Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19791003-800377
Timestamp: 2017-04-29 02:10:48+00:00

Document:
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 8003/77Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1979-10-03;8003.77 Analyses : (Art. 5-1) ARRESTATION OU DETENTION REGULIERE, (Art. 5-1) LIBERTE PHYSIQUE, (Art. 5-1) VOIES LEGALES, (Art. 5-1-e) ALIENE, (Art. 5-4) INTRODUIRE UN RECOURS, (Art. 5-4) ORDONNER LA LIBERATION, (Art. 6-1) ACCES A UN TRIBUNAL, (Art. 6-1) DROITS ET OBLIGATIONS DE CARACTERE CIVILParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : AUTRICHETexte : APPLICATION-REQUETE NÂ° 8003/77 X .v/AUSTRI A X . c/AUTRICH E
DECISION of 3 October 1979 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 3 octobre 1979 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©t e
Article 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1 of the First Protocol : al In rÃ©spect of the right guaranteed by Article 1 of the First Protocol, a discrimination is only conceivable as between owners. bl Examination of the justificattbn and the proportionality in the difference of treatment imposed on various owners by /egis/ation protecting tenants . Article 25 of the Convention :
al Death of the applicant and continuation by his only heir of the application concerning an alleged interference with property right . bl Application concerning a/aw limiting the use of property . The applicant can "claim to be a victim" even when he has acquired the property after the entering into force of the legislation . Article 1, paragraph 1 of the First Protocol :The Austrian tegislation which limits the amount of rent for certain leases as well as the right of the owner to terminate the lease does not constitute a deprivation of property . Article 1, paragraph 2 of the First Protocol : Legislation on the protection of tenants as a regulation of use of real property. General interest and necessity of the regulation .
Article 14 de la Convention, combinÃ© avec l'article 1 du Protocol additionnef : a) Quant au droit garanti par l'article 1 du Protocole additionnel, une discrimination n'est concevable qu'entre propriÃ©taires . bl Examen de la justification et de la proportionnalitÃ© des diffÃ©rences de traitement imposÃ©es Ã divers propriÃ©taires par une /Ã©gis/ation sur la protection des tocataires .
Article 25 de la Convention : a) DÃ©cÃ¨s du requÃ©rant et poursuite par son unique hÃ©ritiÃ¨re de la requÃ©te, portant sur une prÃ©tendue atteinte A la propriÃ©tÃ© . b) RequÃªte visant une loi restreignant l'usage des biens. Le requÃ©rant peut "se prÃ©tendre victime" alors mÃªme qu'il a acquis le bien aprÃ¨s l'entrÃ©e en vigueur de la loi.
,qrfide 1, pmegtaphe 1, du Rotocab sddfEbnnd : Ne constitue pas une privation de propriÃ©tÃ© la lÃ©gislation autrichienne qui limite le montant de certains loyers et restreint le droit du bailleur de donner congÃ©. Article 1, paragraph 2, du Protocole additionnef : LÃ©gislation sur la protection des locataires en tant que rÃ©glementation de l'usage d'un bien immeuble . lntÃ©rÃ©t gÃ©nÃ©ral et nÃ©cessitÃ© de cette rÃ©glementation .
(franGais : voir p . 87 )
The applicant was the owner of apartment houses used for rental in Vienna . He died while his applicattbn was being examined. His daughter and only heir has declared a wish to maintain the proceeding . The application concerns the Austrian legislation on rent control, in particular the Act of 1922 on Housing rents the so called Mietengesetz (BGBI. 872/1922) and amended several times. Section 19 of this Acr protects the tenants against the risk of termination of their leases and confers them the right to pass on their lease to close relatives. An amendment passed in 7 .9 51 (BGBI. 228/7951 ) instituted freezing of rents ; however, a further amendment adopted in 1957 (BGBI. 281/15157 ) provides that rents may be freely agreed upon by parties in respect of new bases concluded as from 7 anuary 1968. Section 6 of the Act obliges to use the rent to cover the maintenance costs of the house, the costs of the improvement and property tax related to it . However, in case of a deficit appearing over a period of seven years, an increase of rent may be authorized. The Act in principle is not applicable to subletting but nevertheless limits the rent applicable to the subletting unfurnished rooms. The present application concerns an apartment house used for renting which the applicant acquired in 1970 . A minority of the apartment fall under the require of free rents, the leases having been concluded after 1967. From 1972 to 1976, the costs of upkeep of the apartment house and the taxes relating to it have largely exceeded the rent received .
