I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in BALAN AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA and 1 other application.

Judgment

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF BALAN AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

(Applications nos. 51414/11 and 46098/12)

JUDGMENT

This judgment was revised in accordance with Rule 80 of the Rules of Court in a judgment of 17 July 2018. STRASBOURG

27 June 2017

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Balan 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 6 June 2017,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in two applications (nos. 51414/11 and 46098/12) 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 sixty-five applicants. The particulars of the applicants and the dates on which the applications were lodged appear in Appendices 1 and 2. 2. The applicants were represented before the Court by Mr J. Brichta, a lawyer 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 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, about restrictions that rules governing rent control had imposed on their right to peacefully enjoy their possessions. 4. On 13 September 2013 the applications were communicated to the Government. 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 others’ 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, who are natural persons, are all Slovak nationals (with the exception of Ms M. Svobodová and Mr. P. Wichner, who are Czech nationals). The Government of the Czech Republic, having been informed of their right to intervene (under Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 1 (a) of the Rules of Court), did not avail themselves of this right. THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
8. The applicants are owners of residential buildings which were or still are 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 3 and 4 (columns A - F). 9. The situation of the applicants is structurally and contextually the same as that 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 (Krahulec v. Slovakia, no. 19294/07; Bukovčanová and Others v. Slovakia, no. 23785/07; and Rudolfer v. Slovakia, no. 38082/07, 5 July 2016; Riedel and Others v. Slovakia, nos. 44218/07, 54831/07, 33176/08, 47150/08; Mečiar and Others v. Slovakia, no. 62864/09, 10 January 2017). II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
10. 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, 32‐72). 11. 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. Under the Act, owners of apartments whose rent had been regulated were entitled to give notice by 31 March 2012 of the termination of a tenancy contract and to increase rent by 20% once a year as of 2011. However, if a tenant was exposed to material hardship, 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
12. The Court considers that given their common factual and legal background the two applications should be joined, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
A. Admissibility
1. Compliance with the six-month time-limit
13. 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 – as in the present case – the application of a rent-control scheme), the six-month period starts to run from the end of the situation concerned (see Bittó and Others v. Slovakia, no. 30255/09, 28 January 2014 (merits), § 75). 14. According to the information submitted by the applicants, rent control ceased to apply or the respective applicants ceased being owners of the property indicated below more than six months before the lodging of application no. 51414/11 on 8 August 2011 and application no. 46098/12 on 23 July 2012:
- Mr A. Böhm and Ms S. Böhmová, the owners of the residential building at 18 Medená Street in Bratislava, submitted that that building had ceased to be subject to rent control in 2007;
- Mr J. Hlavačka and Ms E. Valentová ceased being co-owners of the residential building at 8 Štefanovičova Street in Bratislava in 2005;
- Ms M. Kubešová ceased being a co-owner of the residential building at 16 Banskobystrická Street in Bratislava in 2002;
- Mr Š. Ciran ceased being a co-owner of the residential building at 6 Blumentálska Street in Bratislava in 2004;
- Ms I. Uhlárová ceased being a co-owner of the residential building at 21 Grösslingova Street in Bratislava in 2009;
- Mr K. Červenčík and Ms A. Huttová, the co-owners of the residential building at 10 Sedlárska Street in Bratislava, submitted that rent control had ceased to apply to the flats in that building on 30 April 2008. 15. To the extent that the above-mentioned applicants allege a breach of their rights as a result of rent control in respect of the flats indicated in the preceding paragraph, they have failed to respect the time-limit of six months laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention (Bukovčanová and Others v. Slovakia, no. 23785/07, § 12, 5 July 2016). 2. Substantially the same application as a matter already examined by the Court
