CASE OF GARIB v. THE NETHERLANDS
No violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general} (Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom to choose residence)
András Sajó;Angelika Nußberger;Branko Lubarda;Egbert Myjer;Egidijus Kūris;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Iulia Motoc;Johannes Silvis;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis López Guerra;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer;Georges Ravarani;Pere Pastor Vilanova
8. The applicant was born in 1971 and now lives in Vlaardingen. 9. On 25 May 2005 the applicant moved to the city of Rotterdam. She took up residence in rented property at the address A. Street 6b. This address is located in the Tarwewijk district in South Rotterdam. The applicant had previously resided outside the Rotterdam Metropolitan Region (Stadsregio Rotterdam). 10. The applicant stated that no later than early 2007 the owner of the property asked her and her two young children to vacate the property as he wished to renovate it for his own use. He offered to let the applicant a different property at the address B. Street 72A, also in the Tarwewijk area. She further stated that, since it comprised three rooms and a garden, the property was far more suitable for her and her children than her A. Street dwelling which comprised a single room. However, whether the A. Street property was actually renovated or required renovation at all remains in dispute (see paragraph 83 below). 11. In the meantime on 13 June 2006, Tarwewijk had been designated under the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act (Wet bijzondere maatregelen grootstedelijke problematiek, see paragraph 21 below) as an area where only those households could move into housing who had been granted a housing permit (huisvestingsvergunning) to do so in relation to an identified property. Accordingly, on 8 March 2007 the applicant lodged a request for a housing permit with the Burgomaster and Aldermen (burgemeester en wethouders) of Rotterdam in order to be permitted to move to B. Street 72A. 12. On 19 March 2007 the Burgomaster and Aldermen gave a decision refusing such a permit. They found it established that the applicant did not satisfy the statutory requirements for a housing permit (see paragraph 21 below) on the basis that she had not been resident in the Rotterdam Metropolitan Region for six years immediately preceding the introduction of her request. Moreover, since she was dependent on social-security benefits under the Work and Social Assistance Act (Wet Werk en Bijstand), she also did not meet the income requirement that would have qualified her for an exemption from the residence requirement. 13. The applicant, who was represented throughout the domestic proceedings and before the Court by the same lawyer, lodged an objection (bezwaarschrift) with the Burgomaster and Aldermen. 14. On 15 June 2007 the Burgomaster and Aldermen gave a decision dismissing the applicant’s objection. Adopting as their own an advisory opinion by the Objections Advisory Committee (Algemene bezwaarschriftencommissie), they referred to the fact that housing permits were intended to be an instrument to ensure the balanced and equitable distribution of housing and to the possibility for the applicant to move to a dwelling not situated in a “hotspot” area. 15. The applicant lodged an appeal (beroep) with the Rotterdam Regional Court (rechtbank). In so far as relevant to the case, she argued that the hardship clause ought to have been applied. She relied on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 of the Convention and Article 12 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. She also submitted that the requirement of six years’ residence in the Rotterdam Metropolitan Area, as applied to her, constituted discrimination based on income status contrary to Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 16. The Regional Court gave a decision dismissing the applicant’s appeal on 4 April 2008 (ECLI:NL:RBROT:2008:BD0270). In so far as relevant to the case before the Court, its reasoning was as follows: “Section 8(1) of the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act [see paragraph 21 below] provides for the possibility of temporary restrictions on freedom of residence in areas to be indicated by the Minister [sc. the Minister of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer)]. The aim of these restrictions is to reverse a process of overburdening and decreasing quality of life (leefkwaliteit), particularly by striving towards districts whose composition is more mixed from a socioeconomic point of view. The restrictions are also intended actively to counteract the existing segregation of incomes throughout the city through the regulation of the supply of housing in certain districts and in so doing improve the quality of life of the inhabitants of those districts (Parliamentary Documents, Lower House of Parliament (Kamerstukken II) 2004/2005, 30 091, no. 3 [i.e. the Explanatory Memorandum (Memorie van Toelichting), see paragraph 31 below], pages 11-13). In view of the aims of the law, as set out, these temporary restrictions on the freedom to choose one’s residence cannot be found not to be justified by the general interest in a democratic society. Nor can it be found that, given the considerable extent of the problems noted in certain districts in Rotterdam, the said restrictions are not necessary for the maintenance of ordre public. The Regional Court takes the view that the legislature has sufficiently shown that in those districts the ‘limits of the capacity for absorption’ have been reached as regards care and support for the socioeconomically underprivileged and that moreover in those districts there is a concentration of underprivileged individuals in deprived