CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 septembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 9 October 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 8055/23 Václav ŽALUD against the Czech Republic lodged on 10 February 2023 communicated on 18 September 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present application concerns the rent-control scheme in the Czech Republic as it operated until December 1999. The applicant (originally his father), who owned rented property, filed an action for damages against the State which was rejected by the domestic courts (final decision of 18   October 2022) on the ground that although the difference between the free-market and controlled rent was gradually increasing and became significant during the 1990s, it did not reach levels that would raise an issue of unconstitutionality. Also, the general interests of the community still prevailed over the competing interests of the landlords, excluding therefore the applicant’s entitlement to compensation for the interference with his property rights. The applicant alleges violations of Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1   and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of his possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the operation of the laws imposing rent control in the period until 31   December 1999 and the rejection by the domestic courts of his related claims (see Hutten-Czapska v. Poland [GC], no.   35014/97, §§   152-153, ECHR 2006-VIII)?   2.     If so, was that interference justified as a measure of control on the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did the Czech authorities maintain a fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the requirements of the applicant’s right to “the peaceful enjoyment” of his possession under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, or did they impose a disproportionate and excessive burden on him (see Hutten-Czapska v. Poland , cited above, §§   167-168)?