16. The parents of one of the applicants (Mr Šindelár) lodged application no. 62864/09 concerning the rent control applicable to flats that he owned in two residential buildings. In 2010 and 2014 respectively the applicant inherited ownership shares in those residential buildings and was acknowledged as having standing to pursue the application in his late parents’ stead (see Mečiar and Others v. Slovakia, no. 62864/09, §§ 12-13, 10 January 2017). In that case, the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and awarded Mr Šindelár just satisfaction (ibid., §§ 28, 40). 17. Meanwhile, Mr Šindelár lodged the present application, which concerns the application of rent control to the above-mentioned flats located in the inherited property. The question therefore arises whether his present application is inadmissible under Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention, which provides, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“2. The Court shall not deal with any application submitted under Article 34 that ...
(b) is substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined by the Court ... and contains no relevant new information.”
18. The Court reiterates that an application will generally fall foul of this Article where it has the same factual basis as a previous application (see Kafkaris v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 9644/09, § 68, 24 June 2011). The claims put forward by Mr Šindelár in the present application concern the same flats and the same periods during which those flats were subject to rent control as submitted by his late parents in application no. 62864/09, which he pursued in their stead. The Court delivered its judgment in that matter and awarded the applicant just satisfaction. The applicant did not put forward “relevant new information” that could have altered the basis on which the previous decision was taken. 19. It follows that the application submitted by Mr M. Šindelár falls within the scope of Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4. 20. The Court notes that the remaining applications 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. B. Merits
21. 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.”
22. The applicants argued that the restrictions imposed on the use of their property by the rent‐control scheme imposed a disproportionate burden on their ownership rights. The rent which they were allowed to charge for letting their property was disproportionately low compared with similar flats to which the rent‐control scheme did not apply and that despite a number of increases in the regulated rent, this remained much lower than the market rent. They supported their arguments with expert opinions. Furthermore, the legislation adopted with a view to eliminating the rent‐control scheme did not provide for compensation for owners of residential buildings in their position. 23. 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 by the experts to calculate market rent for the purpose of the opinions submitted by the applicants and argued that the restrictions imposed on the applicants’ property had not been disproportionate. They commissioned and submitted their own expert opinion, which set out the average monthly market rent for flats comparable to those of the applicants, and an additional expert opinion which challenged the methods used in the expert opinions submitted by the applicants. Lastly, they maintained that the situation had been resolved by the legislation adopted in 2011, which envisaged the elimination of all rent control by the end of 2016. 24. The relevant case-law of the Court is summarised in Bittó and Others ((merits), cited above, §§ 94‐100, with further references). 25. In Bittó and Others and subsequent rent control cases (see, among others, Bukovčanová and Others, cited above), 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 paragraph 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 (Bittó and Others (merits), cited above, §§ 101‐104). 26. As to the requirement of proportionality, the Court noted in Bittó and Others 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 legislation (Bittó and Others (merits), cited above, § 113, and Mečiar and Others v. Slovakia, cited above, § 26, 10 January 2017). The Court also took into account that the legislation allowing for gradual increases in the regulated rent did not serve as a basis for obtaining compensation for use of the property under the rent-control scheme with any retrospective effect (Bukovčanová and Others, cited above, § 42). The Court concluded that in the implementation of 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 (Bittó and Others (merits), cited above, § 116). 27. The Court observes that the present case follow the pattern of Bittó and Others and subsequent rent control cases, both structurally and contextually. The Government voiced the same objections as to the proportionality of the interference as it did in Bittó and Others and have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading the Court to reach a different conclusion in the present case. 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. III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION, TAKEN TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
28. 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:
