Last Updated on June 13, 2021 by LawEuro
The case concerns the applicants’ inability to use their flats and, in particular, to collect an adequate rent from their tenants, who had been recognised as having the legal status of protected lessees under the protected lease scheme.
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF SKELIN-HRVOJ AND ĐURIČIĆ v. CROATIA
(Applications nos. 23414/15 and 52161/15)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 June 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Skelin-Hrvoj and Đuričić v. Croatia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Erik Wennerström, President,
Lorraine Schembri Orland,
Ioannis Ktistakis, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications (nos. 23414/15 and 52161/15) against the Republic of Croatia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Croatian national, Ms Jadranka Skelin-Hrvoj (“the first applicant”) and a Serbian national, Mr Đorđe Đuričić (“the second applicant”), on 6 May and 16 October 2015 respectively;
the decision to give notice to the Croatian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning the applicants’ property rights and to declare the remainder of application no. 52161/15 inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
the notice given to the Serbian Government of their right to intervene (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 1 (a) of the Rules of Court), and the fact that they did not avail themselves of this possibility;
Having deliberated in private on 18 May 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
1. The case concerns the applicants’ inability to use their flats and, in particular, to collect an adequate rent from their tenants, who had been recognised as having the legal status of protected lessees under the protected lease scheme.
THE FACTS
2. The first applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Zagreb. The second applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Belgrade. The first applicant was represented by Ms M. Drča, an advocate practising in Zagreb. The second applicant was represented by Ms J. Tucak, a former advocate who had been granted leave to continue to represent the applicant after she ceased to be a member of the Croatian Bar Association, in accordance with Rule 36 § 4 (a) of the Rules of Court.
3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik.
4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
I. Background to the case
5. The applicants are the owners of flats occupied by protected lessees (zaštićeni najmoprimci). Under the Lease of Flats Act (Zakon o najmu stanova), which entered into force on 5 November 1996, such lessees are subject to a number of protective measures, such as the duty of landlords to enter into a lease of indefinite duration; the payment of protected rent (zaštićena najamnina), the amount of which is set by the Government and is significantly lower than the market rent; and better protection against termination of the lease.
II. Civil proceedings
A. Proceedings in the first applicant’s case
6. The first applicant refused to enter into a lease contract stipulating the protected rent pursuant to the Lease of Flats Act (see paragraph 37 below), with a certain A.N.H., who had been living in her flat since 1945. On 17 July 1997 A.N.H. brought a civil action against the first applicant before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu), relying on the same Act (see paragraph 37 below), with a view to obtaining recognition of her legal status as a protected lessee, and a judgment in the place of such a contract.
7. On 30 July 1999 the first applicant brought a counterclaim before the same court, seeking to obtain a judgment ordering A.N.H. and the members of her household to vacate the flat in question and to move into another flat, also owned by the first applicant. She argued her claim on the ground that she wanted to install her then eight-year-old daughter in the flat occupied by the tenants.
8. By a judgment of 17 April 2001, the Zagreb Civil Court found in favour of A.N.H. It recognised her status as a protected lessee and substituted the lease contract with the judgment, stipulating protected rent in the amount of 111.79 Croatian kunas (HRK)[1] per month. The court dismissed the first applicant’s counterclaim as unfounded.
9. On 13 September 2005, upon an appeal lodged by the first applicant, the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) quashed the first‑instance judgment in the part allowing A.N.H.’s claim. It remitted the case in that part to the Zagreb Civil Court. It also upheld the first-instance judgment in the part dismissing the first applicant’s counterclaim.
10. On 27 June 2007 A.N.H. died and the new proceedings were taken over by her son Ž.G. as her heir. He argued that he had also been entitled to enter into a lease contract under the protected lease scheme, in view of the fact that he had been a member of his deceased mother’s household. The first applicant lodged a new counterclaim seeking his eviction. She also repeated her argument that she intended to install her daughter in the flat.
