THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\nI.\u00a0\u00a0JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n
9.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers that given their common factual and legal background the two applications should be joined, in accordance with Rule\u00a042 \u00a7 1 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n
II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1<\/p>\n
10.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained that their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions had been breached as a result of the implementation of rules governing rent control that applied to their property. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n
\u201cEvery 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.<\/p>\n
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.\u201d<\/p>\n
A.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n1.\u00a0\u00a0Locus standi of the wife of the deceased applicant<\/em><\/p>\n11.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has been informed that the applicant, Mr M. Mego had died on 26 July 2017 and that his wife Ms O. Silnick\u00e1 had expressed her wish to pursue the application in his stead.<\/p>\n
12.\u00a0\u00a0The Government expressed no opinion on this matter.<\/p>\n
13.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Court notes that the present application concerns a property right which is in principle transferable to the next of kin of the deceased person, and that the applicant had died after having lodged the application. It has in similar context accepted standing of the relatives of the deceased applicants who expressed the wish to pursue the applicant (see Bitt\u00f3 and Others v. Slovakia (merits), no. 30255\/09, \u00a7 74, 28 January 2014).<\/p>\n
It therefore considers that Ms O. Silnick\u00e1 has standing to continue the present proceedings in her late husband\u2019s stead.<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0Compliance with the six-months\u2019 time-limit<\/em><\/p>\n(a)\u00a0\u00a0The applicants Mr J. Badal and Ms M. Stracov\u00e1<\/strong><\/p>\n14.\u00a0\u00a0The Government objected that the following applicants ceased to be the owners of some of the flats included in their application more than six months prior to its lodging on 29 June 2017 and that, therefore, the application lodged in relation to these flats is to be rejected as belated:<\/p>\n
–\u00a0Mr J. Badal in respect of the flats nos. 1, 15 and 17 at 102 \u0160ancov\u00e1 St. in Bratislava,<\/p>\n
–\u00a0Ms M. Stracov\u00e1 in respect of the flats nos. 2 and 3 at 21\u00a0Gr\u00f6sslingov\u00e1 St. in Bratislava.<\/p>\n
15.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants explained that on 13\u00a0November 2013 and 1\u00a0January 2014 respectively, the apartment buildings in question had undergone a\u00a0transformation of the ownership structure. Hence, Mr Badal who had previously owned one third of the apartment building at 102 \u0160ancov\u00e1 St. became an exclusive owner of the flats nos. 7 and 21 in that building, and Ms Stracov\u00e1, previously an owner of one half of the apartment building at 21 Gr\u00f6sslingov\u00e1 St., became an exclusive owner of the flats nos. 5, 6 and 12 in that building. They argued that in these particular circumstances, the six months\u2019 time limit should be considered respected also with regard to the flats that they had no longer owned at the time of lodging their application.<\/p>\n
16.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, it may only deal with a matter \u201cwithin a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken\u201d. Where the alleged violation constitutes a\u00a0continuing situation in respect of which no domestic remedy is available, such as the application of the rent-control scheme in the present case, the six-month period starts to run from the end of the situation concerned (see Bitt\u00f3 and Others (merits), cited above, \u00a7\u00a075). The Court held in the previous rent-control cases that the situation complained of ended for the applicants at the moment when the rent control had ceased to apply to their property or the applicants had transferred the property to another person (see Me\u010diar and Others v. Slovakia, no. 62864\/09, \u00a7\u00a7 15-16, 10 January 2017). Applying these principles, the Court