“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.”
29. 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. 30. 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 case. Accordingly, it is not necessary to examine the merits of the applicants’ complaint under those provisions. IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
31. 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
32. 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. For the period between 18 March 1992 and 30 April 2014, the amounts claimed were based on opinions prepared by experts and determined as the difference between the market rent applicable to similar dwellings and the regulated rent which the applicants were allowed to charge throughout the period of their ownership of the property in question and the application of the rent‐control scheme. The amounts claimed included the property in respect of which the application was declared inadmissible (see paragraph 14 above). Those sums were then increased by default interest applicable under Slovak law. The individual applicants’ claims are set out in Appendices 3 and 4 (column G). For the period starting on 1 May 2014 they claimed a daily amount corresponding to the average daily loss determined by the expert opinions submitted by the applicants. In addition, the applicants claimed EUR 50,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 33. 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 experts hired by the applicants had determined the alleged pecuniary damage. 34. The applicable case‐law principles are summarised in Bittó and Others v. Slovakia (just satisfaction), no. 30255/09, §§ 20‐29, 7 July 2015). 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, has given rise to a finding of a violation of the applicants’ Convention rights. 35. In determining the scope of the award, the Court refers to the criteria further developed in Bukovčanová and Others v. Slovakia (cited above, § 51). As in that case, the Court will take 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. 36. As to the temporal scope of the applicants’ claims, the Court observes that under the Law no. 260/2011 the owners of property which remained subjected to rent control after 31 December 2016 are entitled to claim from the municipality the difference between the free‐market and the regulated rent for that property (see paragraph 11 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, mutatis mutandis, Silášová and Others v. Slovakia, no. 36140/10, § 64, 28 June 2016). 37. In the light of the above, the Court finds it appropriate to award:
(i) the applicants in application no. 51414/11 the aggregate sums covering all heads of damage specified in respect of each individual applicant in Appendix 3 (column H) - a total amount of EUR 707,600 - plus any tax that may be chargeable on those amounts;
(ii) the applicants in application no. 46098/12 the aggregate sums covering all heads of damage specified in respect of each individual applicant in Appendix 4 (column H) - a total amount of EUR 700,200 - plus any tax that may be chargeable on those amounts. 38. The award in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage totals EUR 1,407,800, plus any tax that may be chargeable in respect of this amount. B. Costs and expenses
39. The applicants claimed EUR 71,445.27 (application no. 51414/11) and EUR 104,831.67 (application no. 46098/12) in legal costs in respect of their representation in proceedings before the Court, EUR 37,369.90 (application no. 51414/11) and EUR 37,642.36 (application no. 46098/12) for the preparation of the expert opinions submitted to the Court, EUR 8,325 in legal costs at the domestic level, and EUR 930 in translation costs. 40. The Government challenged the costs claimed by the applicants as being excessive. 41. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law, the Court rejects the claim for costs and expenses in the domestic proceedings (Bittó and Others (just satisfaction), cited above, § 35). As to the remaining claims the Court considers it reasonable to award the following sums (Mečiar and Others, cited above, § 45):
(i) EUR 1,000 to each applicant whose application is not being declared inadmissible in respect of legal costs for representation in the proceedings before the Court – namely EUR 15,000 jointly in application no. 51414/11 and EUR 39,000 jointly in application no. 46098/12;
(ii) 25% of the total sum claimed in respect of the expert opinions on the rental value of individual flats – namely, EUR 9,342 jointly in application no. 51414/11 and EUR 9,411 jointly in application no. 46098/12. These amounts are to be apportioned pro rata among the applicants according to the respective costs of their individual expert opinions;
(iii) EUR 930 jointly for translation costs. 42. The award in respect of costs and expenses therefore totals EUR 73,683, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. C. Default interest
43. 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 the application inadmissible to the extent that it concerns the application of the rent-control scheme to the flats indicated in paragraph 14, and in so far as it has been brought by Mr M. Šindelár;