districts as well as considerable dissatisfaction among the population about inappropriate behaviour, nuisance and crime. As regards the violation of Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights posited by [the applicant], the Regional Court takes the view that sufficient reasons have been given (Parliamentary Documents, Lower House of Parliament, 2004/2005, 30 091, no. 3, pp. 18-20) that in so far as these measures constitute an indirect distinction, this distinction has sufficient objective justification. The Regional Court observes in this connection that the restrictions based on the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act imposed by the 2003 Housing By-law [of the Municipality of Rotterdam] (Huisvestingsverordening 2003) constitute only a minimal and temporary restriction on the freedom to choose one’s residence. In so finding, the Regional Court notes that it does not appear – and [the applicant] has not made out a case – that [she] cannot obtain fitting housing elsewhere in the Municipality or the Region.” 17. The applicant lodged a further appeal (hoger beroep) with the Administrative Jurisdiction Division (Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak) of the Council of State (Raad van State). As she had done before the Regional Court, she invoked Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention and Articles 12 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 18. On 4 February 2009 the Administrative Jurisdiction Division gave a decision (ECLI:NL:RVS:2009:BH1845) dismissing the applicant’s further appeal. In so far as relevant to the case before the Court, its reasoning included the following: “2.3.2. The right freely to choose one’s residence, provided by Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, may, under the fourth paragraph, be subject, in particular areas, to restrictions imposed in accordance with law and justified by the public interest in a democratic society. The right of everyone freely to choose one’s residence, laid down in Article 12 § 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law and are necessary to protect public order. The Administrative Jurisdiction Division observes in this connection that the concept ‘public order’ in the Covenant includes, in addition to the prevention of disorder, public safety, the prevention of crime and all universally accepted fundamental principles corresponding to human rights on which a democratic society is based. The arrangement set out in section 2.6(2) of the 2003 Housing By-law constitutes a restriction on Garib’s free choice of a place of residence. It is not disputed that this restriction is provided for by law and is inspired by the interest that society has in [ensuring] the quality of life in districts of major cities. The Administrative Jurisdiction Division finds that, considering that the area in issue is one designated under section 5 of the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act, the Burgomaster and Aldermen were entitled to take the view that the restriction [on freedom to choose one’s residence] is justified in the general interest in a democratic society within the meaning of Article 12 § 3 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The area in issue is a so-called ‘hotspot’, where, as has not been disputed, the quality of life is under threat. The restriction resulting from section 2.6(2) of the 2003 Housing By-law is of a temporary nature, namely for up to six years. It is not established that the supply of housing outside the areas designated by the Minister in the Rotterdam Metropolitan Region is insufficient. What [the applicant] has stated about waiting times does not lead the Administrative Jurisdiction Division to reach a different finding. The Administrative Jurisdiction Division further takes into account that pursuant to section 7(1), introductory sentence and under b of the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act, the Minister is empowered to rescind the designation of the area if it turns out that persons seeking housing do not have sufficient possibility of finding suitable housing within the region in which the municipality is situated. In view of these facts and circumstances the Administrative Jurisdiction Division finds that the restriction in issue is not contrary to the requirements of a pressing social need and proportionality. The Administrative Jurisdiction Division therefore finds, as the Regional Court did, that section 2.6(2) of the 2003 Housing By-law does not violate Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 of the Convention or Article 12 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 2.3.3. As to Garib’s argument that section 2.6(2) of the 2003 Housing By-law violates Article 26, first sentence, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights because it entails an indirect distinction, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division holds as follows. Since a relatively large number of people are resident in the areas covered by that section who are dependent on social-security benefits under the Work and Social Assistance Act, section 2.6(2) can lead to an indirect distinction being made. Such a distinction is permitted if there is an objective and reasonable justification for that distinction and the difference in treatment that flows from it. Whether such is the case must be considered in the light of the question whether the making of the distinction serves a legitimate aim and is proportionate to the aim sought to be achieved, i.e. is a suitable means to achieve that aim and the aim cannot be achieved by other, less intrusive means. Section 2.6(2) of the 2003 Housing By-law is intended by the Local Council (gemeenteraad) to effect differentiation in the districts in order to increase