considers that the transformation of the ownership structure of the relevant apartment buildings had constituted the end of the situation complained of in respect of the flats which the applicants had ceased to own at that moment. It further observes that nothing had prevented the applicants to lodge their application with the Court within six months after the transformation of the ownership structure. The Court therefore rejects the part of the application no. 48691\/17 concerning flats nos. 1, 15 and 17 at 102 \u0160ancov\u00e1 St. (Mr Badal) and flats nos. 2 and 3 at 21\u00a0Gr\u00f6sslingov\u00e1 St. (Ms\u00a0Stracov\u00e1), both located in Bratislava, as introduced out of time.<\/p>\n
(b)\u00a0\u00a0The applicant Mr I. Bielek<\/strong><\/p>\n17.\u00a0\u00a0The Government further objected that at the time of lodging the application on 28 December 2016, the applicant Mr I.\u00a0Bielek had no longer owned flats nos. 5, 9, 14 and 20\u2011C at 17 Tren\u010dianska St. in Bratislava and that, therefore, the application in respect of these flats was lodged out of the six months\u2019 time limit. They also pointed out that the rent control scheme has not applied to flats nos. 1 and 5 (45.58 sq. m.) located in the same building because they were non\u2011residential premises and that flat no. 17 at 1\u00a0Heydukova St. in Bratislava was not registered at the relevant ownership deed.<\/p>\n
18.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant replied by limiting the scope of his just satisfaction claims to the flats nos. 3, 4, and 5 (43.25 sq. m.) at 17\u00a0Tren\u010dianska St. and flat no. 17 at 1\u00a0Heydukova St. He explained that on 1 July 2011 a tenant residing in flat no. 5 (43.25 sq. m.) at 17 Tren\u010dianska St. had moved to flat no. 17 at 1\u00a0Heydukova St. due to unsatisfactory technical conditions of the former flat and that he claimed pecuniary damage in respect of the former flat only until that moment. He further clarified that following a renumbering of the flats in the relevant apartment building the latter flat has been assigned a\u00a0new no. 13.<\/p>\n
19.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that in reaction to the Government\u2019s objection the applicant narrowed the scope of his application to the rent control applied in respect of flats nos. 3, 4, and 5 (43.25 sq. m.) at 17 Tren\u010dianska St. (the last mentioned flat until 30 June 2011) and flat no. 17 (currently no.\u00a013) at 1 Heydukova St. As the Government\u2019s objection concerned the flats that are no longer within the scope of the application, the Court finds it unnecessary to make a separate ruling on this point.<\/p>\n
20.\u00a0\u00a0Furthermore, there seem to be no dispute between the parties that the situation when the tenant had moved from one flat to another constituted a\u00a0continuing situation for the purposes of the calculation of the six-month time-limit which is in line with the previous case-law (see Bajz\u00edk and Others v. Slovakia, [Committee] nos. 46609\/13 and 9892\/14, \u00a7\u00a025, 27 June 2017). The Court is further satisfied with the applicant\u2019s explanation concerning the renumbering of the flat 17 to flat no. 13 at 1 Heydukova St. There are therefore no outstanding issues regarding this applicant and the Government\u2019s objection should be dismissed.<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0The remaining Government\u2019s objections<\/em><\/p>\n21.\u00a0\u00a0The Government raised two further objections as to the admissibility of the present applications. Firstly, they objected that certain flats in the apartment buildings were not separately entered in the ownership deeds and it cannot be verified whether these flats exist. Secondly, they argued that the applicants had failed to submit documents proving that the rent control applied to their flats during the relevant period and the actual rent paid to them by the tenants. They reiterated that the Government maintain no list of flats subjected to rent control.<\/p>\n
22.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants submitted detailed expert reports and the documents that prove that the flats owned by the applicants were subjected to rent control and its duration. They further submitted declarations signed by each individual applicant that all data submitted to the Court correspond to reality. As to the actual amount of regulated rent collected from tenants, the applicants stated that the experts calculated the pecuniary damage on the basis of the maximum regulated rent permissible under the relevant legislation regardless of the amounts they had actually received from tenants.<\/p>\n