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 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 1,407,800 (one million four hundred and seven thousand eight hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary and non‐pecuniary damage (paragraphs 37 and 38);
(ii) EUR 73,683 (seventy-three thousand six hundred and eighty-three euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses (paragraphs 41 and 42);
(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 27 June 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Fatoş AracıHelen KellerDeputy RegistrarPresident

Appendix 1
List of applicants

Application no. 51414/11 lodged on 8 August 2011:

The applicants listed under points 5 and 6 are spouses. Appendix 2
List of applicants

Application no. 46098/12 lodged on 23 July 2012:

The applicants nos. 15 and 16, 24 and 28, 25 and 27, 37 and 38 are spouses. Appendix 3
Application no. 51414/11

A. Applicant
B. Residential building address
C.
Flat no. D.
Area
[m2]
E.
Period of application of rent control
F.
Ownership share
G.
Pecuniary damage claimed
[€]
H.
Just satisfaction awarded for the period of application of rent control or up to 31 December 2016
[€]
Michal Balan

Obchodná 19,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
2
3
1
61
178
40
10/10/2003 - 28/02/2015
10/10/2003 -
10/10/2003 - 20/12/2012
1/6
74,584.78
10,600
Lucia Illešová
Obchodná 19,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
2
3
1
61
178
40
10/10/2003 - 28/02/2015
10/10/2003 -
10/10/2003 - 20/12/2012
1/6
74,584.78
10,600
Jana Balanová
Obchodná 19,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
2
3
1
61
178
40
23/03/1993 - 28/02/2015
23/03/1993 -
23/03/1993 - 20/12/2012
1/3
364,712
38,500
ONE WAY Trading, s.r.o. Obchodná 19,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
2
3
1
61
178
40
23/08/1993 - 28/02/2015
23/08/1993 -
23/08/1993- 20/12/2012
1/3
356,596.69
38,500
Anna Čulenová
Jedlíkova 4,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
1
5
73.04
58.07
73.23
92.93
73.86
92.33
72.92
23.24
27.75
93.20
19/08/2002 -
19/08/2002 -
19/08/2002 -
19/08/2002 -
19/08/2002 - 12/02/2016
19/08/2002 -
19/08/2002 - 30/12/2014
19/08/2002 -
19/08/2002 - 07/06/2012
19/08/2002 - 01/08/2012
24/96
19/08/2002 - 27/01/2009

96/288
28/01/2009 - 31/01/2013

240/288
01/02/2013 - 26/02/2013

96/288
27/02/2013 -
388,885.25
47,400
Alexander Čulen
Jedlíkova 4,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
1
5
73.04
58.07
73.23
92.93
73.86
92.33
72.92
23.24
27.75
93.20
28/01/2009 -
28/01/2009 -
28/01/2009 -
28/01/2009 -
28/01/2009 - 12/02/2016
28/01/2009 -
28/01/2009 - 30/12/2014
28/01/2009 -
28/01/2009 - 07/06/2012
28/01/2009 - 01/08/2012

24/288
28/01/2009 - 26/02/2013

96/288
27/02/2013 -

50,938.20
13,600
Boris Čulen
Jedlíkova 4,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
1
5
73.04
58.07
73.23
92.93
73.86
92.33
72.92
23.24
27.75
93.20
28/01/2009 -
28/01/2009 -
28/01/2009 -
28/01/2009 -
28/01/2009 - 12/02/2016
28/01/2009 -
28/01/2009 - 30/12/2014
28/01/2009 -
28/01/2009 - 07/06/2012
28/01/2009 - 01/08/2012
24/288
28/01/2009 - 26/02/2013

96/288
27/02/2013 -

50,938.20
13,600
Konôpka Miroslav
Okánivkova 1,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
1
2
3
4
5
6
89.1
72.8
79.5
21.9
72.7
75.9
25/03/2002 - 07/06/2012
25/03/2002 - 07/06/2012
25/03/2002 - 07/06/2012
25/03/2002 - 07/06/2012
25/03/2002 - 07/06/2012
25/03/2002 - 07/06/2012
1/2
305,692.39
38,400
Emil Cino,
Božena Cinová
Cajlanská 11, Pezinok
4
74.6
27/11/2002 - 31/12/2014
1/2*
27/11/2002-10/09/2003
1/1*
11/09/2003 -
86,520.33*
13,800*
Pavol Zemko
Kalinčiakova 1, Trnava
4
5
7
50.35
73.75
73.75
05/12/2001 - 30/09/2016
05/12/2001 - 31/05/2012
05/12/2001 - 15/10/2012
1/2
119,504.86
20,900
Jozef Motešický
Medená 35,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
18
19
20
21
5
17
14
87.68
104.49
74.53
74.47
98.59
26.57
26.57
98.01
97.71
74.75
98.01
26.84
26.78
74.75
118.94
26.78
74.75
98.01
98.68
76.61
98.26
19/03/2010 - 18/12/2012
19/03/2010 - 18/12/2012
19/03/2010 - 18/12/2012
19/03/2010 - 18/12/2012
19/03/2010 - 18/12/2012
19/03/2010 - 18/12/2012
19/03/2010 - 18/12/2012
19/03/2010 - 18/12/2012
19/03/2010 - 18/12/2012
19/03/2010 - 18/12/2012
19/03/2010 - 18/12/2012
19/03/2010 - 18/12/2012
19/03/2010 - 18/12/2012
19/03/2010 - 18/12/2012
19/03/2010 - 18/12/2012
19/03/2010 - 18/12/2012
19/03/2010 - 18/12/2012
19/03/2010 - 18/12/2012
19/03/2010 - 30/09/2012
19/03/2010 - 30/09/2012
19/03/2010 - 31/10/2012
10/96
47,879.43
6,200
Daniela Motešická
Medená 35,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
18
19
20
21
5
17
14
87.68
104.49
74.53
74.47
98.59
26.57
26.57
98.01
97.71
74.75
98.01
26.84
26.78
74.75
118.94
26.78
74.75
98.01
98.68
76.61
98.26
30/06/2010 - 01/11/2015
30/06/2010 - 18/12/2012
30/06/2010 - 18/12/2012
30/06/2010 - 18/12/2012
30/06/2010 - 18/12/2012
30/06/2010 - 18/12/2012
30/06/2010 - 18/12/2012
30/06/2010 - 18/12/2012
30/06/2010 - 18/12/2012
30/06/2010 - 18/12/2012
30/06/2010 - 18/12/2012
30/06/2010 - 18/12/2012
30/06/2010 - 18/12/2012
30/06/2010 - 18/12/2012
30/06/2010 - 18/12/2012
30/06/2010 -
30/06/2010 - 18/12/2012
30/06/2010 - 18/12/2012
30/06/2010 - 30/09/2012
30/06/2010 - 30/09/2012
30/06/2010 - 31/10/2012