the quality of life. Given the seriousness of the problems the solution thereof must be considered a legitimate aim. The income requirement set by section 2.6(2) of the 2003 Housing By-law is the final measure of a package of measures (pakket van maatregelen) introduced to meet that goal. It has not, or not sufficiently, been disputed that the other measures in themselves produce insufficient effect. Considering the fact that the measure is limited in time and it does not appear that Garib cannot obtain suitable housing elsewhere in the Municipality or the Region, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division agrees with the Regional Court that the Burgomaster and Aldermen, taking into account the fact that the legislature created the possibility to make use of this means by statute and explicitly and the legislature equally weighed the need to open this possibility in addition to the existing possibilities, had good reasons to take the view that, in addition to the measures already in existence, this measure too is necessary and proportionate. 2.3.4. Finally, Garib has submitted that the Burgomaster and Aldermen were wrong to find that the particular circumstances on which she relied did not constitute grounds to apply the hardship clauses. These particular circumstances are that her present dwelling is too small for her and her two children and that its poor state of repair causes her inconvenience (voor overlast zorgt). It is the policy of the Burgomaster and Aldermen to apply the hardship clauses only in untenable situations, for example in cases of violence. Like the Regional Court, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division takes the view that the Burgomaster and Aldermen were entitled to consider that there is no such situation in the present case.” 48. According to figures published by the Municipality of Rotterdam, there were 289,779 dwellings in the municipality in 2010, of which 5,954 or 2.05% were situated in Tarwewijk. The total number of dwellings in the four districts designated in 2006 – Carnisse, Hillesluis, Oud-Charlois and Tarwewijk – was 23,449, i.e. 8.01% of the total for the municipality. With the addition of Bloemhof (designated on 1 July 2010), the total came to 29,759 or 10.27%. 49. On 1 January 2010 the population of the municipality of Rotterdam stood at 587,161. Of these, 11,690 or 1.99% were resident in Tarwewijk. The total number of inhabitants of the four districts designated in 2006 was 45,654, i.e. 7.77% of the total for the municipality. With the addition of Bloemhof, the total for the designated districts came to 59,367 or 10.11%. 50. An evaluation report, commissioned by Rotterdam’s own City Construction and Housing Service (Dienst Stedebouw en Volkshuisvesting) after the first year following the introduction of the housing permit in Rotterdam, was published on 6 December 2007 by the Centre for Research and Statistics (Centrum voor Onderzoek en Statistiek), a research and advice bureau collecting statistical data and carrying out research relevant to developments in Rotterdam in areas including demographics, the economy and employment (hereafter “the 2007 evaluation report”). 51. The report noted a reduction of the number of new residents dependent on social-security benefits under the Work and Social Assistance Act in “hotspot” areas, though not, of course, a complete stop because Rotterdam residents of six years’ standing were not prevented from moving there. 52. From July 2006 until the end of July 2007 there had been 2,835 requests for a housing permit. Of these, 2,240 had been granted; 184 had been refused; 16 had been rejected as incomplete; and 395 were still pending. The hardship clause (section 8(2) of the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act) had been applied in 38 cases. 53. Three-quarters of the housing permits granted concerned housing let by private landlords; the remainder – 519 – had been granted through the intermediary of social housing bodies (woningcorporaties). The latter selected their tenants with due regard to the official requirements, so that refusals of housing permits with regard to social housing were unheard of. 54. Of the persons refused a housing permit, 73 (40% of all those who met with a refusal) were known to have found housing elsewhere relatively quickly. 55. The 2007 evaluation report was presented to the Local Council on 15 January 2008. On 24 April 2008 the Local Council voted to maintain the housing permit system as was and have a new evaluation report commissioned for the end of 2009. 56. A second evaluation report, also commissioned by Rotterdam’s City Construction and Housing Service, was published by the Centre for Research and Statistics on 27 November 2009. It covered the period from July 2006 until July 2009 (“the 2009 evaluation report”), during which the events complained of took place. 57. During this period, the social housing bodies had let 1,712 dwellings in the areas concerned. Since the social housing bodies could only accept tenants who qualified for a housing permit, no applications for such a permit had been rejected in this group. 58. Out of 6,469 applications for a housing permit relating to privatelylet housing, 4,980 had been accepted (77%); 342 had been refused (5%); and 296 had been pending at the beginning of July 2009. Examination of a further 851 had been discontinued without a decision being taken (13%), generally because these applications had been withdrawn or abandoned; the assumption was that many of these applications would in any case have been rejected. It followed, therefore, that if the pending cases were not taken into account, approximately one-fifth of this category of applications had been either refused or not pursued to a conclusion. 