THE LAW (Extract ) 1 . The applicant, being a house owner, complains that the system of rent control as applied to him under the relevant Austrian legislation, interferes with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions in a way inconsistent with Article 1 of Protocol No . 1 to the Convention . He complains further that the said legislation is discriminatory and contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No . 1 . Article 1 of Protocol No . 1 reads as follows : 1 . 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 righ t .2 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 . Article 14 of the Convention provides that "the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status" . 2 . The Commission first observes that the applicant died on . . . February 1978, and that the property in relation to which he lodged the present application was inherited by his only daughter who has indicated that she wishes to pursue the application . The Commission finds that in these circumstances it is its duty to examine the application as originally presented . For the purpose of Article 25 of the Convention, the original applicant's daughter can now be considered as the victim of any alleged violation of the Convention and of the Protocol . It is true that the Government have put in issue whether the applicant can at all pretend to be a victim of a violation of his property rights, and of any discrimination in relation thereto, given the fact that he acquired the property in question when it was already subject to the restrictions of the rent protection legislation, at a low price which reflected these restrictions . The same argument would apply, mutatis mutandis, to the applicant's daughter's acquisition of the property in question by way of inheritance . However, the Commission finds that the applicant had and that his daughter now has to submit to an Act which is claimed to be, as such, contrary to the Convention and in this respect they may well claim to be victims within the meaning of Article 25 of the Convention . The Commission is therefore called upon to deal with the applicant's separate complaints .
3 . The applicant alleged, first of all, that the rent control legislation and in particular the provisions on the rent chargeable to the tenants and on the limitation of the rights to give notice amounted to an expropriation . He considered that this was contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No . 1 and gave rise to a claim for compensation . a . The reference to the concept of expropriation and to the general principles of international law on which the applicant relied in the domestic proceedings indicates that the applicant wished to bring his complaint under the second sentence of Article 1 .1 which prohibits a deprivation of possessions safe under certain conditions and from which a compensation claim in the case of an expropriation might be inferred . However, the Commission finds that this provision is not applicable in the present case . The applicant himself admitted that there was no expropriation of his property as such . Indeed, there is no question of the contested legislation interfering with the applicant's title to the real property concerned, or even with the substance of this property . The applicant remained free to dispose of this property as he liked, and if the price he could have achieved by selling it or the value which would have been taken as the basis for a mortgage was lower than would have been the case without the restrictions imposed on that property by the rent protection legislation, it must be observed that this reduced value merely reflected the restrictions which in the particular case had existed already at the time when the applicant bought the property in question Moreover, the restrictions concerning the amount of rent chargeable to the tenants fSection 2(1 ) and 7 of the Act on Housing Rents) and the use of the rent proceeds (Sections 6 and 8) do not affect the entire property but only the tenancy contracts concluded before 1967 . Although they may continue for a considerable time, they do not remain in force for all future, the rent for apartments becoming free being in principle subject to the free agreement between the parties . It follows that the application of the rent protection legislation in the applicant's case cannot be considered as amounting to a deprivation of possessions within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 1 paragraph 1 of the Protocol . Consequently, there is also no appearance that by refusing an expropriation compensation to the applicant, the Austrian courts might have interferred with the applicant's rights under this provision . This part of the application must accordingly be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 .2 of the Convention . b . It is however, true that the Act on Housing Rents subjected the us e which the applicant could make of his property to certain important restrictions, in particular as regards his possibility to give notice to the tenants occupying the premises under tenancy contracts concluded by his lega l
predecessor, as regards his possibility to ask for an increase of rent from his tenants, and as regards the use of the rent proceeds . As the Commission has already stated in its decision on the admissibility of Application No . 673/59 against the Federal Republic of Germany (Yearbook 4, pp . 286 et seq .) restrictions of this kind come within the scope of the second paragraph of Article 1 . In that decision the Commission found that a similar legislation in Germany could be justified as being necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest . The Commission is of the opinion that also the rent control legislation in Austria pursues a legitimate aim of social policy, i .e . the protection of the interests of tenants in a situation of a shortage of (cheap) housing . Although the pressing need for a social legislation of this kind may have diminished somewhat since its original introduction, as evidenced by the liberalisation of the market in 1967, and although its practical operation may have been blurred by the occasional perpetuation of contracts in favour of underserving tenants, it nevertheless cannot be maintained that the necessity for the legislation in question has disappeared . The legislator has decided that at least the old contracts of tenancy should be maintained in force unaltered, and by applying this formal criterion rather than an embarrassing test of the individual tenants' social circumstances, it did not, in the Commission's opinion, transgress the power of discretion which must be permitted