10/96

Flat no. 1 : 1/1
(19/12/2012 - 01/11/2015)

Flat no. 19 : 1/1
(19/12/2012 - )
54,141.29
13,100
IBEA, spol. s.r.o. Obchodná 4,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
3
4
7
2
5
6
120.39 89.40
141.85
89.02
120.64
89.02
23/01/1996 -
23/01/1996 - 30/06/2016
23/01/1996 -
23/01/1996 - 31/07/2012
23/01/1996 - 31/03/2011
23/01/1996 - 30/06/2012
1/1
1,971,383.79
217,500
LINEA, investičné družstvo
Rajská 14,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
1
3
7
4
6
69.17
69.41
31.62
71.97
71.97
25/08/1999 -
25/08/1999 -
25/08/1999 -
30/04/2013 -
31/12/2013 -
1/1
798,628.45
91,300
VETERAN SERVIS spol. s.r.o. Kuzmányho 4,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
3
6
7
92.32
140.86
144.62
18/11/1992 - 30/06/2011
18/11/1992 - 09/12/2011
18/11/1992 - 10/10/2011
1/1
1,506,468.71
133,600
Total

6,392,201.75
707,600

* joint marital ownership

Appendix 4
Application no. 46098/12

A. Applicant
B. Residential building address
C.
Flat no. D.
Area
[m2]
E.
Period of application of rent control
F.
Ownership share
G.
Pecuniary damage claimed
[€]
H.
Just satisfaction awarded for the period of application of rent control or up to 31 December 2016
[€]
Karol Červeník
Nedbalova 11,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
1
131.19
18/03/1992 -
1/2
276,137.42
29,300
Anna Huttová
Nedbalova 11,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
1
131.19
18/03/1992 -
1/2
276,137.42
29,300
Robert Kelemen, Renáta Kelemenová
Račianska 53,
Bratislava - Nové Mesto
15
4
16
8
67.93
65.40
68.13
67.30
31/08/2011 - 19/11/2012
31/08/2011 -
31/08/2011 - 26/10/2016
18/10/2012 -
1/1
36,209.07*
18,700*
BIELA LABUŤ s.r.o. Račianska 53,
Bratislava - Nové Mesto
8
11
67.30
67.93
22/11/2011 - 17/10/2012
08/12/2011 - 26/01/2012
1/1
5,190.80
2,600
Juraj Barto
Makovického 10, Žilina
3
4
7
10
87.32
74.56
74.56
98.31
18/03/1992 - 31/12/2012
18/03/1992 - 31/08/2012
18/03/1992 - 31/08/2013
18/03/1992 - 30/04/2013
1/6
18/03/1992 - 28/10/2003
1/4
29/10/2003 -
137,690.50
24,700
Elena Štastná
Makovického 10, Žilina
3
4
7
10
87.32
74.56
74.56
98.31
18/03/1992 - 31/12/2012
18/03/1992 - 31/08/2012
18/03/1992 - 31/08/2013
18/03/1992 - 30/04/2013
1/6
18/03/1992 - 28/10/2003
1/4
29/10/2003 -
137,690.50
24,700
Peter Wichner
Makovického 10, Žilina
3
4
7
10
87.32
74.56
74.56
98.31
14/09/1999 - 31/12/2012
14/09/1999 - 31/08/2012
14/09/1999 - 31/08/2013
14/09/1999 - 30/04/2013
1/4
14/09/1999- 05/05/2002
1/2
06/05/2002 -
175,765,86
35,600
Milan Minárik, Elena Mináriková
Makovického 8, Žilina
5
6
96.39
96.39
01/08/1996 -
01/08/1996 - 02/09/2013
3/8
123,758.85*
23,500*
Peter Minárik, Kamila Mináriková
Makovického 8, Žilina
5
6
96.39
96.39
01/08/1996 -
01/08/1996 - 02/09/2013
3/8
123,758.85*
23,500*
MINÁRIK, spol. s.r.o. Makovického 8, Žilina
5
6
96.39
96.39
01/08/1996 -
01/08/1996 - 02/09/2013
1/4
82,505.94
15,700
Katarína Pleváková
Červeňova 3,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
2
97.64
10/08/2011 - 14/03/2016
1/4
9,183.62
2,300
Eva Dzurillová
Červeňova 3,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
2
97.64
10/08/2011 - 14/03/2016
1/4
9,183.62
2,300
Erika Lindauerová
Červeňova 3,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
2
97.64
10/08/2011 - 14/03/2016
1/4
9,183.62
2,300
Juraj Lindauer
Červeňova 3,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
2
97.64
10/08/2011 - 14/03/2016
1/4
9,183.62
2,300
Ciran Štefan