23.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers, as in the previous rent control cases and in the absence of an official register of the flats subjected to rent control, that the documents submitted by the applicants, in particular the detailed expert reports, sufficiently substantiate that their flats were subjected to rent control and the duration thereof. It is also satisfied with taking into consideration the maximum rent permissible under the rent-control scheme instead of the actual rent collected by the applicants which, by definition, may have been only lower (see Bitt\u00f3 and Others (merits), cited above, \u00a7\u00a0111).The Court therefore considers that the application and the evidence submitted by the applicants contain sufficient information for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention. It follows that the Government\u2019s objections in this regard should be dismissed.<\/p>\n
24.\u00a0\u00a0The Court further notes that the remainder of the applications is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n
B.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n25.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants argued that the restrictions applied to the use of their property under the rent\u2011control scheme had imposed a disproportionate burden on their ownership rights.<\/p>\n
The Government, for their part, referred to the conclusions reached by the Court in Bitt\u00f3 and Others ((merits), cited above) and subsequent rent control cases.<\/p>\n
26.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reminds that in Bitt\u00f3 and Others ((merits), cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0101-119) and subsequent rent control cases, it found (i) that the rent\u2011control scheme had amounted to an interference with the applicants\u2019 property, (ii) that that interference had constituted a means of State control of the use of their property to be examined under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, (iii) that it had been \u201clawful\u201d within the meaning of that Article, (iv) that it had pursued a legitimate social-policy aim, and (v) that it had been \u201cin accordance with the general interest\u201d, as required by the second paragraph of that Article. As to the requirement of proportionality, it concluded that in implementing the rent-control scheme the authorities had failed to strike the requisite fair balance between the general interests of the community and the protection of the applicants\u2019 property rights, as a result of which there had been a violation of their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.<\/p>\n
27.\u00a0\u00a0The present cases follow the pattern of Bitt\u00f3 and Others and subsequent rent control cases and the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading the Court to reach a\u00a0different conclusion in the present cases. Having regard to its well\u2011established case-law on the subject, the Court considers that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.<\/p>\n
III.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION, TAKEN TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1<\/p>\n
28.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants maintained that the restrictions imposed by the rent\u2011control scheme amounted to discriminatory treatment in violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Article 14 reads as follows:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.\u201d<\/p>\n
29.\u00a0\u00a0As in Bitt\u00f3 and Others ((merits), cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 120-25) and subsequent rent control cases, the Court concludes that in view of its conclusion that there had been a breach of the applicants\u2019 rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, no separate issue arises under Article 14.<\/p>\n
IV.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n
30.\u00a0\u00a0Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n
\u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