59. The reason to reject an application for a housing permit had been related to the income requirement in 63% of cases, sometimes in combination with another ground for rejection; failure to meet the income requirement had been the sole such reason in 56% of cases. 60. Of 342 persons refused a housing permit, some two-thirds were known to have managed to find housing elsewhere, either in Rotterdam (47%) or elsewhere in the Netherlands (21%). 61. The hardship clause had been applied 185 times – expressed as a percentage of applications relating to privately-let housing, 3% of the total. These had been cases of preventing squatters from taking over housing left empty (antikraak), illegal immigrants whose situation had been regularised by a general measure (generaal pardon), assisted living arrangements for vulnerable individuals (begeleid wonen), cooperative living arrangements (woongroepen), start-up enterprises, the re-housing (herhuisvesting) of households forced to clear substandard housing for renovation, and foreign students. In addition, in one-third of cases the hardship clause had been applied because a decision had not been given within the prescribed time-limit. 62. The effects of the measure were considered based on four indicators: proportion of residents dependent on social-security benefits under the Work and Social Assistance Act, corrected for the supply of suitable housing; perception of safety; social quality; and potential accumulation of housing problems: (a) It had been observed that in the areas where the housing permit requirement applied, the reduction of the number of new residents dependent on social-security benefits under the Work and Social Assistance Act had been more rapid in “hotspot” areas than in other parts of Rotterdam. In addition, the number of residents in receipt of such benefits as a proportion of the total population of those areas had also declined, although it was still greater than elsewhere. (b) In two of the areas where the housing permit requirement had been introduced, the increase in the perception of public safety had been more rapid than the Rotterdam average. Tarwewijk had shown an increase initially, but was now back to where it had been before the measure was introduced. One other area had actually declined significantly in this respect. All of the areas where the housing permit requirement applied were still perceived as considerably less safe than Rotterdam as a whole. (c) In terms of social quality, there had been improvement in most of the parts of Rotterdam where problems existed, Tarwewijk among them. It was noted, however, that the effect of the housing permit in this respect was limited, since it only influenced the selection of new residents, not that of residents already in place. (d) Housing problems – defined in terms of turnover, housing left unused, and house price development – had increased somewhat in the affected areas including Tarwewijk, though on the whole at a slower rate there than elsewhere. Reported reasons for the increase were an influx of immigrants of mostly non-European extraction (nieuwe Nederlanders, “new Netherlands nationals”) and new short-term residents from Central and Eastern Europe; the latter in particular tended to stay for three months or less before moving on, and their economic activity was more difficult to keep under review as many were self-employed. 63. Social housing bodies tended to view the housing permit requirement as a nuisance because it created additional paperwork. They perceived the measure rather as an appropriate instrument to tackle abuses by private landlords, provided that it be actively enforced and administrative procedures be simplified. Others with a professional involvement in the Rotterdam housing market mentioned the dissuasive effect of the measure on would-be new residents of the affected areas. 64. The report suggested that the housing permit requirement might no longer be needed for one of the existing “hotspots” (not Tarwewijk). Conversely, five other Rotterdam districts scored high for three indicators, while a sixth exceeded critical values for all four. 65. A third evaluation report, this time commissioned by Rotterdam’s City Development Service (Housing Department), was published by the Centre for Research and Statistics in August 2012 (second revised edition). It covered the period from July 2009 until July 2011 (“the 2011 evaluation report”). 66. The social housing bodies had let 1,264 dwellings in the areas concerned; as during the previous period, no applications for housing permits had been rejected in this group because the social housing bodies could only accept qualifying tenants. 67. There had been 3,723 applications for a housing permit relating to privately-let housing. Of these, 3,058 had been accepted (82%); 97 had been refused (3%); and 282 had been pending on 1 July 2011. Examination of 286 had been discontinued without a decision being taken (8%), generally because they had been withdrawn or abandoned. This meant that, if the pending cases were not taken into account, approximately one-tenth of applications were either rejected or not pursued to a conclusion because the household concerned had reconsidered its decision to move. 68. The reasons to reject an application for a housing permit had included failure to meet the income requirement in 81% of cases, sometimes combined with other reasons. In the remaining cases the decision to reject had been based on the excessive number of persons wishing to take up residence in a particular dwelling; the unlawful sub-letting of rooms; the absence of valid residence rights; or the fact that the person making the application was underage. 