Mariánska 2,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
1
8
9
12
60.76
130.6
93.14
115.64
18/03/1992 - 05/10/2015
18/03/1992 - 05/10/2015
18/03/1992 - 05/10/2015
18/03/1992 - 05/10/2015
5000/48000
02/03/1992 - 03/11/1993
8158/48000
04/11/1993 - 23/04/1994
9474/48000
24/04/1994 - 06/09/1999
10373/48000
07/09/1999 -
713,856.18
73,300
Branislav Gálus
Mariánska 2,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
1
8
9
12
60.76
130.6
93.14
115.64
18/03/1992 - 05/10/2015
18/03/1992 - 05/10/2015
18/03/1992 - 05/10/2015
18/03/1992 - 05/10/2015
5000/48000
02/03/1992 - 03/11/1993
6316/48000
04/11/1993 -
207,152.13
21,000

Oľga Ciranová

Mariánska 2,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
1
8
9
12
60.76
130.6
93.14
115.64
01/08/2000 - 05/10/2015
01/08/2000 - 05/10/2015
01/08/2000 - 05/10/2015
01/08/2000 - 05/10/2015
1263/48000
01/08/2000 - 14/08/2000
3789/48000
15/08/2000 - 24/10/2000
6315/48000
25/10/2000 - 10/09/2002
7578/48000
11/09/2002 -
133,482.58
13,400
Darina Moravitzová
Mariánska 2,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
1
8
9
12
60.76
130.6
93.14
115.64
31/05/1999 - 05/10/2015
31/05/1999 - 05/10/2015
31/05/1999 - 05/10/2015
31/05/1999 - 05/10/2015
1263/48000
25,796.31
3,200
Anna Klanicová
Mariánska 2,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
1
8
9
12
60.76
130.6
93.14
115.64
24/02/1994 - 05/10/2015
24/02/1994 - 05/10/2015
24/02/1994 - 05/10/2015
24/02/1994 - 05/10/2015
3158/48000
96,459.05
10,300
Ján Ciran
Mariánska 2,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
1
8
9
12
60.76
130.6
93.14
115.64
09/08/1994 - 05/10/2015
09/08/1994 - 05/10/2015
09/08/1994 - 05/10/2015
09/08/1994 - 05/10/2015
3158/48000
96,459.05
10,300
Ľubica Gáliková
Mariánska 2,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
1
8
9
12
60.76
130.6
93.14
115.64
04/12/2009 - 05/10/2015
04/12/2009 - 05/10/2015
04/12/2009 - 05/10/2015
04/12/2009 - 05/10/2015
3158/48000
11,538.04
3,000
Ivan Nosko
Mariánska 2,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
1
8
9
12
60.76
130.6
93.14
115.64
03/07/2003 - 05/10/2015
03/07/2003 - 05/10/2015
03/07/2003 - 05/10/2015
03/07/2003 - 05/10/2015
2105/48000
30,383.07
4,000
Dušan Nosko
Mariánska 2,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
1
8
9
12
60.76
130.6
93.14
115.64
03/07/2003 - 05/10/2015
03/07/2003 - 05/10/2015
03/07/2003 - 05/10/2015
03/07/2003 - 05/10/2015
2105/48000
30,383.07
4,000
Ľubica Kocandová
Mariánska 2,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
1
8
9
12
60.76
130.6
93.14