A.\u00a0\u00a0Damage<\/strong><\/p>\n31.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants claimed compensation for the pecuniary damage which they had suffered as a result of the rent\u2011control scheme. They submitted expert opinions determining the claimed amounts as the difference between the market rent applicable to similar dwellings and the maximum amount of regulated rent which they could charge under the relevant legislation. Those sums were then increased by the default interest applicable under Slovakian law. The applicants further asserted that the level of award should reflect that in Bitt\u00f3 and Others and objected that the Court\u2019s awards in the post Bitt\u00f3 judgments had been lower. The applicant\u2019s specific individual claims in respect of pecuniary damage are set out in Appendices 3\u00a0\u2011\u00a04 (column G). In addition, the applicants claimed 50,000\u00a0euros (EUR) each in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n
32.\u00a0\u00a0The Government objected to the applicants\u2019 claims in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as being excessive and referred to the awards in the previous rent-control cases. They contested the method by which the applicants had determined the alleged pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n
33.\u00a0\u00a0The applicable case-law principles are summarised in Bitt\u00f3 and Others ((just satisfaction), cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 20\u201129). In line with its findings in that case, the Court acknowledges that the applicants must have sustained damage for which they are to be compensated with an aggregate sum covering all heads of damage. The Court reminds that any compensation may only be befitting in respect of the part of the application that, having previously been declared admissible, has given rise to a finding of a\u00a0violation of the applicants\u2019 Convention rights.<\/p>\n
34.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the scope of the award, the Court refers to the criteria further developed in Bukov\u010danov\u00e1 and Others (no. 23785\/07, \u00a7\u00a051, 5 July 2016), where it took into account all the circumstances, including (i) the purpose and the context of the rent control and the level of the awards in Bitt\u00f3 and Others, (ii) the size of the property in question, (iii) the duration of the application of the rent-control scheme in relation to each individual part of the property, (iv) its location, and (v) the ownership shares of the respective applicants in the property. These criteria have been applied in subsequent rent control cases against Slovakia and the Court finds no reasons to depart from the approach taken in those cases.<\/p>\n
35.\u00a0\u00a0As to the temporal scope of the applicants\u2019 claims, the Court observes that under the Termination and Settlement of Tenancy (Certain Apartments) Act the owners of property which remained subjected to rent control after 31 December 2016 are entitled to claim from the municipality in question the difference between the free-market rent and the regulated rent for that property (see paragraph 8 above). The Court finds that, in such circumstances and in the absence of arguments from the parties to the contrary, there is no scope for just-satisfaction awards for the period subsequent to 31 December 2016.<\/p>\n
36.\u00a0\u00a0In the light of the above, the Court finds it appropriate to award aggregate sums covering all heads of damage specified in respect of each individual applicant in Appendices 3 \u2011 4 (column H) in a total amount of EUR\u00a02,673,500, plus any tax that may be chargeable in respect of these amounts.<\/p>\n
B.\u00a0\u00a0Costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n37.\u00a0\u00a0In application no. 2294\/17 the applicants claimed EUR\u00a0660 in translation costs, EUR\u00a0134,300.34 in legal costs for their representation before the Court and EUR 216,572.31 EUR for preparation of the expert opinions submitted to the Court.<\/p>\n
In application no. 48691\/17 the applicants claimed EUR\u00a020,495.52 in legal costs incurred before the Court and EUR 36,906.89 for the expert opinions.<\/p>\n
38.\u00a0\u00a0The Government challenged the costs claimed by the applicants as being excessive. They also found the elaboration of the expert reports redundant considering the Court\u2019s previous case-law according to which the Court is not bound to follow the domestic calculations.<\/p>\n
