136/2009 Sb.
The COMMUNICATION FROM the
The Constitutional Court
The plenary in the composition of the Constitutional Court President Pavel Rychetský, and
judge Stanislav Duchoň, Franz Package, Vlasta Formankova, Turgut
Güttler, Pavel Holländer, Ivana Janů, Vladimir Crust, Dagmar
Lastovecká, Jiří Mucha, Jan Musil, Jiří Nykodým, Miloslav Výborný,
Elisabeth Wagner and Michael on 28 April. April 2009 adopted pursuant to section
23 of law No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, in the case of a legal opinion.
the Chamber of the Constitutional Court in the case conducted under the SP. zn. I. ÚS 2220/08, which
departs from the legal opinion of the Constitutional Court expressed in the award of the
on 9 April. September 2008, SP. zn. IV. TC 175/08 and the award of 4 April 2003. December 2008
SP. zn. III. TC 3158/07,
This opinion:
I. General courts may decide on the increase of the rent for the period from
bringing an action until 31 December 2006. 12.2006. The rent for the period prior to the filing
increase cannot, because it prevents the nature of the decisions with the components of the
effects; increase in rent for the period from 1 January 2005. 1. admit you cannot, since 2007
from this date no longer unilateral rent increases permitted under § 3 para.
2 of the Act No. 107/2006 Coll., on unilateral increase of the apartment rent and
on the amendment of Act No. 40/1964 Coll., the civil code, as amended
regulations.
II. Actions of landlords (homeowners) for damages against the State
[based on Act No. 82/1998 Coll., on liability for damage
caused in the exercise of public authority decision or incorrect official
the procedure and on the amendment of the Act of the Czech National Council No. 357/1992 Coll., on the
notaries public and their activities (notarial regulations)], which should be in the
as a result of long term unconstitutional Parliament consisting in idle
non-acceptance of a special legal regulation defining the cases in which
the lessor shall be entitled to unilaterally increase the rent, the remuneration for the performance of
provided with the use of the apartment and change other conditions of the rental agreement
(find the Constitutional Court of 28 February 2006, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 20/05)
the general courts are assessed in terms of their rights to compensation
a forced restriction of ownership rights under art. 11 (1) 4 of the Charter of
fundamental rights and freedoms, and in this sense, provide to interested parties
process space to be able to express to the amended legal
assessment. A claim against the State for compensation for the forced limitation of property
rights according to art. 11 (1) 4 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms is
the subsidiary character of the landlord of the apartment to the claim against the tenant on the
increase in rent for the period beginning on the date of only bringing the action. During the period,
that this day precedes, can the landlord of the apartment claim
on the compensation for the forced restriction of property rights against the State directly.
Justification:
(I).
1. The complainant filed constitutional complaint attacked the resolution of the Supreme
of the Court of 11 May 1999. 3.2008 No. 25 of 2864/Cdo 2006-82, judgment of city
Court in Prague from day 1. 6.2006 no. 20 135/2006-71 and the judgment of the
Prague 1 District Court of 25 October. 1.2006 no. 24 C 169/2005-48.
The case was based on work schedule allocated to the Senate and is conducted under the sp.
Zn. I. ÚS 2220/08; the judge-rapporteur is Ivana Janů.
II.
2. From the file of the circuit court SP. zn. 24 C 169/2005 concluded that
the complainant is an action of 13 December. 7. the 2005 against the Czech Republic sought
compensation for damage caused by incorrect official procedure of EUR 4 627 970
KC accessories, which should be as a loss as a result of
illegal and unconstitutional regulation of rents, and that for the period between
from 2002 to 2004. The Court of first instance dismissed the action, the Court of appeal
his decision and the Supreme Court rejected the appeal, since it took the
to the conclusion that none of the legal issues raised by the complainant does not have
fundamental legal significance. For completeness, it should be added that, in principle, the same
the case addresses the Constitutional Court and below the SP. zn. I. ÚS 573/05 and SP. zn. I. ÚS
1109/08.