to it under Article 1 of the protocol . The Commission observes in this context that even the owners of houses coming under the rent protection legislation are not totally deprived of the possibility of drawing profit from their property . The freezing of rent applies only to tenancy contracts concluded before 1967, and in the present case there were five contracts which did not come under this restriction . Moreover, the applicant's obligation to maintain the remaining contracts was not absolute, but subject to the qualifications in section 19 of the Act which indeed gave him the right to terminate these contracts, although under rather restrictive conditions . The Commission considers that the restrictions of the applicant's right to use his property including his right to draw profit from this property are as such appropriate means to achieve the aim of social policy described above . Important as they are, they can still be considered as necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest . Neither the legal regulations as such, nor their application in the particular case can therefore be considered as excessive having regard to the terms of Article 1 .2 of Protocol No . 1 to the Convention, and the applicant's complaint must accordingly be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded also in this respect . 4 . As regards the applicant's further allegation that the rent control legislation is discriminatory IAn . 14 of the Convention read in conjunction wit h
Art . 1 of Protocol No . 1), the Cornmission observes that the applicant has compared his situation as an owner of a rent-protected house to the situation of several other groups of the population .
These include a . persons who earn their living from another source of income In this respect it is alleged that the development of all other incomes kept abreast with the inflation, while only the income of owners of rentprotected houses was kept at the same level since 1951 . However, the Commission observes that Article 14 prohibits discrimination only insofar as the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention is concerned . In connection with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions as guaranteed by Article 1 of the Protocol, a question of discrimination can therefore only arise between the owners of certain property and the owners of certain other property . The income of a person not being a property right within the meaning of this provision, there is no room for a finding of discrimination on the basis of a general comparison of incomes including wages, salaries, pensions, etc . which have nothing to do with the ownership of property . Insofar as the position of house-owners with regard to the possibility to draw profit from their property is less favourable than the position of owners of other, e .g . industrial property, the Commission observes that the considerations of social policy involved in the rent protection legislation apparently do not apply to the ownership of such other porperty . The Commission therefore finds that the difference of treatment complained of has a reasonable justification and cannot be considered as arbitrary . It follows that this differential treatment does not amount to discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 of the Convention . This complaint is therefore also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 .2 of the Convention . b . owners of houses to whom the rent protection legislation does not apply The Commission observes that the owners of rent protected houses are generally in a less favourable position with regard to the use of their property than the owners of other houses who are, as such, a comparable group of the population and it therefore must be examined whether or not the existing legal distinctions are objectively justified differences of treatment rather than excessive and arbitrary discrimination .
In this respect, the Commission finds that the inclusion of only certain houses in the rent protection legislation, and the exemption of new houses from it, can be justified for economic reasons .
The purpose of the exemption of new houses from the rent control obviously is the creation of an incentive for the construction of new houses which is also in the public interest . The consequence that the whole burden of the general interest in the maintenance of cheap housing for social purposes, now moderated by the above mentioned liberalisation of the market in 1967, is put on one group of house-owners only, can also be justified because it can be assumed that the costs for the construction of the houses in question have long been written off and need not be taken into consideration when calculating the rents . A further justification which applies particularly to rent protected property which, as the applicant's half share in the present case, has been acquired after the introduction of the rent control legislation, is the fact that such property can now be bought for a lower purchase price . The Commission concludes that the different treatment complained of has a reasonable justification and that, accordingly, there is no appearance of a discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention . This complaint is therefore also manifestly ill-founded . c . tenants who sublet a pan of their appartment The Commission observes that although contracts of sublease generally do not come under the full range of the rent protection legislation, and in particular the limitation of the right to give notice does not apply, section 14 of the Act on Housing Rents nevertheless stipulates that the rent asked from subtenants for unfurnished rooms in rent-protected apartments may not exceed the amount of rent chargeable for these apartments . It is true that the rent-control does not apply to the more common form of subletting furnished rooms, but the Commission considers that the latter cannot be compared to tenancy contracts for unfurnished apartments . As regards the subletting of unfurnished rooms which might in a certain way be considered as being comparable to normal tenancy contracts, the Commission is of the opinion that the different legal treatment, both in respect of the level of rent and of the right to give notice, can be explained by the special circumstances of subtenancy which involve the inconvenience for the tenant to share the same apartment, including certain common installations, with a fellow lodger foreign to him . There is therefore no appearance of a discrimination in this respect either, and the above complaint must therefore again be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded .
RÃ©sumÃ© des faits pertinent s Le requÃ©rant Ã©tair propriÃ©taire d'immeubles A usage locatif Ã Vienne . ll est dÃ©cÃ©dÃ© au cours de l'examen de sa requÃªte, que sa fille et unique hÃ©ritiÃ©re a dÃ©clarÃ© vouloir poursuivre . La requÃªte a pour objet la tÃ©gislation autrichienne sur le contrÃ´le des loyers, en particulier la loi de 1922 dite Mierengeserz IBGBI . 872/19221, modifiÃ©e Ã diverses reprises . L'artic% 19 de cette loi protÃ¨ge les locataires contre le risque de rÃ©siliation de leur bail et leur confÃ©re le droit de cÃ©der le bail Ã leurs proches. Un amendement votÃ© en 1951 (BGBI . 228/ 19571 institue un blocage des loyers ; toutefois un autre amendement, votÃ© en 1967 1 BGBI. 28111967) prÃ©voit que les loyers peuvent Ãªtre librement fixÃ©s pour les nouveaux baux conclus dÃ©s le 7^ janvier 7968. L'artic% 6 de la loi oblige les propriÃ©taires Ã consacrer le montant des loyers perÃ§us Ã© l'entretien de l'immeuble, Ã son amÃ©lioration et au paiement des taxes . Toutefois, en cas de dÃ©ficit sur une pÃ©riode de sept ans, certaines augmentations de loyers peuvent Ãªtre autorisÃ©es . La loi ne s'applique Ã©n principe pas aux sous-locations mais limite nÃ©anmoins le loyer applicable Ã la sous-location de chambres non meublÃ©es. La prÃ©sente requÃªte porte sur un immeuble locatif acquis par le mquÃ©rant en 7970. Une minoritÃ© des appartements bÃ©nÃ©ficient du rÃ©gime des loyers libres, les baux ayant Ã©tÃ© conclus aprÃ©s 1967. De 1972 Ã 7976, le co0t d'entretien de l'immeuble et les taxes ont dÃ©passÃ© largement le montant des loyers perÃ§us .
EN DROIT (Extrait ) 1 . Le requÃ©rant, propriÃ©taire d'une maison d'habitation se plaint que le systÃ¨me du contrÃ´le des loyers, tel qu'il lui est appliquÃ© conformÃ©ment Ã la lÃ©gislation autrichienne en vigueur, porte atteinte Ã son droit au respect de ses biens d'une maniÃ©re incompatible avec l'article 1 du Protocole additionnel . En outre, il se plaint que ladite lÃ©gislation est discriminatoire et contraire Ã l'article 14 de la Convention, combinÃ© avec l'article 1 du Protocole additionnel .
L'article 1 du Protocole additionnel stipule : 111 Toute personne physique ou morale a droit au respect de ses biens . Nul ne peut Ãªtre privÃ© de sa propriÃ©tÃ© que pour cause d'utilitÃ© publique et dans les conditions prÃ©vues par la loi et les principes gÃ©nÃ©raux du droit international .