39.\u00a0\u00a0Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see Bitt\u00f3 and Others (just satisfaction), cited above, \u00a7 35; Me\u010diar and Others, cited above, \u00a7 45), the Court considers it reasonable to award the following sums:<\/p>\n
– EUR\u00a01,000 to each applicant in respect of legal costs for the representation in the proceedings before the Court – namely EUR 39,000jointly to the applicants in application no. 2294\/17, and EUR 8,000 jointly to the applicants in application no. 48691\/17;<\/p>\n
– 25% of the total sums claimed in respect of the expert opinions on the rental value of individual flats – namely, EUR\u00a054,143 jointly to the applicants in application no. 2294\/17, and EUR\u00a09,227 jointly to the applicants in application no. 48691\/17. These amounts are to be apportioned pro rata among the applicants according to the respective costs of the individual expert opinions that they submitted;<\/p>\n
– EUR 660 jointly to the applicants in application no. 2294\/17 in respect of translation costs.<\/p>\n
C.\u00a0\u00a0Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n40.\u00a0\u00a0The 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.<\/p>\n
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n1.\u00a0\u00a0Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that Ms O.\u00a0Silnick\u00e1 has standing to continue the present proceedings in Mr M. Mego\u2019s stead;<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0Declares the part of application no.\u00a048691\/17 concerning the flats nos. 1, 15 and 17 at 102 \u0160ancov\u00e1 St. in Bratislava and flats nos. 2 and 3 at 21\u00a0Gr\u00f6sslingov\u00e1 St. in Bratislava inadmissible as introduced out of time;<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0\u00a0Declaresthe remainder of the applications admissible;<\/p>\n
5.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;<\/p>\n
6.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that it is not necessary to examine the merits of applicants\u2019 complaint under Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;<\/p>\n
7.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n
(a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay jointly to the applicants, within three months the following amounts:<\/p>\n
(i)\u00a0\u00a0EUR\u00a02,673,500 (two million six hundred and seventy-three thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage (to be distributed among the applicants according to Appendices 3 \u2011 4, column H);<\/p>\n
(ii)\u00a0\u00a0EUR 111,030 (one hundred and eleven thousands and thirty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses (to be distributed among the applicants in line with paragraph 39);<\/p>\n
(b)\u00a0\u00a0that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a\u00a0rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;<\/p>\n
8.\u00a0\u00a0Dismissesthe remainder of the applicants\u2019 claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n
Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 March 2019, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n
Stephen Phillips\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Dmitry Dedov
\nRegistrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
APPENDIX 1<\/p>\n
Application no. 2294\/17 <\/strong>– L<\/strong>ist of applicants<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nNo.<\/strong><\/td>\n| First name<\/strong><\/p>\n LAST NAME<\/strong><\/td>\nBirth year \/ year of registration<\/strong><\/td>\nNationality<\/strong><\/td>\nPlace of residence \/ registered seat<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n\n| 1.<\/td>\n | Peter KO\u0160\u0164\u00c1L<\/td>\n | 1954<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Sv\u00e4t\u00fd Jur<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 2.<\/td>\n | Miriam ALEXANDROV\u00c1<\/td>\n | 1980<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 3.<\/td>\n | APARTMENT INVEST, s.r.o.<\/td>\n | 2004<\/td>\n | \u00a0–<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 4.<\/td>\n | Ivan BIELEK<\/td>\n | 1961<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 5.<\/td>\n | Marian BILKOVI\u010c<\/td>\n | 1953<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 6.<\/td>\n | Jarmila BILKOVI\u010cOV\u00c1<\/td>\n | 1956<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 7.