STRAKA AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
Inadmissible
Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra
1. The applications were lodged by 256 individual Slovak nationals, whose particulars appear in the Appendix (“the applicants”). They were represented by Mr P. Chrašč, a lawyer practising in Bratislava. The applications were also lodged by the civic association Right to Housing (Právo 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. 2. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants and the applicant association, may be summarised as follows. 3. Between 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 into tenancies 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. 4. Prior to the fall of the communist regime in 1989, the housing system in Czechoslovakia was part of a planned State-run economy. Citizens in cities and towns lived mostly in flats owned by the State or “legal persons”, such as State-owned companies. The construction of flats and their use and allocation were managed, financed and controlled by public 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. Under the relevant legislation, direct and nonrefundable government grants represented more than 60% of the total costs 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 living in flats owned by the State were holders of a right of use (osobné užívanie) 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. Holders of a right of use were allowed to participate in the decision-making processes regarding alterations and reconstruction of the houses in which they lived. Exchanges of flats between holders of a right of use were permissible and frequent. They were subjected to approval by the owner, which was generally only a formality. 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 their use of a flat. 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. 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 restitution 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 privatisation” 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. In 1999 a law was passed prohibiting the transfer of company-owned flats to persons other than their actual tenants. 11. The main objective of the housing reforms after 1989 was the introduction of private ownership of housing stock. The reforms were primarily related to housing in flats. 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 sons or daughters-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. 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 State 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 State loan had already been repaid, at no additional cost. 15. The Ownership of Flats and Non-Dwelling Premises Act 1993 (Law no. 182/1993) was enacted with effect from 1 September 1993. It allowed tenants in publicly-owned dwelling houses to buy their flats on favourable 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 their 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 eliminating discrimination against residents of flats as compared to owners of individual houses 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 almost all flats being transferred to private ownership. The rental sector nearly ceased to exist, with rental flats remaining mostly in restored and privatised houses. 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 the Ministry of Finance issued Measure no. 02/R/2008. It allowed 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 that 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 reforms 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). 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. 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. 26. The Termination and Settlement of Tenancy (Certain Flats) Act 2011 (Law no. 260/2011), as amended, applies in particular to flats used by individuals whose rent has been regulated. It entitled landlords, until 31 December 2012, to give notice of termination of a tenancy which was to take effect after twelve months. Tenants who are entitled to substitute accommodation or whose corresponding claim has not yet been determined do not have to vacate their 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. 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 singleroom flats and 90 square metres in four-room flats. Standards are set as regards heating, personal hygiene facilities and kitchen equipment. 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. 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 Trenčín, Žilina and Banská Bystrica. 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 judgment in joined cases C-92/09 and C93/09 (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 principle of proportionality impose[d]”.