115.64
03/07/2003 - 05/10/2015
03/07/2003 - 05/10/2015
03/07/2003 - 05/10/2015
03/07/2003 - 05/10/2015
2106/48000
30,397.49
4,000
Milica Michalová
Mariánska 2,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
1
8
9
12
60.76
130.6
93.14
115.64
04/12/2009 - 05/10/2015
04/12/2009 - 05/10/2015
04/12/2009 - 05/10/2015
04/12/2009 - 05/10/2015
3158/48000
11,538.04
3,000
Mária Stracová
Grösslingová 21,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
1
2
3
5
6
12
4
43.20
111.56
67.33
111.56
67.33
67.33
83.49
18/03/1992 - 23/09/2012
18/03/1992 - 23/09/2012
18/03/1992 - 23/09/2012
18/03/1992 - 23/09/2012
18/03/1992 - 23/09/2012
18/03/1992 - 23/09/2012
18/03/1992 - 03/05/2012
1/3
03/03/1992 - 12/06/1994
1/1
13/06/1994 - 25/05/1995
2/3
26/05/1995 - 04/04/2002
1/2
05/04/2002 - 23/09/2012
1,203,982.47
116,400
Zita Kozlová
Grösslingová 21,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
1
2
3
4
5
6
12
43.20
111.56
67.33
83.49
111.56
67.33
67.33
26/05/1995 - 21/05/2015
26/05/1995 -
26/05/1995 -
26/05/1995 - 03/05/2012
26/05/1995 - 31/12/2013
26/05/1995 - 31/12/2013
26/05/1995 - 31/12/2013
1/6
26/05/1995 - 04/04/2002
1/4
05/04/2002 – 06/04/2009
1/2
07/04/2009 – 01/06/2009
1/4
02/06/2009 – 31/12/2013
1/2 (flats 2,3), 1/4 (flat 1)
01/01/2014 -
381,401.28
43,800
Rastislav Uhlár
Grösslingová 21,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
1
2
3
5
6
12
4
43.20
111.56
67.33
111.56
67.33
67.33
83.49
02/06/2009 - 22/04/2013
02/06/2009 - 22/04/2013
02/06/2009 - 22/04/2013
02/06/2009 - 22/04/2013
02/06/2009 - 22/04/2013
02/06/2009 - 22/04/2013
02/06/2009 - 03/05/2012
1/4
55,970.91
9,900
Peter Ciran
Blumentálska 6,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
6
7
111.16
110.30
28/09/2004 - 08/10/2014
28/09/2004 - 30/09/2014
18/30
200,395.84
24,800
Igor Scholtz
Panenská 36,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
2
4
6
7
8
9
11
13
85.25
69.68
85.25
67.59
85.25
67.59
31.49
38.81
01/02/1993 - 12/02/1996
01/02/1993 - 12/02/1996
01/02/1993 - 12/02/1996
01/02/1993 - 12/02/1996
01/02/1993 - 12/02/1996
01/02/1993 - 12/02/1996
01/02/1993 - 12/02/1996
01/02/1993 - 12/02/1996
144/1800
70,270
2,400
Igor Scholtz
Viera Scholtzová
Panenská 36,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
2
4
6
7
8
9
11
13
85.25
69.68
85.25
67.59
85.25
67.59
31.49
38.81
13/02/1996 - 12/03/2012
13/02/1996 - 12/03/2012
13/02/1996 - 12/03/2012
13/02/1996 - 12/03/2012
13/02/1996 - 12/03/2012
13/02/1996 - 12/03/2012
13/02/1996 - 12/03/2012
13/02/1996 - 12/03/2012
144/1800*
13/02/1996 - 19/05/2003