III.
3. When discussing the constitutional complaint has reached even the Constitutional Court to the Senate.
These legal opinions:
-the lessor may after tenants seek rent increases only with the
the effect from the filing of the action;
-the landlord has in respect of a period defined by action, the right to
State compensation for the forced restriction of ownership rights under art. 11
paragraph. 4 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms ("the Charter"), which is not
subsidiary in relation to the application of the action on the increase of the rent owed to the
tenants, since such an increase, the complainant could not claim for the period
prior to this action.
Due to the fact that these conclusions, and the Senate planned to depart from.
legal opinions expressed in other findings of the Constitutional Court (in the
details of the CF. In addition), the matter in accordance with section 23 of the Act No.
182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, the plenum of the Constitutional Court. While he was kept
the following considerations.
4. The Constitutional Court is the issue, which touches on constitutional complaint,
He has many times in the past. In the award of 28 June. February 2006 sp.
Zn. PL. ÚS 20/05 (N 47/40 SbNU 389, 252/2006 Coll. ^ *)-in which also
points to the previous judikatorní development-came to the conclusion that "the very
diction section 696 of paragraph 1. 1. code, which only anticipates the adoption of a new
editing, it is not unconstitutional, unconstitutional is a long-term failure to act
the legislature, which has resulted in inequality and constitutionally neakceptovatelnou
ultimately a violation of constitutional principles; ... under certain conditions
are the consequences of the gap (the missing legislation) unconstitutional, particularly
If the legislature decides that a particular area, this
the intention of the said Act, however, anticipated the regulation does not accept. The same
conclusion applies even in the case when the Parliament declared he accepted the modification,
However, this was cancelled because it did not meet the constitutional criteria, and
the legislature did not accept compensation, although constitutionally compliant to do so
The Constitutional Court provided sufficient time (18 months). ". In this regard,
that long-term inactivity state legislature as a representative one (
the branches of public power in the State), which has not adopted a unilateral modification
rent increases, is in conflict with the constitutional order, the constitutional
the Court concluded that the ordinary courts cannot claim landlords oppose,
but shall decide to increase rents. The amount of rent should
respond to local conditions, so as to avoid discrimination between
the lessor (and tenant) flats with controlled rent and
the lessor (the lessee) bytes. market rent.
5. In the report of 6 May 1996. April 2006, SP. zn. I. ÚS 489/05 (N 80/41 SbNU 59)
-whose base lay in the fact that the complainant, as a Prosecutor sought
payment of the difference between the regulated and the so-called. market rent (not
increase in rent or damages)-the Constitutional Court expressed thoughts
in that plenary the award further developed. He recalled that decisions on
rent increase represents a socially sensitive issue, and further
He stated that "when deciding the amount of the rent will be the General Court
relate to a decision (pro futuro) to create objective law (in the
this direction is correct, the premise of the circuit court, that is, you cannot claim
payment of the difference between the normal and the controlled rent for the period
last). Due to the exceptional nature of this procedure, based verdict.
finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 20/05, the Court must give the participants plenty of space
to become familiar with the principles of dotvářeného by law and to the use of adequate
instruments, including any changes to the particulars of the remedies and options
to conclude a settlement. In this sense, the applicants must get from the General Court
the appropriate lessons, and even beyond the General obligation to advise him
enshrined in section 5 of the code of civil procedure. ". With regard to the liability of the
the State for pecuniary loss resulting from the failure to adopt the anticipated legislation
the emphasis in the operative part i. award SP. zn. PL. ÚS 20/05, Constitutional Court
finding SP. zn. I. ÚS 489/05 deduced that "If pronajímatelův reasonably
the claim will not be fully satisfied, left him the other way, than to apply
to the State requirement for compensation. ".