<\/td>\n | Karin VELICK\u00c1<\/td>\n | 1988<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 8.<\/td>\n | Sandra \u010cERN\u00c1KOV\u00c1<\/td>\n | 1988<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 9.<\/td>\n | Cirkevn\u00fd zbor Evanjelickej cirkvi Augsbursk\u00e9ho vyznania na Slovensku Trnava<\/td>\n | 1918<\/td>\n | –<\/td>\n | Trnava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 10.<\/td>\n | Svetlana DOKUPILOV\u00c1<\/td>\n | 1970<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Chorv\u00e1tsky Grob<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 11.<\/td>\n | Ben GAT<\/td>\n | 1980<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Holon, Israel<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 12.<\/td>\n | Otilia GAT<\/td>\n | 1950<\/td>\n | Israeli<\/td>\n | Holon, Israel<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 13.<\/td>\n | Tal GAT<\/td>\n | 1978<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Holon, Israel<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 14.<\/td>\n | Yaron GAT<\/td>\n | 1948<\/td>\n | Israeli<\/td>\n | Holon, Israel<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 15.<\/td>\n | Krist\u00edna HERCEGOV\u00c1<\/td>\n | 1981<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 16.<\/td>\n | J\u00e1n HN\u00c1T<\/td>\n | 1951<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 17.<\/td>\n | Hviezdoslavovo n\u00e1mestie 11, spol. s.r.o.<\/td>\n | 1997<\/td>\n | –<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 18.<\/td>\n | Zuzana LONGAUEROV\u00c1<\/td>\n | 1981<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 19.<\/td>\n | Mirko MEGO \/ O\u013ega\u00a0Silnick\u00e1<\/td>\n | 1928 \/ 1929<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 20.<\/td>\n | O\u013ega MEGOV\u00c1<\/td>\n | 1942<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 21.<\/td>\n | Emanuel MUR\u00cdN<\/td>\n | 1954<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 22.<\/td>\n | Ivan ORAVEC<\/td>\n | 1934<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Bratisava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 23.<\/td>\n | Georg ORAWEZ<\/td>\n | 1968<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Diepoldsau, Switzerland<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 24.<\/td>\n | PERSPEKT, a.s.<\/td>\n | 1996<\/td>\n | –<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 25.<\/td>\n | Karol POHAN\u010cEN\u00cdK<\/td>\n | 1938<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 26.<\/td>\n | Pavol POHAN\u010cEN\u00cdK<\/td>\n | 1934<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 27.<\/td>\n | Rudolf POHAN\u010cEN\u00cdK<\/td>\n | 1944<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 28.<\/td>\n | Bilim s.r.o.<\/p>\n (until 31\/5\/2018 R.K.\u00a0INVEST Levice, s.r.o.)<\/td>\n | 2009<\/td>\n | –<\/td>\n | Levice<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 29.<\/td>\n | Karol RAKOVICK\u00dd<\/td>\n | 1979<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 30.<\/td>\n | Resident a.s.<\/td>\n | 2005<\/td>\n | –<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 31.<\/td>\n | R\u00edmskokatolick\u00e1 cirkev, Bratislavsk\u00e1 arcidiec\u00e9za<\/td>\n | 1977<\/td>\n | –<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 32.<\/td>\n | R\u00edmskokatolick\u00e1 cirkev, Farnos\u0165 Bratislava – Blument\u00e1l<\/td>\n | 1977<\/td>\n | –<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 33.<\/td>\n | TERA TRADE, s.r.o.<\/td>\n | 2003<\/td>\n | –<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 34.<\/td>\n | TRADE EXIM s.r.o.<\/td>\n | 1995<\/td>\n | –<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 35.<\/td>\n | Pavel V\u00cdZNER<\/td>\n | 1953<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 36.<\/td>\n | Petra V\u00cdZNEROV\u00c1<\/td>\n | 1983<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 37.<\/td>\n | Viera V\u00cdZNEROV\u00c1<\/td>\n | 1954<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 38.<\/td>\n | Peter Z\u00c1BOJN\u00cdK<\/td>\n | 1980<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 39.<\/td>\n | Marta Z\u00c1BOJN\u00cdKOV\u00c1<\/td>\n | 1953<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Bansk\u00e1 Bystrica<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n <\/p>\n APPENDIX 2<\/p>\n Application no. <\/strong>48691\/17-<\/strong> List of applicants<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nNo<\/strong>.