69. The individual hardship clause had been applied in 93 cases; as a proportion of successful applications for a housing permit, this amounted to just under 3%. In addition, in 55 cases objections had been lodged against refusals; of these, 5 had been successful and had resulted in the grant of a housing permit. The grounds on which the hardship clause was applied were the same as those stated in the 2009 evaluation report (see paragraph 61 above). 70. In terms of social index, Tarwewijk continued to score lowest of all the Rotterdam districts. Social cohesion was very weak, which was explained by the number of house moves but also by a general lack of participation in social life. In terms of residential environment (leefomgeving), the district was vulnerable, the problem being a lack of suitable housing. 71. Based on the same indicators and methodology as the previous report, the 2011 evaluation report concluded that the housing permit system should be continued in Tarwewijk and two other areas (including one in which it had been introduced in the meantime, in 2010); discontinued in two others; and introduced in one area where it was not yet in force. 72. On 18 July 2012 the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (Minister van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties) sent a separate evaluation report assessing the effectiveness of the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act since its inception and its effects in practice to the Lower House of Parliament, as required by section 17 of that Act (Parliamentary Documents, Lower House of Parliament, no. 33 340, no. 1). The Minister’s covering letter stated the intention of the Government to introduce legislation in order to extend the validity of the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act. Requests to that effect had been received from a number of affected cities. It was noted that not all of the cities concerned had made use of all of the possibilities offered by the Act; in particular, only Rotterdam used housing permits to select new residents for particular areas. Appended to the Minister’s letter was a copy of the 2009 evaluation report and a letter from the Burgomaster and Aldermen of Rotterdam in which they, inter alia, confirmed the desirability of extending the indication of particular areas for applying the housing permit requirement beyond the first two four-year periods: the measure was considered a success, and a twenty-year programme involving the large-scale improvement of housing and infrastructure (the “National Programme Quality Leap South Rotterdam” (Nationaal Programma Kwaliteitssprong Rotterdam Zuid, see below)) had been started in the southern parts of Rotterdam in 2011. 73. Both the applicant and the Government have submitted a report entitled “Evaluation of the effects of the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act”, by the Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research (University of Amsterdam; the report is referred to hereafter as the “Amsterdam University report”). This report was commissioned by the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, who published it in November 2015, to be put before Parliament. 74. The report comprises 16 pages of introduction, 116 pages of analysis and 40 more pages of references and appendices (tables, methodology, list of interviewees). Its conclusion reads, inter alia, as follows: “8. Conclusion [...] In the study we have distinguished between two groups: the potentially refused and the reference group. The potentially refused are members of households without any income from work who have been living in the metropolitan area for less than six years. On this basis they are not eligible for a housing permit in the designated districts of Bloemhof, Carnisse, Hillesluis, Oud-Charlois and Tarwewijk. The reference group also has no income from work, but satisfies the residence requirement. 8.1. Findings The excluded group: the potentially refused More often than the reference group, the potentially refused are young, male and live alone. More often than the reference group, the potentially refused are of non-European foreign origin, and much more often, they are from the European migrant population. Trends between 2004 and 2013 show a strong increase in the proportion of persons among the European migrant population, principally from Eastern European countries like Poland, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic. [...] Effect on the position of the potentially refused on the housing market [...] The group of the potentially refused tends to move house relatively frequently and during the period covered by this research their mobility increased (from 34.5% in 2004 to 38.1% in 2013). This high rate of mobility would appear to be a consequence of the composition of the group (relatively young persons and small households, often without children). After correction for background characteristics, it turns out that new arrivals tend to move more often, and continue to do so after the year in which they arrive. [...] Effect on the designated districts: house-moving flows and population composition [...]. Changes in the Rotterdam housing market, including as a result of the Act, have led to new patterns of spatial distribution of new arrivals without income from work. An analysis of population dynamics confirms that the increase in the proportion of potentially refused is generally the consequence of changed house-moving flows (and not of any other dynamic such as downward social mobility of the resident population). [...] Designated districts: quality of life and security 3a. Has the application of the measure under Chapter 3 of the Act had any actual effect on the quality of life and security in the designated areas? Based on a (modified) Security Index we find that during the period 2006-2013 the designated districts have shown a more negative development in their scores than the other districts of the city. This interrelation has been examined more closely by comparing the development trend in all Rotterdam districts, taking into account the district status and other changes in the housing markets. After these checks have been carried out it still appears that the districts covered by the Act display a significantly worse development than the other districts of Rotterdam. [...] In so concluding it must be observed that the Act is not necessarily the cause of these lagging developments. Changes in city policy, police and justice, education, social assistance, etc. at the neighbourhood, municipal and national level are beyond the scope of this evaluation. These findings do however suggest that the Act has not contributed to any improvement. Quality of life elsewhere [...] 