121 Les dispositions prÃ©cÃ©dentes ne portent pas atteinte au droit que possÃ©dent les Etats de mettre en vigueur les lois qu'ils jugent nÃ©cessaires pour rÃ©glementer l'usage des biens conformÃ©ment Ã l'intÃ©rÃªt gÃ©nÃ©ral ou pour assurer le paiement des impÃ´ts ou d'autres contributions ou des amendes . L'article 14 de la Convention stipule : Â« La jouissance des droits et libertÃ©s reconnus dans la prÃ©sente Convention doit Ãªtre assurÃ©e, sans distinction aucune, fondÃ©e notamment sur le sexe, la race, la couleur, la langue, la religion, les opinions politiques ou toutes autres opinions, l'origine nationale ou sociale, l'appartenance Ã une minoritÃ© nationale, la fortune, la naissance ou toute autre situation . Â» 2 . La Commission observe tout d'abord que le requÃ©rant est dÃ©cÃ©dÃ© le . . . fÃ©vrier 1978, et que les biens faisant l'objet de la prÃ©sente requÃ©te ont Ã©tÃ© dÃ©volus par voie de succession Ã sa fille unique, qui a manifestÃ© le dÃ©sirâ¢de maintenir la requÃ¨te . La Commission estime que, dans ces conditions, elle est appelÃ©e Ã examiner la requÃ©te telle qu'elle a Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sentÃ©e Ã l'origine . Aux fins de l'article 25 de la Convention, la fille du requÃ©rant peut Ã©tre maintenant considÃ©rÃ©e comme Ã©tant la victime de toute violation allÃ©guÃ©e de la Convention et du protocole . Il est vrai que le Gouvernement a soulevÃ© la question de savoir si le requÃ©rant pouvait se prÃ©tendre victime d'une violation de ses droits de propriÃ©tÃ©, et de discrimination Ã cet Ã©gard, Ã©tant donnÃ© qu'il a acquis l'immeuble en question alors que celui-ci Atait dÃ©jÃ soumis aux restrictions imposÃ©es par la lÃ©gislation sur le contrÃ´le des loyers, Ã un bas prix qui reflÃ©tait ces restrictions . Le mÃªme argument s'appliquerait, mutatis mutandis Ã l'acquisition de l'immeuble par voie de succession par la fille du requÃ©rant . NÃ©anmoins, la Commission estime que le requÃ©rant devait, et que sa fille doit maintenant, se soumettre Ã une loi prÃ©tendument contraire, en tant que telle, Ã la Convention et, Ã cet Ã©gard, ils peuvent en effet se prÃ©tendre victimes, au sens de l'article 25 de la Convention . En consÃ©quence, la Commission est appelÃ©e Ã se prononcer sur les diffÃ©rentes plaintes du requÃ©rant .3 . En premier lieu, le requÃ©rant a allÃ©guÃ© que la lÃ©gislation sur le contrÃ´l e
des loyers et, en particulier, les dispositions relatives aux loyers exigibles des 'locataires et Ã la limitation du droit de donner congÃ© Ã©quivalaient Ã une expropriation . Il a estimÃ© que cet Ã©tat de fait Ã©tait contraire Ã l'article 1 du Protocole additionnel et justifiait une demande d'indemnisation . a . La rÃ©fÃ©rence Ã la notion d'expropriation et aux principes gÃ©nÃ©raux du droit international sur lesquels le requÃ©rant s'est fondÃ© dans la procÃ©dure menÃ©e dans son pays montre qu'il entend fonder sa requÃªte sur la deuxiÃ¨me phrase du paragraphe 1 de l'article 1, aux termes duquel nul ne peut i?tre privÃ© de ses biens sauf sous certaines conditions et dont on pourrait dÃ©duire un droit Ã indemnisation en cas d'expropriation . .