6. the obligation of the courts relate to a way to make decisions
Pro futuro
the increase of the rent stated in the report, the Constitutional Court of 9 June. September
2008, SP. zn. IV. TC 175/08. He said that "If this condition
have a reasonable sense, to be the beginning of time deciding on the increase
rent control from bytes to determine the moment of bringing proceedings to the General
the Court ". From finding SP. zn. I. ÚS 489/05 then cited the decision concludes
the requirement of subsidiarity of damages against the State after the exhaustion of
effective legal remedies to protect the rights, leading to
tenants.
7. The idea of subsidiarity, a claim for damages against the State is generally
correct, however, in finding SP. zn. I. ÚS 489/05 was designed for a different
facts, than how it understands find SP. zn. IV. TC 175/08. Here is the
should be recalled that in the case conducted under the SP. zn. IV. TC 175/08 were
a dispute over compensation under Act No. 82/1998 Coll., on liability for
damage caused in the performance of public authority by a decision or incorrect
official procedure and amendment to the Czech National Council Act No. 357/1992 Coll., on the
notaries public and their activities (notarial regulations), as amended
the regulations, consisting of the difference between the rent is regulated and the usual.
The complainant is an action, filed in February 2006, sought damages for
July 2002 to November 2005, i.e. for the period prior to the filing.
He wondered if in this situation, the Constitutional Court of the obligation to exhaust
effective means of redress against the tenants, you can infer that the
He came out of view, according to which a claim against the landlord and tenants
for the period prior to the filing. Eventually this view explicitly expressed
find of the day 4. December 2008, SP. zn. III. TC 3158/07:»-the requirement
addressed to the general courts in the key finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 20/05, the "i"
Despite the absence of editing in foreseen § 696 para. 1. code, must
decide on the increase of the rent, depending on the local
conditions and to avoid discrimination of different groups
legal entities ", cannot be reduced only to the legal relations of the" future ",
There is no reason or to not combine with the entitlement which landlords
fight over "rent" in excess of the rent agreed in the rental agreement,
behind the stage for last. ".
IV.
8. With the legal opinion as described in the previous paragraph, however, even the Senate.
Fowles, submitted the matter to the full Court for opinion, which
the majority of the votes is done. The subject of the assessment of the plenum have been two
the issues are closely related: and) from what time can the landlord
admit to an increased rent; (b)) the existence of the right to compensation for the forced
restriction of ownership rights and subsidiarity.
9. According to the beliefs of the Constitutional Court the landlord against tenant no
entitlement to payment of the difference between the regulated and the usual rent for
the period prior to the filing. He cannot be a basis for this view
Search in finding SP. zn. I. ÚS 489/05 (see above), in which, by contrast,
explicitly states that "the premise is correct, that the District Court
You cannot claim the payment of the difference between the normal and the controlled rent for
last time ".
10. Legal opinion recognizing the ability to sue after the tenants pay
the difference between the regulated and the usual rents over the last, i.e.. before
the filing, understates the nature in the first instance decision on the increase
the rent. A judgment on the rent increase is to relate to a decision,
which explicitly recognised and find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 20/05 (see above). It's not
in doing so, by the ordinary courts, of course, about the completion of an objective
rights in the sense that the judgments in individual cases have been
the source of generally binding rules of conduct, but a change substantively
the relationship between a particular tenancy the landlord and the tenant, specific
Depending on the specific local conditions. The nature of the
konstitutivního indicates that the substantive relations can have a
effects only in the future, that is, from the time when the judicial authority,
unless the law expressly modified its effects differently. Legal facts
with which the substantive law combines the create, alter or extinguish parties ' substantive legal
relationship, it is only the decision; It is therefore only logical that the
change in substantive relations can occur from the moment, when this
legal fact arises and begins to produce effects which are with her
associated.