11. By a judgment of 18 October 2011 the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court (Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu) allowed Ž.G.’s claim. It recognised his status as a protected lessee and substituted the lease contract with the judgment, stipulating protected rent in the amount of HRK 294.41[2] per month. The court dismissed the first applicant’s counterclaim as unfounded.
12. On 17 July 2012 the Zagreb County Court dismissed an appeal by the first applicant and upheld the first-instance judgment, which thereby became final.
13. The first applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal on points of law against the second-instance judgment, questioning the requirements for the recognition of the legal status of protected lessee.
14. On 19 March 2014 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) declared the first applicant’s extraordinary appeal on points of law inadmissible. It considered that she had not sufficiently defined one of the questions of law she had raised and had not referred to legislation and other sources of law in that regard. It further held that the other point she had raised concerned a question of fact rather than a question of law.
15. The first applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske), alleging a violation of her right of ownership. In particular, she complained about the inadequate level of the protected rent and the inability to charge the market rent for her flat. In doing so, she relied on the relevant provisions of the Croatian Constitution guaranteeing the right of ownership, and on the Court’s judgment in Bittó and Others v. Slovakia (no. 30255/09, 28 January 2014).
16. By a decision of 9 October 2014, the Constitutional Court declared that the first applicant’s constitutional complaint with regard to the second‑instance judgment was inadmissible as being out of time, and that the case did not raise a constitutional issue with regard to the Supreme Court decision. The Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the first applicant’s representative on 21 October 2014.
B. Proceedings in the second applicant’s case
17. On 17 October 2000 a certain Al.M. brought a civil action against M.M. (the second applicant’s predecessor) before the Zadar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zadru), seeking to be recognised as a protected lessee in respect of a flat owned by M.M., and to obtain a judgment in the place of a contract, stipulating protected rent. M.M., having been adjudged to be a person whose whereabouts were unknown, had a special guardian ad litem appointed to represent him in the proceedings.
18. By a judgment of 19 December 2001, the Zadar Municipal Court found in favour of Al.M. It recognised his status as a protected lessee and substituted the lease contract with the judgment, stipulating protected rent in the amount of HRK 152.76[3] per month. That decision became final on 21 January 2002.
19. On 28 July 2010 the Zadar Municipal Court established that M.M. had died on 12 April 1977 and declared the second applicant to be M.M.’s sole heir. That decision became final on 28 September 2010. On 26 October 2010 the second applicant was recorded in the land register as the owner of the flat occupied by Al.M.
20. On 15 July 2011 the second applicant lodged an application against An.M. – Al.M’s heir and a member of his household at the time of Al.M.’s death – seeking the reopening of the above-mentioned proceedings (see paragraph 18 above) on account of the fact that M.M. could not have been a party to those proceedings, as he had died before the civil action against him had been brought before the court (see paragraphs 17 and 19 above). The second applicant further argued that as M.M.’s heir he should have been given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings.
21. On 5 July 2012 the Zadar Municipal Court ordered the reopening of the proceedings and set aside the final judgment of 19 December 2001 (see paragraph 18 above).
22. By a new judgment of 13 December 2013, the Zadar Municipal Court found in favour of An.M. It recognised his status as a protected lessee and substituted the lease contract with the judgment, stipulating protected rent in the amount of HRK 268.56[4] per month.
23. On 29 April 2014, upon an appeal lodged by the second applicant, the Zadar County Court (Županijski sud u Zadru) upheld the first-instance judgment.
24. The second applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal on points of law against the second-instance judgment, questioning the requirements for the recognition of the legal status of protected lessee.
25. On 26 November 2014 the Supreme Court declared the second applicant’s extraordinary appeal on points of law inadmissible, as it considered that the lower courts’ findings were in line with the Supreme Court’s case-law.
26. The second applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court. He complained, relying on the Court’s judgment in the case of Statileo v. Croatia (no. 12027/10, 10 July 2014), that his right of ownership, guaranteed by Article 48 § 1 of the Croatian Constitution, had been breached.
