Opinion In The Matter Of Decisions Of The Assembly, Tc. The Courts About Rent Increases

Original Language Title: stanovisko pléna ÚS ve věci rozhod. soudů o zvyšování nájemného

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now

Read the untranslated law here: https://portal.gov.cz/app/zakony/download?idBiblio=68605&nr=136~2F2009~20Sb.&ft=txt

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.