4.  The applicants are owners of residential buildings or apartments which were subject to the rent control system. However, as found by the Constitutional Court, the Czech rent control system was unconstitutional and violated the right of property of owners protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. This situation, described as a “legal vacuum”, existed between 1 January 2002 and 30 March 2006 and no legal basis existed for rent control measures either in the period between 31 March and 31 December 2006. The interference was considered by the Court to be unlawful in this period of time (see R & L, s.r.o., and Others v. the Czech Republic, nos. 37926/05 and 4 others, §§ 123-127, 3 July 2014).
5.  The applicant is a co-owner of a tenement building in Prague. One flat in the building was rented under the rent control system.
6.  On 16 March 2004 the applicant and three other co-owners lodged a claim against J.M., who occupied the flat, seeking to be paid 3,338 Czech korunas (CZK – 131 euros (EUR)) in respect of the outstanding rent for October and November 2003, CZK 5,118 (EUR 201) in respect of services for the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, and CZK 50 (EUR 2) in respect of the use of equipment in the flat for the period of October and November 2003.
7.  On 29 March 2005 the Prague 3 District Court (obvodní soud) decided, inter alia, to split the co-owners’ claim into separate proceedings and to suspend these proceedings pending a final decision on J.M.’s right to the tenancy of the flat. On 30 May 2005 the court decided that J.M. was the tenant of the flat because the tenancy had transferred to her upon the death of her grandfather. Following an appeal by the applicant and the co-owners, on 21 September 2005 the Municipal Court (městský soud) upheld this judgment. On 23 January 2007 the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) dismissed an appeal on points of law (dovolání) lodged by the co-owners.
8.  In the meantime, on 28 November 2005, the District Court ordered J.M. to pay CZK 30 (EUR 1.2) to the co-owners of the tenement building. It dismissed the remainder of their action. Following an appeal by the applicant and the co-owners, on 1 March 2006 the Municipal Court upheld this judgment.
9.  Following a complaint by the applicant and the co-owners, in a judgment (nález) of 26 July 2007 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) quashed this judgment, referring to its case-law in this matter.
10.  By a judgment of 27 November 2007 the Municipal Court upheld on appeal the judgment of the District Court of 28 November 2005. However, after a further appeal, on 19 February 2009 the Constitutional Court quashed it.
11.  On 29 May 2009 the Municipal Court quashed the judgment of the District Court of 28 November 2005 on appeal in respect of the co-owners’ claim for payment of CZK 3,388 (EUR 133). On 20 August 2009 the District Court, after refusing a request by the co-owners’ for the amount of CZK 3,388 to be modified, dismissed their action.
12.  On 15 September 2011 the Constitutional Court dismissed a constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant against the District Court’s last judgment.
13.  On 4 May 2007 the applicant and other co-owners brought an action for damages against the tenant, seeking CZK 172,210 (EUR 6,780). They claimed that during the earlier set of proceedings, J.M. had concealed the fact that her then-husband owned another flat. They therefore claimed damages corresponding to the difference between the market rent and the rent actually paid for the period from 1 May 2004 until 30 November 2006.
14.  On an unspecified date, the District Court allowed the State to join the proceedings upon the landlords’ request.
15.  In a judgment of 5 May 2011 the District Court dismissed the co-owners’ action, stating that the tenant had not been obliged to disclose her then husband’s ownership in the earlier proceedings and that the landlords could therefore not claim damages in this respect. Neither could they claim unjust enrichment, since the judgment of 30 May 2005 too constituted the legal entitlement under which J.M. had acquired the right to tenancy. In respect of the claimed damages relating to the rent control system, the District Court referred to Constitutional Court’s opinion no. Pl. ÚS-st. 27/09 (hereinafter “the plenary opinion”) of 28 April 2009, according to which ordinary courts could set a new level of rent only pro futuro (that is to say from the date of the bringing of an action by tenants) until 1 January 2007, when Act no. 107/2006 on the deregulation of rents had entered into force. The courts could not, therefore, determine the rent retroactively. Finally, it dismissed the claim for damages against the State as statute-barred.