12/1800*
20/05/2003 - 12/03/2012
121,609.48*
6,200*
Viera Scholtzová
Panenská 36,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
2
4
7
9
13
6
8
11
85.25
69.68
67.59
67.59
38.81
85.25
85.25
31.49
29/01/2002 -
29/01/2002 -
29/01/2002 -
29/01/2002 -
29/01/2002 - 31/12/2014
29/01/2002 - 04/05/2013
29/01/2002 - 24/01/2013
29/01/2002 - 21/07/2012
144/1800
29/01/2002 - 04/02/2010

166/1800
05/02/2010 -

121,507.91

10,600
Andrej Scholtz
Panenská 36,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
2
4
7
9
13
6
8
11
85.25
69.68
67.59
67.59
38.81
85.25
85.25
31.49
20/05/2003 -
20/05/2003 -
20/05/2003 -
20/05/2003 -
20/05/2003 - 31/12/2014
20/05/2003 - 04/05/2013
20/05/2003 - 24/01/2013
20/05/2003 - 21/07/2012
102/1800
20/05/2003 - 06/06/2004

146/1800
07/06/2004 - 12/03/2012

158/1800
13/03/2012 -
110,026.89
9,300
Juraj Foltín
Panenská 36,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
2
4
7
9
13
6
8
11
85.25
69.68
67.59
67.59
38.81
85.25
85.25
31.49
01/02/1993 -
01/02/1993 -
01/02/1993 -
01/02/1993 -
01/02/1993 - 31/12/2014
01/02/1993 - 04/05/2013
01/02/1993 - 24/01/2013
01/02/1993 - 21/07/2012
132/1800
298,766.10
15,700
Zuzana Nemčíková
Panenská 36,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
2
4
7
9
13
6
8
11
85.25
69.68
67.59
67.59
38.81
85.25
85.25
31.49
01/02/1993 -
01/02/1993 -
01/02/1993 -
01/02/1993 -
01/02/1993 - 31/12/2014
01/02/1993 - 04/05/2013
01/02/1993 - 24/01/2013
01/02/1993 - 21/07/2012
128/1800
289,712.57
15,300
Marcela Svobodová
Panenská 36,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
2
4
7
9
13
6
8
11
85.25
69.68
67.59
67.59
38.81
85.25
85.25
31.49
01/02/1993 -
01/02/1993 -
01/02/1993 -
01/02/1993 -
01/02/1993 - 31/12/2014
01/02/1993 - 04/05/2013
01/02/1993 - 24/01/2013
01/02/1993 - 21/07/2012
32/1800
72,428.07
3,900
Robert Chrastina
Panenská 36,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
2
4
7
9
13
6
8
11
85.25
69.68
67.59
67.59
38.81
85.25
85.25
31.49
27/07/1995 -
27/07/1995 -
27/07/1995 -
27/07/1995 -
27/07/1995 - 31/12/2014
27/07/1995 - 04/05/2013
27/07/1995 - 24/01/2013
27/07/1995 - 21/07/2012
144/1800
273,480.54
15,600
Martin Petruš
Panenská 36,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
2
4
7
9
13
6
8
11
85.25
69.68
67.59
67.59
38.81
85.25
85.25
31.49
10/08/1994 -
10/08/1994 -
10/08/1994 -
10/08/1994 -
10/08/1994 - 31/12/2014
10/08/1994 - 04/05/2013
10/08/1994 - 24/01/2013
10/08/1994 - 21/07/2012
84/1800
177,789.83
9,600
Peter Chalupa
Panenská 36,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
2
4
7
9
13
6
8
11
85.25
69.68
67.59
67.59
38.81
85.25
85.25
31.49
21/07/2010 -
21/07/2010 -
21/07/2010 -
21/07/2010 -
21/07/2010 - 31/12/2014
21/07/2010 - 04/05/2013
21/07/2010 - 24/01/2013
21/07/2010 - 21/07/2012
66/1800
7,037.05
1,700
RR Consulting, s.r.o. 2205 Špitálska 2/A,
Bratislava - Staré Mesto
4
9
77.5
83.72
24/06/2005 - 09/05/2013
24/06/2005 -
1/1
208,744.27
28,700
Total

6,702,702.02
700,200

* joint marital ownership