11. The decision on the increase of the rent konstitutivně extends into the
an existing legal relationship between the tenant and the landlord so that the
changing its contents, in terms of the amount of the rent. From this perspective,
rent increases "in the past" (retroactively), the obvious contradiction in terms
inadequate nature of decision konstitutivního; Furthermore, it would
also represented in the rule of law inadmissible right the retroactive effect,
Since the Court would reverse the past, transform the content of legal relationship between the
the landlord and the tenant and the tenant would have to pay to save a higher
the rent even in the period in which the tenant had no obligation to do.
12. the only consistent approach would, in theory, so it is concluded that the change in the
the contents of the rental relationship (change in the amount of rent) occurs only from the legal
can the judgment vyslovujícího rent increase in the future (understood by
the date of filing of the application). Having regard to the fact that rent increases by the
deciding it was quite an extraordinary means by which
The Constitutional Court made the inability to increase the rent under a separate legal
adjustment, it would mean that the application for increase in rent, which has not yet
to be decided, would have to be rejected because of 1. 1.2007 can already be
increase the rent pursuant to Act No. 107/2006 Coll., on unilateral
increase of the apartment rent and amending Act No. 40/1964 Coll., the civil
code, as amended. Such a conclusion, however, at the same time
meant that neither the claim for rent increases would not have been effective
remedy protiústavního State, which the legislator (State)
started by its long-term inactivity. You can therefore agree with the finding of the sp.
Zn. IV. TC 175/08 that the rent increases tied to a moment of the day
making the application; This solution is acceptable from the viewpoint of the lessee, which
from this point on, may increase the rent to be calculated. Can also be
fully agree with separate votem Prof. Musil to the finding SP. zn. III.
TC 3158/07 that only from this moment can the tenant actually responding
on the factual and legal arguments put forward by the lessor in the application,
claimant rent increases; join the early possibilities for increasing
rent with an action takes into account the interests of both parties and autonomous
it complies with the principle of proportionality. Therefore, you can allow even an exception to
effects of constitutive decision, justified the constitutional aspects, which
is otherwise possible only on the basis of the express legal provisions; This different
the regulation follows from the Constitutional Court SP. zn. PL. ÚS 20/05 (see
above), which have the effect of
erga omnes
-under exceptional circumstances-fills the function of the law, actually. For
rent increase before the date of the filing of the action, however, no grounds to find
You cannot; does not arise either from the constitutional argument, nor the nature of the
the constitutive decision. This question is therefore possible to conclude that the
General courts may decide on the increase of the rent for the period from the submission of the
action to 31. 12.2006. Rent for the period prior to the filing of an increase
they cannot, as it prevents the konstitutivního nature of the decision itself;
increase in rent for the period from 1 January 2005. 1.2007 also is not possible, since from the
This data is already one-sided rent increases permitted under § 3 para. 2
Act No. 107/2006 Sb.
13. in relation to the second point of the opinion of the Constitutional Court pronounced consent
with the legal opinion referred to in the award SP. zn. IV. TC 175/08.
Although the Constitutional Court had already stated in the award SP. zn. PL. ÚS 20/05
the unconstitutionality of long-term idle legislature consisting of
rejection of the legal provisions allowing the unilateral increase of rent,
It cannot be inferred from the decision in a claim for damages against the State.
In terms of the assessment of the basic right to compensation against the State is
necessary to be based on the article. paragraph 36. 3 of the Charter. This provision ensures
the right to compensation for damage caused by an unlawful decision of a court to him,
other State body or public authority or incorrect official
the procedure. From this point of view but cannot be attributed to Parliament for the authority
public administration, Court, or other comparable authority of the State. Not so
above all, make the case when Parliament exercises its legislative
the power. The responsibility for the exercise of this power is in the first place
political. The limits of freedom are determined at the discretion of the legislature
the constitutional order, the result of their excess, however, is the option to cancel
speaking of unconstitutionality of the law or the Constitutional Court. Such
the intervention of the Constitutional Court may in certain circumstances have an influence on the rights
of the individual, to which it has been as a result of such act or gaps in
Testaments exposed (e.g. neaplikovatelnost of the law in a particular case),
However, individuals shall not confer entitlement to compensation.