16.  In a separate judgment given on the same date, the District Court, after the co-owners had brought an action for payment of CZK 75,292 (EUR 2,964) against the tenant (and subsequently also against the State), ordered the tenant to pay CZK 60 (EUR 2.36) to the landlords. It dismissed the action in respect of the State as statute-barred. On 21 September 2011 the Municipal Court upheld on appeal this judgment in respect of the tenant but quashed it in respect of the State on the grounds that the publication of the plenary opinion in 2009[1] should have been taken into account for the calculation of the beginning of the three-year statutory limitation period under section 32(1) of the State Liability Act.
17.  On 27 October 2011 the Municipal Court upheld the judgment of the District Court of 5 May 2011 concerning the damages claimed by the co-owners in the amount of CZK 172,210 (EUR 6,780). It endorsed the reasoning of the lower court, dismissing the claimants’ objection that the three-year statutory limitation period under the State Liability Act should have started to run on the date of the adoption of the plenary opinion – that is to say on 28 April 2009.
18.  In a judgment of 6 February 2012 the District Court ordered the State to pay CZK 4,846 (EUR 191) to the co-owners in respect of the damage they had sustained.
19.  On 20 November 2012 the Constitutional Court dismissed a constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant against the Municipal Court’s judgment of 27 October 2011.
20.  The applicant owns a flat in a tenement building in Pardubice, which was rented under the rent control system.
21.  On 31 March 2006 he lodged an action against the tenant seeking the determination of the rent in the locality in question.
22.  Following the adoption of the plenary opinion, the applicant applied for the State to be admitted to the proceedings. The Pardubice District Court (okresní soud) dismissed the application motion on 24 June 2009, stating that the admittance of the State would be against the principle of procedural economy. On 19 August 2009 the Hradec Králové Regional Court (krajský soud) upheld this decision on appeal. It specified that as the original issue of the proceedings had been the determination of the rent in the locality in question, the admittance of the State would lead to a claim for damages. It therefore advised the applicant to bring a separate action for damages.
23.  In a judgment of 11 January 2010 the District Court decided that the tenant should pay rent of CZK 3,500 (EUR 138) per month during the period from 31 March until 31 December 2006. The court found that both parties agreed that the sum of CZK 3,500 (EUR 138) was the market rent for a flat in the locality in question. At the same time, it dismissed the applicant’s claim in respect of the period from 1 January 2002 until 30 March 2006 and from 1 January 2007 onwards.
24.  On 9 December 2010 the applicant brought an action for damages against the State seeking CZK 133,248 (EUR 5,246) with the Prague 1 District Court. The relevant period was defined as being from 1 January 2002 until 31 March 2006 and the sum was calculated as the difference between collected rent and the market rent (CZK (3,500 minus 792) multiplied by six months (the period from 1 January 2002 until 30 June 2002), and CZK (3,500 minus 900) multiplied by forty-five months (the period from 1 July 2002 until 31 March 2006). In a judgment of 9 September 2011 the District Court dismissed this action, accepting the State’s argument that it had become statute-barred. On 22 February 2012 the Municipal Court upheld this judgment on appeal.
25.  On 20 November 2012 the Constitutional Court dismissed a constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant as manifestly ill-founded.
26.  The applicants own a tenement building in Prague. One of the flats is rented under the rent control system. In July 2002 the rent and payment for maintenance services were CZK 2,653.95 (EUR 104) and CZK 424 (EUR 17) respectively, as fixed by the Prague 8 District Court.
27.  On 14 September 2003 the applicants informed the tenant that the monthly rent would be increased to CZK 10,000 (EUR 394), but he refused to pay the new rent. The tenancy agreement was terminated on 31 December 2004.
28.  On 5 May 2005 the applicants brought an action with the Prague 8 District Court against the former tenant for payment of CZK 117,846 (EUR 4,640) in outstanding rent for the period between November 2003 and December 2004.
29.  In a judgment of 17 June 2010 the District Court ordered the tenant to pay CZK 17,223.30 (EUR 678), which corresponded to the difference between the payments that the tenant had actually made during the relevant period and the amount which was supposed to be paid according to the previous judgment of the Prague 8 District Court (see paragraph 26 above). The court referred, inter alia, to the plenary opinion, which banned the general courts from imposing a retrospective increase in rent.
30.  On 17 March 2011 the Municipal Court upheld on appeal this judgment in respect of the former tenant’s refusal of the rent increase, ordering the tenant to pay to the applicants CZK 12,028 (EUR 474) in respect of default charges.