27. By a decision of 16 April 2015, the Constitutional Court declared the second applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible, finding that the case did not raise a constitutional issue. That decision was served on the second applicant’s representative on 23 April 2015.
C. The protected rent
28. According to the information submitted by the first applicant, the level of the monthly protected rent for her flat changed in the period after the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Croatia (5 November 1997) in the manner indicated below. The Government did not contest this information.
The amount of protected rent for the first applicant’s flat
|
Application no. 23414/15 |
||
| Size of the flat with the pertaining woodshed in square metres | Amount of the protected rent in HRK | Period |
|
64.32 |
129.61 | 1 December 1997-31 December 2001 |
| 196.57 | 1 January 2002-30 November 2003 | |
| 202.33 | 1 December 2003-31 May 2005 | |
| 200.00 | 1 June 2005-30 June 2007 | |
| 266.04 | 1 July 2007-30 April 2008 | |
| 294.51 | 1 May 2008-31 May 2010 | |
| 206.15 | 1 June 2010-31 August 2012 | |
| 304.24 | 1 September 2012-28 February 2018 | |
29. The second applicant submitted a document dated 20 October 2016 showing that the monthly protected rent for his flat measuring 99.84 square metres was set at HRK 268.56 from the period after the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Croatia (5 November 1997). The Government did not contest this information.
30. It appears from the documents submitted by the parties that the applicants had refused to receive the protected rent for their flats and that A.N.H. had had to deposit it with a court, and An.M. with a notary public.
31. Since the first applicant’s flat was located in a family house entirely owned by her, there had been no common reserve fund for maintenance. Thus, there had been no condominium fee (pričuva) to be paid. However, the first applicant stated that from 1999 onwards she had borne the costs of the repair and maintenance of the common areas of the house in the total amount of EUR 65,739. She also submitted documentation suggesting that she had in fact incurred such costs. The Government disputed that any of the works mentioned by the applicant had related to the maintenance of the flat in which the protected lessee lived.
32. According to a document submitted by the second applicant, it appears that the condominium fee for the second applicant’s flat was set at HRK 1.53 per square metre on 10 February 1998 and has not been changed since. The Government submitted a document dated 26 June 2002 showing that the council of co-owners of the building in which the second applicant’s flat was located had agreed that Al.M.’s family should pay the condominium fee for the account of M.M., whose whereabouts were unknown. The council of co-owners had also agreed that the payment of the condominium fee would constitute compensation for the protected lease that Al.M. had owed to M.M.
33. There is no information in the case files concerning the payment of income tax on the income generated by renting the applicants’ flats which were subject to the protected lease scheme.
D. The average monthly market rent
34. The applicants furnished information as regards the monthly market rent for flats in the vicinity.
35. The first applicant submitted:
(a) two advertisements from the Internet, both dated 3 May 2015, offering furnished flats for rent in residential buildings as follows:
(i) 60 sq. m for EUR 450 per month;
(ii) 65 sq. m for EUR 500 per month; and two other advertisements from the same date offering for rent furnished flats of 50 sq. m for EUR 450 per month.
(b) a letter from a real estate agency dated 19 February 2018 indicating rental price trends for flats in Zagreb for the period from 1997 to 2018, as follows:
|
Price trends for flats in Zagreb from 1997 to 2018 |
|
| Period | Monthly rent per square metre |
| 1997-2001 | 10-15 German marks |
| 2002-2003 | EUR 5-7 |
| 2004-2008 | EUR 7-12 |
| 2009-2018 | EUR 7-9 |
(c) four advertisements from the Internet dated 19 February 2018 offering for rent furnished flats in residential buildings as follows:
(i) 52 sq. m for EUR 450 per month;
(ii) 55 sq. m for EUR 500 per month;
(iii) 68 sq. m for EUR 550 per month;
(iv) 58 sq. m for EUR 550 per month.