NÃ©anmoins, la Commission estime que cette disposition n'est pas applicable en l'espÃ¨ce . Le requÃ©rant lui-mÃ©me a admis qu'il n'y avait pas expropriation de son bien Ã proprement parler . En effet, il ne s'agit pas pour la lÃ©gislation contestÃ©e de porter atteinte au titre du requÃ©rant sur l'immeuble en question, mÃªme en substance . Le requÃ©rant demeure libre de disposer de son bien comme il l'entend et si le prix qu'il pourrait retirer de sa vente ou la valeur qui serait retenue comme base d'une hypotÃ©que Ã©tait infÃ©rieur Ã ce qu'ils seraient sans les restrictions imposÃ©es par la lÃ©gislation sur le contrÃ´le des loyers, il convient d'observer que cette moins-value ne fait que reflÃ©ter les restrictions qui, en l'espÃ©ce, existaient dÃ©jÃ© Ã l'Ã©poque oÃ¹ le requÃ©rant a achetÃ© l'immeuble . De plus, ces restrictions portant sur le montant des loyers exigibles (paragraphe 1 de l'article 2 et article 7 de la loi sur le contrÃ´le des loyers) et l'affectation du montant des loyers encaissÃ©s larticles 6 et 8) ne visent pas la totalitÃ© de l'immeuble, mais uniquement les baux conclus avant 1967 . Certes, ceux-ci peuvent demeurer en vigueur pendant un certain temps, mais non indÃ©finiment et les loyers des appartements devenus vacants peuvent en principe Ãªtre fixÃ©s d'accord entre les parties . Il s'ensuit que l'application de la lÃ©gislation sur le contrÃ´le des loyers, dans le cas du requÃ©rant, ne peut pas Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme Ã©quivalant Ã une privation de propriÃ©tÃ©, au sens de la deuxiÃ©me phrase de l'alinÃ©a 1 de l'anicle 1 du Protocole . En consÃ©quence, il n'apparaÃ®t pas non plus qu'en refusant au requÃ©rant une indemnisation pour expropriation, les tribunaux autrichiens aient pu porter atteinte aux droits garantis au requÃ©rant par cette disposition . Cette partie de la requÃªte doit en consÃ©quence Ãªtre rejetÃ©e comme Ã©tant manifestement mal fondÃ©e, au sens du paragraphe 2 de l'article 27 de la Convention . b . NÃ©anmoins, il est vrai que la loi sur le contrÃ´le des loyers soumettait l'usage que le requÃ©rant pouvait faire de son immeuble Ã certaines restrictions importantes, particuliÃ©rement en ce qui concerne sa possibilitÃ© de donner congÃ© aux locataires occupant les locaux en vertu de baux conclus par son auteur, en ce qui concerne sa possibilitÃ© de demander une augmentation de loyer Ã ses locataires et en ce qui concerne l'affectation du montant des loyers perÃ§us . Ainsi que la Commission l'a dÃ©jÃ© relevÃ© dans sa dÃ©cision sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte NÂ° 673/59 contre la RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne (Annuaire 4, pp . 286 et ss .), des restrictions de cette nature tombent sous le coup du deuxiÃ©me paragraphe de l'article 1 . Dans cette dÃ©cision, la Commission a estimÃ© qu'une lÃ©gislation allemande analogue pouvait se justifier comme Ã©tant nÃ©cessaire pour rÃ©glementer l'usage des biens conformÃ©ment Ã l'intÃ©rÃ©t gÃ©nÃ©ral . La Commission estime que la lÃ©gislation autrichienne sur le contrÃ´le des loyers poursuit elle aussi un objectif lÃ©gitime de politique sociale, Ã savoir l a
protection des intÃ©rÃ©ts des locataires dans une situation caractÃ©risÃ©e par la pÃ©nurie de logements 18 bon marchÃ©l . Bien que le besoin pressant d'une lÃ©gislation sociale de ce genre puisse avoir quelque peu diminuÃ© depuis le moment de son introduction, ainsi qu'en tÃ©moigne la libÃ©ralisation du marchÃ© en 1967, et bien que son application pratique puisse avoir Ã©tÃ© masquÃ©e dans certains cas par la perpÃ©tuation de baux en faveur de locataires ne mÃ©ritant pas protection, on ne peut nÃ©anmoins pas prÃ©tendre que la nÃ©cessitÃ© de pareille lÃ©gislation ait disparu . Le lÃ©gislateur a dÃ©cidÃ© que les anciens baux au moins devaient Ãªtre maintenus en vigueur sans modification ; en appliquant ce critÃ©re formel plutÃ´t que d'autres nÃ©cessitant une estimation embarrassante