CASE OF KRAHULEC v. SLOVAKIA
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46-2 - General measures)
Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova
6. The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Zvolen. 7. In 1929 the applicant’s grandfather built a house in Piešťany. His predecessors retained ownership under the communist regime. Ownership was transferred to the applicant from his mother on 21 December 1998. 8. The house comprises four flats. Two have a surface area of 108 sq. m each in size, while the other two measure 123 sq. m each. 9. At the time the application was lodged, the flats were inhabited by tenants with a regulated rent. Their or their predecessors’ right to use the flats had been established by decisions taken by the municipal authorities between 1953 and 1986. After 1 January 1992 their right of use had been transformed into tenancies with regulated rent for an indefinite period. 10. Under the relevant legislation, the applicant had to accept that his flats were occupied by those tenants and that he could charge them no more than the maximum amount of rent fixed by the State (“the rent-control scheme”). The applicant had no possibility of unilaterally terminating the leases on his flats. 11. Under the applicable legislation, the maximum monthly rent chargeable for the flats in 1999 was the equivalent of some 13 to 33 euros (EUR). After several increases in the regulated rent, in 2004 the applicant was able to charge EUR 115 monthly in respect of each of the smaller flats and EUR 124 monthly in respect of the larger ones. 12. The applicant contended that he, in fact, received from the tenants less than the maximum amount of rent set by the applicable legislation. To this end he led several property disputes with them and the local municipality. 13. The parties provided differing figures as to the market rent. The applicant relied on data from the National Association of Real Estate Agencies (“the NAREA”) and claimed that the monthly market rent for similar flats reached EUR 600 to 800 between 2004 and 2007. The Government submitted an expert valuation according to which the monthly market rent for the applicant’s flats in 2010 amounted to EUR 265.50 and EUR 325 respectively. 14. In submissions made on 16 June 2014 the applicant informed the Court that the rent control in respect of his four flats had been terminated. The first flat had been subject to rent control until May 2007, the second and third flats until August 2007, and the fourth flat until April 2008.