14. If, therefore, the Constitutional Court noted a possible claim for damages
to the State in its award SP. zn. I. ÚS 489/05 and, by extension, in finding sp.
Zn. IV. TC 175/08 (see above), facing such a claim in relation to the
fault of the ordinary courts, which did not provide the protection of a fundamental right
the concerned landlords that they reject its reasonably entitled to
increase in rent. Thus conceived is entitled to damages to any of the
in a way it does not deviate from the wording of article. paragraph 36. 3 of the Charter, or of the right to
compensation, as defined in Act No. 82/1998 Coll., so if
the competent authority shall revoke a final decision of a court, as a result of
This Court short of its obligation to decide on the increase of the rent in the
the meaning of the award SP. zn. PL. ÚS 20/05, the landlord may claim against
State compensation for damage suffered by him as a result of such illegal
the decision arose. Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court considers that the lessor
bear witness in relation to the defined period prior to the filing of other legal
the title, and it's right to compensation for the forced restriction of ownership rights under the
article. 11 (1) 4 of the Charter.
15. The limits of admissibility of restrictions of property rights should be understood in the
the context of the emergence and development of the affected tenancies. Already in the award of the
on 22 November. March 1994, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 38/93 (N 9/1 SbNU 61; 86/1994 Coll.)
The Constitutional Court found a constitutional right to personal transformation conformity
use of the apartment on lease under § 871 of the civil code. In this
context, in so doing, he pointed out that at the time when the legal effects occurred
pursuant to that provision, there was a public interest in transformation
the former user relations to flats in the institution of protected tenancies,
that would create an acceptable state of legal certainty for all existing
legal relationships to flats, which were based on the existence of the right to personal
use of the apartment. The assessment of the existence of public interest, however, requires to take into
his account of the time aspect. Although you cannot alézt an exact threshold, since when
It was no longer possible to consider the restriction of property rights as a result of
rent controls for constitutionally conformal, flows from the existing case-law
The Constitutional Court with regard to the findings of the derogatory 21. June 2000
SP. zn. PL. ÚS 3/2000 (N 93/18 SbNU 287, 229/2000 Coll.), of 20 December 2002.
November 2002, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 8/02 (N 144/28 SbNU 237, 528/2002 Coll.) and
of 19 December 2003. March 2003, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 2/03 (N 41/29 SbNU 371, 84/2003
Coll.), as well as find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 20/05 that such a conclusion was not
be accepted in 2000. For this reason, the Constitutional Court
dealt with the question of whether the restrictions of property rights as a result of the regulation of
rent did not meet during the period to which the complainant refers your
claim, such intensity, that it is necessary to be regarded as forced limitations
of property rights within the meaning of article 87(1). 11 (1) 4 of the Charter.
16. According to the article. 11 (1) 4 of the Charter permits the forced restriction
of property rights in the public interest, on the basis of the law, and for compensation.
That article cannot be interpreted as a fundamental right to compensation for
any limitation of ownership rights laid down by law. The contents of the constitutionally
guaranteed the right to own property within the meaning of article 87(1). 11 of the Charter, as well as
the right to the peaceful enjoyment assets according to the article. 1 of the additional protocol to the Convention
on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms is not boundless and
is subject to various restrictions, which may be in terms of constitutional guarantees can be considered as
immanent to the Constitutional Court and, by his definition. This means that the
the law may generally provide for the limits of ownership rights, without such
the restriction has been associated with the right to a refund. The forced limitation of property
rights, as well as the expropriation under article. 11 (1) 4 of the Charter thus needs to be
applicable only to certain qualified cases restrictions.