de la situation sociale du locataire, il n'a pas, de l'avis de la Commission, outrepassÃ© le pouvoir discrÃ©tionnaire qui doit lui Ãªtre reconnu en vertu de l'article 1 du Protocole . La Commission observe Ã ce sujet que mÃ©me les propriÃ©taires d'immeubles soumis au contrÃ´le des loyers ne sont pas privÃ©s de la possibilitÃ© de tirer profit de leur bien . Le gel des loyers ne s'applique qu'aux baux conclus avant 1967 et, dans le cas d'espÃ©ce, cinq baux Ã©chappaient Ã cette restriction . De plus, l'obligation du requÃ©rant de ne pas rAsilier les autres baux n'Ã©tait pas absolue mais soumise aux conditions prÃ©vues Ã l'article 19 de la loi, lequel reconnaÃ®t un droit de rÃ©siliation, bien que dans des cas assez limitÃ©s . La Commission estime que les restrictions imposÃ©es au droit du requÃ©rant de faire usage de son bien, y compris son droit d'en tirer profit sont en eux-mÃªmes des moyens appropriÃ©s pour atteindre l'objectif de politique sociale dÃ©crit ci-dessus . MalgrÃ© leur importance, ils peuvent encore Ptre considÃ©rÃ©s comme nÃ©cessaires pour rÃ©glementer l'usage des biens conformÃ©ment Ã l'intÃ©rÃ©t gÃ©nÃ©ral . Ni les dispositions lÃ©gislatives comme telles, ni leur application dans le cas d'espÃ©ce, ne peuvent donc Ptre considÃ©rÃ©es comme excessives, compte tenu des dispositions du paragraphe 2 de l'article 1 du Protocole additionnel . Sur ce point Ã©galement, la requÃ©te doit donc Ã¨tre rejetÃ©e comme manifestement mal fondÃ©e . 4 . En ce qui concerne le second grief du requÃ©rant, selon lequel la lÃ©gislation sur le contrÃ´le des loyers est discriminatoire (article 14 de la Convention en combinaison avec l'article 1 du Protocole additionnel), la Commission observe que le requÃ©rant a comparÃ© sa situation de propriÃ©taire d'immeuble Ã loyers rÃ©glementÃ©s Ã celle de plusieurs autres groupes de population, Ã savoir
a. Les personnes disposant d'autres sources de reven u A cet Ã©gard, il est allÃ©guÃ© que toutes les autres sources de revenus se sont dÃ©veloppÃ©es au rythme de l'inflation et que seuls les revenus de propriÃ©taires d'immeubles soumis au contrÃ´le des loyers sont demeurÃ©s au mÃªme niveau depuis 1951 .
Toutefois, la Commission observe que l'article 14 n'interdit les discriminations que dans la mesure oÃ¹ elles portent sur la jouissance de droits et libertÃ©s reconnus dans la Convention . En ce qui concerne le droit au respect des biens, garantis par l'article 1 du Protocole, une question de discrimination ne peut donc Ãªtre soulevÃ©e qu'entre propriÃ©tairesde certains biens et propriÃ©taires d'autres biens . Le revenu d'une personne n'Ã©tant pas un droit de propriÃ©tÃ©, au sens de ladite disposition, il n'y a pas matiÃ©re Ã discrimination sur la base d'une comparaison gÃ©nÃ©rale des revenus y compris des salaires, traitement, pensions etc ., qui n'ont rien Ã voir avec la propriÃ©tÃ© d'un bien . Pour autant que la situation des propriÃ©taires d'immeubles d'habitation, quant Ã la possibilitÃ© de tirer profit de leurs biens, est moins favorable que celle de propriÃ©taires d'autres biens, par exemple industriels, la Commission observe que les considÃ©rations de politique sociale qui entrent en jeu dans la lÃ©gislation sur le contrÃ´le des loyers ne s'appliquant pas, semble-t-il, Ã la propriÃ©tÃ© de ces autres biens . La Commission estime donc que la diffÃ©rence de traitement dont se plaint le requÃ©rant a une justification raisonnable et ne peut pas Ã©tre considÃ©rÃ©e comme arbitraire . Il s'ensuit que cette diffÃ©rence de traitement ne constitue pas une discrimination, au sens de l'article 14 de la Convention . Sur ce point aussi, la requÃªte est manifestement mal fondÃ©e, au sens du paragraphe 2 de l'article 27 de la Convention . b . Les propriÃ©taires d'immeubles auxquels la lÃ©gislation sur le contrdle des loyers n'est pas applicable La Commission observe que les propriÃ©taires d'immeubles soumis au contrÃ´le des loyers sont dans une situation