36. The second applicant submitted:
(a) the search results dated 6 October 2016 from an Internet site containing advertisements for flats for rent, which indicate that the price range of a monthly rent for a flat measuring 90 to 100 sq. m in a residential building or family house in Zadar varied from EUR 300 to EUR 1,000;
(b) an advertisement from the Internet dated 8 February 2018 offering for rent a 95 sq. m furnished flat in a residential building for EUR 800 per month, and another advertisement of 19 February 2018 offering for rent a 90 sq. m furnished flat in a residential building for EUR 800 per month;
(c) the search results from an Internet site dated 27 February 2018 offering for rent during peak tourist season flats in Zadar of a size similar to that belonging to the second applicant, indicating that the rental price varied from EUR 143 to EUR 305 per night.
RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE
37. The relevant provisions of the Lease of Flats Act and the other relevant domestic law and practice is set out in Statileo (cited above, §§ 23‑87).
38. On 4 August 2018 the Amendments to the Lease of Flats Act (Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama Zakona o najmu stanova, Official Gazette, no. 68/2018, 27 July 2018) entered into force. In so far as relevant for the present case, the amendments provided for a progressive increase in the amount of protected rent over a period of five years starting from 1 September 2018. Further, they provided that as of 1 September 2023 the right to a protected rent and all other rights conferred on the protected lessees would be extinguished. If the protected lessees did not enter into a new lease contract with the owner, they would be obliged to vacate the flat in their occupation by 1 September 2023 at latest. By a decision of 14 September 2020, the Constitutional Court invalidated those amendments as unconstitutional.
39. The Constitutional Court’s case no. U-III-604/2016 concerned proceedings instituted by the owner of a flat subject to the protected lease scheme, in respect of which the civil courts had adopted a final judgment replacing the contract and stipulating the protected rent. In its decision of 4 October 2017 the Constitutional Court allowed the owner’s constitutional complaint as it considered that the civil courts had not provided sufficient reasoning for their decisions. In particular, when recognising that the opposing parties had the legal status of protected lessees, the civil courts had failed to take into account the fact that one of the protected lessees had been a property owner. In the Constitutional Court’s view, such a failure constituted a violation of the owner’s constitutional right to fair proceedings and his constitutional right of ownership.
40. Section 128 of the Ownership and other Rights in Rem Act (Zakon o vlasništvu i drugim stvarnim pravima, Official Gazette, 91/96 with subsequent amendments), which has been in force since 1 January 1997, provides that an heir acquires ownership from the moment the deceased’s inheritance takes effect, namely upon his death.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
41. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL no. 1 to THE CONVENTION
42. The applicants complained that they had been unable to use their flats, and in particular to charge adequate rent for their leases. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which reads as follows:
“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 right 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.”
43. The Government contested that argument.
A. Admissibility
1. The parties’ arguments
(a) The Government
44. The Government argued that the first applicant had failed to comply with the six-month time-limit for lodging an application because the final domestic decision in the proceedings complained of had been served on her representative on 21 October 2014 (see paragraph 16 above), whereas she had lodged her application with the Court on 6 May 2015. They further argued that the applicants had not properly exhausted domestic remedies.
45. As concerns the first applicant, the Government submitted that she had never complained before the ordinary courts that the level of protected rent for which she was entitled to rent out her flat had been inadequate. On the contrary, she had raised this issue for the first time in her constitutional complaint.
46. As concerns the second applicant, the Government submitted that in his constitutional complaint he had failed to raise the relevant arguments concerning the alleged violation of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions; namely, in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, he had failed to argue that he had not been able to regain possession of his flat or to charge the market rent for its lease. The Government concluded that the Constitutional Court would have examined the applicants’ complaints concerning the inadequate level of protected rent had the applicants properly raised them, as it had examined a similar complaint in case no. U‑III‑604/2016 (see paragraph 39 above).