3b. What development is seen in districts with a considerable influx of house-movers who do not qualify for a housing permit as regards quality of life and security? [...] In sum, it can be stated that there is a slight negative interrelation between changes in the influx of the potentially refused and the quality of life and security of the neighbourhoods. This interrelation is, however, not uniform and the causal link is not firmly established. Although the potentially refused can cause a deterioration of the quality of life and security in a neighbourhood, the interrelation may also point the other way. Because of their weak and deteriorating position on the housing market, the potentially refused will generally be limited to districts where there is a relative decline in quality of life and security.” 75. On 19 September 2011 the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (on behalf of the Government), the Burgomaster of Rotterdam (on behalf of the municipality of Rotterdam), and the presidents of a number of South Rotterdam boroughs (deelgemeenten), social housing bodies and educational institutions signed the National Programme “Quality Leap South Rotterdam”. This document noted the social problems prevalent in South Rotterdam inner-city areas, which it was proposed to address by providing improved opportunities for education and economic activity and improving, or if need be replacing housing and infrastructure. It was intended to terminate the programme by the year 2030. 76. On 31 October 2012 the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, Rotterdam’s Alderman for housing, spatial planning, real property and the city economy (wethouder Wonen, ruimtelijke ordening, vastgoed en stedelijke economie) and the presidents of three social housing bodies active in Rotterdam signed an “Agreement concerning a financial impulse for the benefit of the Quality Leap South Rotterdam (2012-2015)” (Convenant betreffende een financiële impuls ten behoeve van de Kwaliteitssprong Rotterdam Zuid (2012-2015)). This agreement provided for a review of priorities in Government financing of housing and infrastructure projects in the South Rotterdam area within existing budgets and for a once-only additional investment of 122 million euros (EUR). Of the latter sum, EUR 23 million had been reserved by the municipality of Rotterdam until 2014; another EUR 10 million would be added for the period starting in 2014. These funds would be used to refurbish or replace 2,500 homes in South Rotterdam. A further EUR 30 million would be provided by the Government. The remainder would be spent by the social housing bodies on projects within their respective remit. 77. On 19 November 2013 the Government introduced a Bill proposing to amend the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act (Parliamentary Documents, Lower House of Parliament 2013/2014, 33 797, no. 2). The Explanatory Memorandum stated that its purpose was to empower municipalities to tackle abuses in the private rented housing sector, give municipalities broader powers of enforcement and make further temporal extension of the Act possible. 78. The Inner City Problems (Special Measures) (Extension) Act (Wet uitbreiding Wet bijzondere maatregelen grootstedelijke problematiek) entered into force on 14 April 2014, enabling the designation of particular areas under section 8 of the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act to be extended the day before it was due to expire. It makes further extensions of the designation possible for successive four-year periods (section 5(2) of the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act, as amended). 79. With effect from 1 January 2017 the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act was amended further to enable the selective allotment of housing in order to limit nuisance and criminal behaviour. 80. On 27 September 2010 the applicant moved to housing in the municipality of Vlaardingen. This municipality is part of the Rotterdam Metropolitan Region. She rents her dwelling from a Government-funded social housing body. 81. The applicant states that she has found paid work. 82. As of 25 May 2011 the applicant had been resident in the Rotterdam Metropolitan Region for more than six years. She therefore became entitled to reside in one of the areas designated under the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act regardless of her sources of income. 83. The Government state that no renovation or building permits were sought for the dwelling in A. Street inhabited by the applicant at the time of the events complained of between 2007 and 2010 and that no such permit was applied for in the period prior to 2007 either. 84. Until 2015 only the municipality of Rotterdam made full use of the possibilities which the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act offered. In 2015 and 2016, three other municipalities followed suit (Nijmegen, Capelle aan den IJssel and Vlaardingen, the latter two being part of the Rotterdam Metropolitan Region).