31.  On 19 March 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the applicants on points of law, reiterating the plenary opinion. It further added that the repeal of the price regulation could not be considered as constituting a change in law which would allow the applicants to increase the rent.
32.  On 30 October 2013 the Constitutional Court dismissed a constitutional complaint lodged by the applicants as manifestly ill-founded.
33.  The applicant is the co-owner of a tenement building in Prague in which nine out of eleven flats were rented under the rent control system.
34.  On 7 October 2004 he brought an action against the State, represented by the Ministry of Finance, for damages in the amount of CZK 772,524 (EUR 30,414), corresponding to the difference between the regulated rent and the market rent in the locality in question for the period from 1 January 2003 until 31 December 2003. He submitted that the State was responsible for his loss of profit owing to its inactivity and continuing unlawful interference with his proprietary rights.
35.  On 9 February 2005 the Prague 1 District Court dismissed the applicant’s action. It held that the failure of Parliament to enact deregulating legislation did not constitute an “incorrect official procedure” within the meaning of the State Liability Act (Act no. 82/1998). It also stated that Article 420 of the Civil Code was not applicable, as the relation between a citizen and the State could not be considered a civil relationship within the meaning of the Civil Code.
36.  On 29 August 2005 the Prague Municipal Court upheld this judgment. It endorsed the assessment of the first-instance court as to the inapplicability of the State Liability Act. It further noted that as for the period preceding the adoption of judgment no. Pl. ÚS 2/03 of the Constitutional Court of 19 March 2003 (published in the Official Gazette on 20 March 2003 under the number 84/2003), by which the Constitutional Court had abolished Regulation No. 567/2002 on 20 March 2003, the applicant could not claim the non-existence of legal regulation as this had indeed existed until the Constitutional Court’s judgment. Thus, there had indeed been a decree regulating the matter, and the said judgment did not have retroactive effect. The appellate court also stated that the applicant should have first brought an action against the tenants for the rent to be determined according to the local and material conditions before initiating proceedings against the State.
37.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 29 October 2007. The Supreme Court considered, in particular, that the judgment of the appellate court had been in compliance with its previous case-law.
38.  The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint, claiming that he had pursued his action on the basis of the previous case-law of the Constitutional Court, especially judgments no. Pl. ÚS 20/05 and no. I. ÚS 717/05. He submitted that the inactivity of the legislative body had amounted to a violation of his rights – specifically his right to enjoy his possessions.
39.  On 30 July 2009 the Constitutional Court quashed the judgment of the Supreme Court and those of the lower courts. It referred to its plenary opinion (see paragraph 15 above).
40.  In four following submissions, the applicant supplemented the original wording of his action, specifying that he sought only damages in respect of five out of the nine flats rented under the rent control system and limiting the amount claimed to CZK 501,228 (EUR 19,733) for the period of 1 January 2003 until 31 December 2003 (see paragraph 34 above).
41.  In a judgment of 29 November 2011, the District Court ordered the State to pay compensation in the amount of CZK 95,934 (EUR 3,777), dismissing the rest of the applicant’s claim. It held that the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions had been restricted and found it reasonable to award the applicant the aforesaid sum. As to the method of calculation, it stated:
“...the court considers it appropriate to establish the amount of the damage ... as an average of regulated and deregulated rent ...”
42.  On 27 June 2012 the Municipal Court reduced on appeal the damages awarded to the applicant to CZK 40,980 (EUR 1,613). It found that the first-instance court had erroneously calculated those damages. It stated that the amount of damages should not exceed the rent that could have been collected in 2007 after Act no. 107/2006 on the deregulation of rents had entered into force. The damages awarded should correspond to the difference between the possible unilaterally increased rent in 2007 and the rent under the rent control system in 2003. In 2003, the applicant had been able to collect CZK 109,956 (EUR 4,329) and in 2007 he had been able to collect CZK 150,936 (EUR 5,942) by renting out the five flats. The difference, therefore, amounted to CZK 40,980 (EUR 1,613).