<\/td>\n| First name<\/strong><\/p>\n LAST NAME<\/strong><\/td>\nBirth year<\/strong><\/td>\nNationality<\/strong><\/td>\nPlace of residence \/ registered seat<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n\n| 1.<\/td>\n | Peter GRANEC<\/td>\n | 1965<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Malacky<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 2.<\/td>\n | Elena SLOBODOV\u00c1<\/td>\n | 1967<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Liptovsk\u00fd Mikul\u00e1\u0161<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 3.<\/td>\n | Pavol POL\u00c1K<\/td>\n | 1941<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 4.<\/td>\n | Katar\u00edna POL\u00c1KOV\u00c1<\/td>\n | 1944<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 5.<\/td>\n | Ren\u00e1ta J\u00d3ZSOV\u00c1<\/td>\n | 1973<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 6.<\/td>\n | Juraj BADAL<\/td>\n | 1939<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 7.<\/td>\n | M\u00e1ria STR\u00c1COV\u00c1<\/td>\n | 1952<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 8.<\/td>\n | Christ\u00edna ANDR\u00c1SSYOV\u00c1<\/td>\n | 1959<\/td>\n | Slovak<\/td>\n | Bratislava<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n <\/p>\n APPENDIX 3<\/strong><\/p>\nApplication no. 2294\/17<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| A.<\/strong><\/p>\n The applicant<\/strong><\/td>\n| B.<\/strong><\/p>\n Ownership share<\/strong><\/td>\n| C.<\/strong><\/p>\n Residential building address<\/strong><\/td>\n| D.<\/strong><\/p>\n Flat no.<\/strong><\/td>\n| E.<\/strong><\/p>\n Area<\/strong><\/p>\n[m2]<\/strong><\/td>\n| F.<\/strong><\/p>\n Period of application of rent control<\/strong><\/td>\n| G.<\/strong><\/p>\n Pecuniary damage claimed<\/strong><\/p>\n[\u20ac]<\/strong><\/td>\n| H.<\/strong><\/p>\n Just satisfaction awarded<\/strong><\/p>\n[\u20ac]<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n\n| Peter Ko\u0161\u0165\u00e1l<\/td>\n | 1\/3: 26\/03\/2004 –<\/td>\n | \u0160umavsk\u00e1 33, Bratislava<\/td>\n | 1<\/td>\n | 59.3<\/td>\n | 16\/09\/1998 -31\/12\/2016<\/td>\n | 187,171.44<\/td>\n | 25,500<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| 5<\/td>\n | 75.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Emanuel Mur\u00edn<\/td>\n | 1\/1: 16\/09\/1998 -25\/03\/2004<\/p>\n 1\/3: 26\/03\/2004 –<\/td>\n | 6<\/td>\n | 59.3<\/td>\n | 567,108.84<\/td>\n | 63,600<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| 10<\/td>\n | 75.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Mari\u00e1n Bilkovi\u010d, Jarmina\u00a0Bilkovi-\u010dov\u00e1*<\/td>\n | 1\/3: 26\/03\/2004 –<\/td>\n | 14<\/td>\n | 41.4<\/td>\n | 187,171.44<\/td>\n | 25,500*<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| 12<\/td>\n | 31<\/td>\n | 16\/09\/1998 -14\/07\/2016<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Karol Pohan\u010den\u00edk<\/td>\n | 1\/6: 18\/03\/1992 –<\/td>\n | Radlinsk\u00e9ho 39, Bratislava<\/td>\n | 1<\/td>\n | 103.86<\/td>\n | 18\/03\/1992 – 31\/12\/2016<\/td>\n | 202,643.18<\/td>\n | 21,800<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Pavol Pohan\u010den\u00edk<\/td>\n | 1\/6: 18\/03\/1992 –<\/td>\n | 2<\/td>\n | 37.41<\/td>\n | 202,643.18<\/td>\n | 21,800<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Rudolf Pohan\u010den\u00edk<\/td>\n | 1\/6: 18\/03\/1992 –<\/td>\n | 3<\/td>\n | 65.68<\/td>\n | 202,643.18<\/td>\n | 21,800<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Marta Z\u00e1bojn\u00edkov\u00e1<\/td>\n | 11\/80: 19\/04\/2004 –<\/td>\n | 4<\/td>\n | 50.07<\/td>\n | 64,404.99<\/td>\n | 9,000<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Peter Z\u00e1bojn\u00edk<\/td>\n | 1\/4: 21\/02\/2000 – 18\/04\/2004<\/p>\n 29\/80: 19\/04\/2004 – 04\/08\/2010<\/p>\n 21\/80: 05\/08\/2010 –<\/td>\n | 5<\/td>\n | 35.28<\/td>\n | 214,371.76<\/td>\n | 25,900<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Zuzana Longauerov\u00e1<\/td>\n | 8\/80: 05\/08\/2010 –<\/td>\n | 15,457.19<\/td>\n | 3,300<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| J\u00e1n Hn\u00e1t<\/td>\n | 1\/2: 18\/03\/1992 –<\/td>\n | Rajsk\u00e1 10, Bratislava<\/td>\n | 3<\/td>\n | 61.26<\/td>\n | 18\/03\/1992 – 31\/12\/2016<\/td>\n | 152,039.56<\/td>\n | 