17. Without the Constitutional Court considered it necessary to define the characters of such
qualified restrictions exhaustively, in General
to infer that one of these characters is a limitation of ownership rights proceeding
beyond the scope of the obligations which the law generally lays down for all subjects
of property rights in compliance with the principle of equality. Forced restrictions
of proprietary rights according to art. 11 (1) 4 of the Charter constitutes
limitation of property rights to a specific owner beyond the limits that
result in General for the subjects of property rights, or which turn out to
only the part of the owners, this unequal status, however, is in accordance with the
the principle of equality in fact as a result of the existence of this inequality
adequately justifying. Referred to can be demonstrated on the
the example of the so-called. legal easements, when the obligation to tolerate for example.
the construction of the column power lines on his land should be considered as
restrictions in addition to the general limitation of property rights resulting from the
the Bill, which touches on some of the owners who made their
"handicaps" their act. The fact that the
in their case, to limit, is not determined by the nature of things,
but as a result of a specific assessment of the competent public authority,
on the basis of such restrictions.
18. The second condition, which, in this context, the Constitutional Court admits,
is the intensity of restrictions of property rights, which may be expressed more
factors, and in particular the question of the scope and length of the restriction itself
the duration of such restrictions, i.e., whether it is a temporary limitation or
permanent. The Constitutional Court has already, in its findings, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 3/2000 and sp.
Zn. PL. ÚS 8/02 pointed out the unconstitutionality of the unequal status of two
groups of owners, when one group of owners is required to bear the costs of
social policy of the State in the area of housing. This inequality has rational
basis in terms of the definition of the landlords concerned, because it is connected with the
the ocean relations resulting from the transformation of the right of personal use of the apartment.
But can no longer be found reasonable cause in relation to the obligations of the owners
suffer the cost of housing tenants. While at the time of transformation
the law of personal use of the apartment on the lease was given this reason, cannot be
find it at a time when it was already, and repeatedly, even the Constitutional Court
identifies the unconstitutionality of rent controls pursuant to Decree No.
176/1993 Coll., on rent from the apartment and pay for the implementation that is provided with
the use of the apartment, as amended, and in this context i
possible infringement of the right of ownership of a series of landlords. Restrictions
of property rights of this group of owners limit the constitutionally guaranteed
the ownership of some landlords significantly beyond the
restriction of ownership rights laid down for all owners. Such
While restrictions with regard to the range of costs to individual
landlords have been incurred without the latter of these costs have
any benefit, and the longevity of the State, which was due mainly
long term unconstitutional inaction by Parliament that more than four
years after the expiry of the period provided by the Constitutional Court in finding SP. zn. PL.
TC 3/2000 adopted a law allowing for unilateral raising of the regulated
the rent is to be regarded as so intense that must be
a subfield may under article. 11 (1) 4 of the Charter.
19. Article. 11 (1) 4 of the Charter itself contains no further adjustment
a wide range of practical issues, such as e.g. with which the public authority is
to be entitled to exercise, in which the time limits, etc. In this respect, it is necessary to
proceed analogously in accordance with its content and purpose of the nearest,
which is Act No. 82/1998 Coll., on liability for damage caused during
the exercise of public power by a decision or incorrect official procedure and on
the Czech National Council Act No. 357/1992 Coll., on the notarial profession, and their
activities (notarial regulations).
20. the Constitutional Court adds that, in the event of a claim for compensation for compulsory
restriction of ownership rights under art. 11 (1) 4 of the Charter is to be
to assess the question of its subsidiarity. On subsidiarity one claim against the
the other can speak only in those cases where the two claims at least
partially overlap (e.g., typically can compete with a claim for
damages and the claim on the unjust enrichment). In case conducted under the sp.
Zn. IV. TC 175/08, however, actually no competition claims.
The landlord to the tenant is unable to claim the difference
between the normal and the controlled rent for the last time, but it could
apply only the increase in rent from the date of filing of the application. The compensation,
which the complainant in proceedings before general courts sought, pointing towards the
State and concerned just already ended the period 2002 to 2005. Out of it
clearly implies that no competing claim for compensation against the lessee
the landlord in this period, not as well as he had no right to
increase in rent during this period. Claim for compensation for the forced restriction
ownership rights to the State apparently refers to another entity and another
legal title, and therefore, it cannot be ruled out, with reference to the subsidiarity
a claim for damages in respect of claims, which had the landlord allegedly have
against the tenants.