(b) The applicants
47. The first applicant argued that the violation complained of arose from national legislation which had been contrary to the requirements of the Court’s case-law under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Specifically, the legislative framework itself had imposed an excessive individual burden on the owners of flats which were subject to the protected lease scheme, as they were required to bear most of the social and financial costs of providing housing for protected lessees. Since, in the first applicant’s view, the alleged breach of her right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions had constituted a continuing situation arising from the national legislation, she argued that the Government’s claim concerning the expiry of the six-month time-limit was unfounded.
48. As concerns the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the first applicant submitted that it was understandable that she had not complained about the inadequate amount of rent in the civil proceedings before ordinary courts. She could only have done so after the ordinary courts had ruled against her in the civil proceedings, and after it had been decided that the tenant was entitled to enter into a lease contract with her, stipulating protected rent. Indeed, after the civil proceedings before the ordinary courts had ended, she had raised this issue in her constitutional complaint.
49. The second applicant did not comment on the Government’s objection regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies.
2. The Court’s assessment
50. The Court notes that it has already established in Statileo that the disproportionate and excessive burden imposed on flat owners, resulting from the application of the rent-control scheme, stemmed from the national legislation itself (see Statileo v. Croatia, no. 12027/10, § 165, 10 July 2014). In such circumstances the Court considers that the first applicant could not have challenged effectively the amount of protected rent or her inability to recover possession of her flat unconditionally, in the context of the civil proceedings instituted by the opposing party seeking to obtain a judgment in the place of a contract stipulating protected rent. Nor did the first applicant have any other avenue at her disposal to address such grievances effectively.
51. It thus follows that the alleged violation constituted a continuing situation, in which case the six-month period starts to run from the end of the situation concerned (see Bittó and Others v. Slovakia, no. 30255/09, § 75, 28 January 2014). Since no legislative changes had been made to the protected lease scheme (see paragraphs 37-38 above), the situation complained of still obtains and the six-month period had never started to run. The Court therefore dismisses the Government’s objection in this regard.
52. For the same reason the Court also dismisses the Government’s objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of the first applicant. Furthermore, the Court confirms its findings that an owner cannot complain about the inadequate level of protected rent before it is established by the domestic court that a tenant is entitled to enter into a lease contract stipulating protected rent with him or her (see Statileo, cited above, § 96).
53. The above considerations (see paragraphs 50 and 52) apply to the second applicant as well. In addition to these considerations, the Court notes that he expressly relied on Statileo (cited above) in his constitutional complaint. It thus also dismisses the objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of the second applicant.
54. By way of observation, the Court also notes that the Government’s reliance on the Constitutional Court case no. U-III-604/2016 is irrelevant because in that case the Constitutional Court did not examine whether an excessive burden had been imposed on the owner as a result of the application of the rent-control scheme. It instead found a violation of the constitutional right to fair proceedings and of the right of ownership, on account of the fact that the civil courts had failed to provide sufficient reasoning for their recognition that the opposing parties had the legal status of protected lessees (see paragraph 39 above).
55. The Court further notes that these complaints are neither manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention nor inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
56. The Court notes that it has already found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in a case raising similar issues to the present one (see Statileo, cited above, §§ 116-45).
57. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
58. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
59. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
1. The parties’ submissions
60. The first applicant claimed 107,072.25 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage. She explained that this amount corresponded to the difference between the monthly protected rent and the monthly market rent for her flat in the period between 1 December 1997 (the first month after the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Croatia) and the end of February 2018, that is, the month in which she submitted her claim for just satisfaction. She also claimed EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
61. The second applicant claimed EUR 374,400 in respect of pecuniary damage. In so far as can be understood from his submissions, he claimed EUR 780 per month (the difference between the monthly protected rent and the monthly market rent) over a period of forty years, counting from 1978 (the first year following the year of his predecessor’s death) until 2018. He further claimed EUR 780 per month in respect of future pecuniary damage he would sustain as long as his flat was occupied by the protected lessee. He also claimed EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
62. The Government contested those claims, deeming them excessive, unfounded and unsubstantiated. In particular, as concerns the first applicant, the Government argued that she had stated in the course of the domestic proceedings that she had intended to install her daughter in the flat in question. She had therefore not proved that she would have rented the flat and charged the market rent. As concerns the second applicant, the Government argued that he had not been entitled to claim for pecuniary damage for the period that preceded his registration as the owner of the flat in question in the land register (see paragraph 19 above).