gÃ©nÃ©ralement moins favorable quant Ã l'usage de leurs biens que les propriÃ©taires d'autres immeubles d'habitation qui, comme tels, constituent un groupe de population comparable . Il convient donc d'examiner si les distinctions Ã©tablies par la loi constituent ou non des diffÃ©rences de traitement ayant une justification objective et non des discriminations excessives et arbitraires . A cet Ã©gard, la Commission estime que le fait que certaines maisons d'habitation seulement soient visÃ©es par la lÃ©gislation sur le contrÃ´le des loyers et que les logements neufs en soient exempts peut se justifier pour des raisons Ã©conomiques . L'objectif poursuivi en exemptant les habitations nouvelles du contrÃ´le des loyers consiste de toute Ã©vidence Ã crÃ©er un encouragement Ã la construction de logements neufs, ce qui est Ã©galement dans l'intÃ©rÃ©t public . Il en rÃ©sulte que tout le poids de l'intÃ©rÃ©t gÃ©nÃ©ral Ã maintenir les logements Ã prix modÃ©rÃ©s Ã des fins sociales, tempÃ©rÃ©e maintenant par la libÃ©ralisation sus mentionnÃ©e du marchÃ© en 1967, incombe Ã un seul groupe de propriÃ©taires d'immeubles . Mais cette situation peut aussi se justifier, car o n
peut admettre que le coÃ¹t de construction de ces logements est depuis longtemps amorti et n'a plus Ã Ãªtre pris en considÃ©ration pour le calcul des loyers . Une autre justification qui s'applique en particulier Ã un immeuble soumis au contrÃ´le des loyers qui, comme c'est le cas pour la moitiÃ© de la part du requÃ©rant dans le cas d'espÃ¨ce, a Ã©tÃ© acquis aprÃ©s l'introduction de la lÃ©gislation sur le contrÃ´le des loyers, est le fait qu'un tel immeuble peut maintenant Ã©tre acquis pour un prix infÃ©rieur . La Commission conclut que la diffÃ©rence de traitement dont se plaint le requÃ©rant est raisonnablement justifiÃ©e et qu'en consÃ©quence, il n'y a pas apparence d'une discrimination contraire Ã l'article 14 de la Convention . Sur ce point aussi, la requÃªte est manifestement mal fondÃ©e .
c. Les locataires sous-louant une partie de leur appartement La Commission observe que, bien que les contrats de sous-location Ã©chappent en partie Ã la lÃ©gislation sur le contrÃ´le des loyers, et qu'en particulier la limitation du droit de donner congÃ© ne s'applique pas, l'article 14 de la loi sur le contrÃ´le des loyers stipule nÃ©anmoins que les loyers perÃ§us des sous-locataires pour des chambres non meublÃ©es sises dans des appartements Ã loyer rÃ©glementÃ© ne peuvent pas dÃ©passer le montant des loyers qui peuvent Ãªtre perÃ§us pour ces appartements . II est vrai que le contrÃ´le des loyers ne s'applique pas Ã la forme la plus courante de sous-location, celle de chambres meublÃ©es, mais la Commission estime que cette derniÃ©re ne peut pas Ãªtre comparÃ©e aux baux d'appartements non meublÃ©s . En ce qui concerne la sous-location de chambres non meublÃ©es, qui pourrait en un certain sens Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme comparable aux baux normaux, la Commission estime que la diffÃ©rence de traitements par la loi, tant en ce qui concerne le montant des loyers que le droit de donner congÃ©, peuvent s'expliquer par les conditions particuliÃ¨res de la sous-location, qui impliquent pour le locataire l'inconvÃ©nient de partager le mÃ©me appartement, y compris certaines installations communes, avec une personne qui lui est Ã©trangÃ©re . Il appert donc qu'il n'y a pas non plus discrimination sur ce point, et que le prÃ©sent grief doit Ãªtre rejetÃ© lui aussi comme manifestement mal fondÃ© .
_9z_Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 03/10/1979Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 1
 l'article 1
 l'article 1
 l'article 14
 l'article 1

L'article 1
 L'article 14
 l'article 25
 l'article 25
 l'article 1
 l'article 1
 l'article 2
 l'article 27
 l'article 1
 l'article 1
 l'article 19
 l'article 1
 l'article 1
 l'article 14
 l'article 1
 l'article 14
 l'article 27
 l'article 14
 l'article 14