,000

Expert opinions

- invoices

- declarations on obligation to pay

25,758.25

6,440*

Total

197,310

* The award to be apportioned pro rata among the applicants concerned according to the respective costs of the individual expert opinions that they submitted.

[1] The tenant moved to another flat in the same residential building while the regulated rent continued to apply.

[2] T he flat was rebuilt in 2003.

[1] The tenant moved to another flat in the same residential building while the regulated rent continued to apply.

Menu

CASE OF DRAHOŠ AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

CASE OF DRAHOŠ AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

LEXI