21. From the foregoing, it is necessary to thoroughly consider what claim
the landlord applies. In the case of compensation for the forced limitation of property
rights for the period before making a claim against the tenant-like. in the matter of
the present I the Senate under SP. zn. I. ÚS 2220/08, when an action against
the State was made on 13 June. 7.2005 and the complainant claimed compensation for
the period from 2002 to 2004--cannot be made conditional on the claim by first
has to apply efficient means to protect the rights against the lessee, as
the landlord no claim for this period against the lessee does not have. The landlord
to the right of the lessee has a higher rent only on the basis of the decision of the
the Court, whose constitutive effects-with regard to the above constitutional landed
context-there are no ex nunc, but 5 on the day of action;
in no case, however, in the past, IE. by the time of the previous administration
of the action.
22. The question of whether the case was given to a specific claim of the complainant on
compensation for the forced restriction of ownership rights under art. 11 (1) 4
Of the Charter, is left to question the General Court, which must weigh in
what extent the result of rent control to the intervention in its
the fundamental right to own property, as well as whether in his case have been
the fulfilment of the above conditions for the emergence of the rights to compensation. The very
the unconstitutionality of the legislation because rent control mean
that in each individual case the fundamental right has been violated
the landlord (owner of the apartment). Also, it must be stressed that the above
the right to compensation for the forced restriction of ownership rights under art. 11
paragraph. 4 of the Charter may not be identical with the difference between the normal and
controlled rent. General courts may be entitled to compensation against
the State reject a priori, but shall in respect of the above
the conclusions consider individual claims individually. In this
the meaning of is, therefore, the alleged claim of the lessor (owner of the apartment)
legally assessed in terms of the rights to compensation under art. 11 (1) 4
Of the Charter. The general courts are obliged to make in this direction within the meaning of §
118a of the code of civil procedure process enough space to both
Parties may comment on the new law and, where appropriate,
apply the new evidence or arguments.
23. The Constitutional Court also points out that in any case is not considered
the whole thing finally resolved, but it does raise a strong appeal to
the legislature, in order to again and this time systematically dealt with the
the issue of rent control and took account of measures which
for example. He accepted the Polish legislature in response to the ruling of the European Court
for human rights in the matter of Hutten-Czapska, i.e. in the pilot case within the
relation to the rent control in Poland, which for a long time demonstrated a
similar constitutional flaws as rent controls in the Czech
Republic. In this context, Poland approved the law in 2006, which
allow for faster rent increases to the amount which would
It was enough to cover the maintenance costs including return
paid-in capital and a reasonable profit, further edited by civil
the liability of the villages for damages that arise due to owner
failure to provide a social apartment tenants, which due to low income
a right to a social apartment allocated to municipalities. It can also be of
point of view of the Polish Government's intention positively evaluated from 2008, with the aim of
was the introduction of the system of compensatory allowances paid to owners,
whose property was subject to the system of rent control in 1994
to 2005 [cf. the judgment of (amicable settlement) of the European Court of human
the law of 28 June. April, 2008 in the matter of Hutten-Czapska against Poland, no.
35014/97, paragraphs 14 to 26].
The President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský in r.
Different opinions under section 14 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court,
as amended, took to the opinion of the judges of the plenum Vlasta
Formankova, Pavel Holländer, Vladimir Crust, Jiří Mucha and Jiří Nykodým
and only for the reasons Judge Ivana Janů and Elisabeth Wagner
(different opinions are available on the
http://nalus.usoud.cz/Search/GetText.aspx? AC = st-27-09_1).
* Note. Red: a collection of findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court, volume 40, finding
# 47, p. 389, promulgated under Act No. 253/2006 Coll.