43.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law which was, however, dismissed by the Supreme Court on 29 April 2015. The Supreme Court reiterated its previous case-law, in particular judgment no. 22 Cdo 3188/2012, in which it had held that an owner of flats should be compensated if rent under the rent control system, taking into account local circumstances and other concrete circumstances, did not cover the justifiable costs of maintenance and repair within a reasonable time and make an adequate profit. In the opinion of the Supreme Court, compensation for the restriction of the right to property could not be considered as constituting compensation for damage and did not cover loss of profit. Nevertheless, the amount awarded must have been .proportional. In this regard, the appellate court correctly applied the amount of rent by using the method of calculation specified in Act no. 107/2006.
44.  On 12 April 2006 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint as manifestly ill-founded. It relied on its previous case-law in which it had approved the above-described methods of calculating compensation and had stated that the compensation for unconstitutional restriction of property rights did not constitute a claim for damages and, therefore, did not constitute compensation for loss of profit.
45.  The applicant is the owner of a tenement flat in Prague which was rented under the rent control system.
46.  On 31 May 2007 he brought an action against the State ( represented by the Ministry of Finance) and his tenant for damages in the amount of CZK 129,448 (EUR 5,096), corresponding to the difference between the regulated rent and the market rent in the locality in question for the period from 1 June 2004 until 31 March 2006. On 20 August 2009 he withdrew the action against the tenant but maintained his claim against the State. He argued that the State was responsible for his loss of profit due to its inactivity and continuing unlawful interference with his proprietary rights.
47.  Following a request by the Prague 1 District Court, on 25 June 2009 an expert opinion on the standard level of rent was produced.
48.  On 29 November 2010 the Prague 1 District Court awarded the applicant damages in the amount of CZK 98,208 (EUR 3,866) and dismissed the rest of the applicant’s claim in the amount of CZK 31,240 (EUR 1,230), representing the legal interest on the awarded amount from 1 June 2006 until 30 April 2008.
49.  On 23 August 2011 the Prague Municipal Court upheld on appeal the first-instance judgment and revoked it in respect of the part concerning legal costs.
50.  The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint, alleging a violation of his right to a fair trial and his right to enjoyment of his possessions. He specifically complained that he had not been compensated for his legal costs. The Constitutional Court dismissed the appeal on 10 January 2012 as manifestly ill-founded, asserting that the applicant’s fundamental rights were not at stake.
51.  The State lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court, which quashed the decisions of the lower courts in respect of the award of damages and legal costs on 23 April 2013. The rest of the decision of the District Court, namely the part concerning unawarded interest in the amount of CZK 31,240 (EUR 1,230), became final, as no appeal was lodged against it. In its decision, the Supreme Court stated that the lower courts had not assessed correctly the amount of compensation which should have been awarded. It held in this regard that the severity of the restriction of the applicant’s right to property should have been duly examined.
52.  The applicant lodged a new constitutional complaint, which was rejected by the Constitutional Court on 26 August 2013 as premature and therefore inadmissible.
53.  Following the judgment of the Supreme Court (see paragraph 51 above), in the ensuing proceedings, on 3 February 2014 the District Court reduced damages awarded to the applicant to the amount of CZK 6,439 (EUR 254) and determined the legal costs. The court stated that the compensation should not exceed the rent that could have been collected in 2007 after Act no. 107/2006 on the deregulation of rents entered into force. The damages awarded should correspond to the difference between the possible unilaterally increased rent in 2007 and the rent under the rent control system in the period from 2004 until 2006. During these years, the applicant had been able to collect CZK 5,850 (EUR 230) per month. However, under the rent control system, the rent had been CZK 1,386 (EUR 55), and since 1 January 2007 the amount had been CZK 1,678 (EUR 66) per month. The District Court concluded that the monthly difference corresponded to CZK 292.69 (EUR 12), and in the further period of twenty-two months (1 June 2004-31 March 2006), the monthly difference amounted to CZK 6,439 (EUR 254).
54.  On 3 June 2014 the Municipal Court upheld the first-instance judgment but quashed it in respect of the legal costs awarded.
55.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, which the Supreme Court rejected as inadmissible on 14 July 2015.
56.  The applicant lodged a third constitutional complaint, which on 19 January 2016 the Constitutional Court dismissed as manifestly ill-founded. Relying on its previous case-law, it concluded that the courts could not have disproportionally interfered with the applicant’s property rights, even though they had calculated the compensation as the difference between the market rent and the deregulated rent under Act no. 107/2006.