2. The Court’s assessment
(a) Pecuniary damage
63. The Court considers that the applicants must have suffered pecuniary damage as a result of their inability to charge an adequate rent for their flats starting from 5 November 1997 (the date of the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Croatia). Given that when making her claim for just satisfaction, the first applicant sought compensation for pecuniary damage for the period between 1 December 1997 and 28 February 2018, the Court can award her such compensation only for that period. The Court dismisses the Government’s argument that the second applicant should not be entitled to compensation for the period that preceded his registration as the owner of the flat in question in the land register, because domestic law provides that an heir acquires ownership from the moment the deceased’s inheritance takes effect, namely upon his death (see paragraph 40 above).
64. The Court has already stated in Statileo (cited above, § 157) that the compensation for such pecuniary damage should cover the difference between the protected rent, which the Court has found to be inadequate, and the adequate rent.
65. In the light of the foregoing, and in order to determine an adequate level of rent in the present case, the Court has made an estimate, taking into account in particular the information submitted by the applicants concerning the market rent for comparable flats in the relevant period (see paragraphs 34-36 above) and the protected rent the applicants were entitled to receive in the same period (see paragraphs 11 and 22 above). The Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 54,200 to the first applicant and EUR 95,100 to the second applicant on account of pecuniary damage.
66. Under Article 41 of the Convention, the purpose of awarding sums by way of just satisfaction is to provide reparation solely for damage suffered by those concerned to the extent that it is a consequence of the violation found that cannot otherwise be remedied. It is therefore not for the Court to quantify the amount of any damage which the second applicant may suffer as a result of the implementation of the rent-control scheme in the future (see Amato Gauci v. Malta, no. 47045/06, § 80, 15 September 2009, and Bittó and Others v. Slovakia (just satisfaction), no. 30255/09, § 27, 7 July 2015). The Court therefore dismisses the second applicant’s claim for subsequent losses, without prejudice to any future claims he may have.
(b) Non-pecuniary damage
67. The Court also finds that the applicants must have sustained non‑pecuniary damage (see Statileo, cited above, § 159). Ruling on an equitable basis, the Court awards EUR 5,000 to each applicant under that head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
68. The first applicant also claimed EUR 1,245 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. The second applicant claimed EUR 9,600 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and before the Court.
69. The Government submitted that the claims for expenses should be rejected as excessive, and because they had been lodged without any supporting documents.
70. As regards the claim for the costs and expenses the second applicant incurred before the domestic courts, the Court notes, having regard to its above findings (see paragraphs 48 and 49 above), that the costs claimed were not incurred in order to seek, through the domestic legal order, prevention or redress of the violation found by the Court (see Statileo, cited above, §§ 20 and 162). It therefore rejects the second applicant’s claim for costs and expenses under this head.
71. As to the costs incurred before the Court, regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 1,245 to the first applicant and EUR 1,000 to the second applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
72. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the applications admissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
4. Holds,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 54,200 (fifty-four thousand two hundred euros) to the first applicant and EUR 95,100 (ninety-five thousand one hundred euros) to the second applicant in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) each to the first and second applicants, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(iii) EUR 1,245 (one thousand two hundred and forty-five euros) to the first applicant and EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) to the second applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 June 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv Tigerstedt Erik Wennerström
Deputy Registrar President
___________
[1] Approximately 14.72 euros (EUR) at the time.
[2] Approximately EUR 39.32 at the time.
[3] Approximately EUR 20.47 at the time.
[4] Approximately EUR 35.14 at the time.
Leave a Reply