13,700<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Mirko Mego \/ O\u013ega\u00a0Silnick\u00e1<\/td>\n | 1\/2: 18\/03\/1992 –<\/td>\n | \u0160ancov\u00e1 60, Bratislava<\/td>\n | 3<\/td>\n | 141.85<\/td>\n | 18\/03\/1992 –<\/td>\n | 814,065.97<\/td>\n | 81,500<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| O\u013ega Megov\u00e1<\/td>\n | 1\/8: 11\/12\/2010 –<\/td>\n | 4<\/td>\n | 82.05<\/td>\n | 24,007.04<\/td>\n | 5,100<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Svetlana Dokupilov\u00e1<\/td>\n | 1\/8: 11\/12\/2010 –<\/td>\n | 6<\/td>\n | 83.38<\/td>\n | 24,007.04<\/td>\n | 5,100<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Karol Rakovick\u00fd<\/td>\n | 1\/24: 11\/12\/2010 –<\/td>\n | 9<\/td>\n | 57.72<\/td>\n | 8,002.33<\/td>\n | 1,700<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Karin Velick\u00e1<\/td>\n | 1\/24: 11\/12\/2010 –<\/td>\n | 8,002.33<\/td>\n | 1,700<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Sandra \u010cern\u00e1kov\u00e1<\/td>\n | 1\/24: 11\/12\/2010 –<\/td>\n | 8,002.33<\/td>\n | 1,700<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Ivan Oravec<\/td>\n | 1\/3: 18\/03\/1992 –<\/td>\n | Teslova 9, Bratislava<\/td>\n | 3<\/td>\n | 45.24<\/td>\n | 18\/03\/1992 – 31\/12\/2016<\/td>\n | 454,719.41<\/td>\n | 17,500<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| 4<\/td>\n | 72.09<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 1\/3: 18\/03\/1992 –<\/td>\n | Brestov\u00e1 5, Bratislava<\/td>\n | 3<\/td>\n | 71.64<\/td>\n | 18\/03\/1992 – 31\/12\/2016<\/td>\n | 32,500<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| 4<\/td>\n | 95.10<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 7<\/td>\n | 51.26<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Georg Orawez<\/td>\n | 1\/3: 18\/03\/1992 –<\/td>\n | Teslova 9, Bratislava<\/td>\n | 3<\/td>\n | 45.24<\/td>\n | 18\/03\/1992 – 31\/12\/2016<\/td>\n | 454,719.41<\/td>\n | 17,500<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| 4<\/td>\n | 72.09<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 1\/3: 18\/03\/1992 –<\/td>\n | Brestov\u00e1 5, Bratislava<\/td>\n | 3<\/td>\n | 71.64<\/td>\n | 18\/03\/1992 – 31\/12\/2016<\/td>\n | 32,500<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| 4<\/td>\n | 95.10<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 7<\/td>\n | 51.26<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Pavel V\u00edzner<\/td>\n | 1\/2: 21\/09\/1995 – 05\/05\/2002<\/p>\n 1\/8: 06\/05\/2002 –<\/td>\n | Oravsk\u00e1 7, Bratislava<\/td>\n | 4<\/td>\n | 76.40<\/td>\n | 21\/09\/1995 – 31\/12\/2016<\/td>\n | 76,647.75<\/td>\n | 7,500<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Petra V\u00edznerov\u00e1<\/td>\n | 1\/8: 06\/05\/2002 –<\/td>\n | 19,487.08<\/td>\n | 2,500<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Viera V\u00edznerov\u00e1<\/td>\n | 1\/8: 06\/05\/2002 –<\/td>\n | 19,487.08<\/td>\n | 2,500<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Miriam Alexandrov\u00e1<\/td>\n | 1\/8: 06\/05\/2002 –<\/td>\n | 19,487.08<\/td>\n | 2,500<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Yaron Gat<\/td>\n | 1\/2: 21\/09\/1995 – 16\/02\/2004<\/p>\n 1\/8: 17\/02\/2004 –<\/td>\n | 86,406.47<\/td>\n | 8,600<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Ot\u00edlia Gat<\/td>\n | 1\/8: 17\/02\/2004 –<\/td>\n | 16,234.16<\/td>\n | 2,200<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Tal Gat<\/td>\n | 1\/8: 17\/02\/2004 –<\/td>\n | 16,234.16<\/td>\n | 2,200<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Ben Gat<\/td>\n | 1\/8: 17\/02\/2004 –<\/td>\n | 16,234.16<\/td>\n | 2,200<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Ivan Bielek<\/td>\n | 1\/3: 10\/10\/2003 – 01\/10\/2006<\/p>\n 1\/1: 02\/10\/2006 –<\/td>\n | Tren\u010dianska 17, Bratislava<\/td>\n | 3<\/td>\n | 44.25<\/td>\n | \u00a010\/10\/2003 – 31\/12\/2016<\/td>\n | 403,769.21<\/td>\n | 26,800<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| 4<\/td>\n | 43.29<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 5**<\/td>\n | 43.25<\/td>\n | 10\/10\/2003 – 30\/06\/2011<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 1\/2: 10\/10\/2003 – 28\/04\/2015<\/p>\n 1\/1: 29\/04\/2015 –<\/td>\n | Heydukova 1, Bratislava<\/td>\n | 13**<\/td>\n | 72.55<\/td>\n | 01\/07\/2011 – 31\/12\/2016<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Krist\u00edna Hercegov\u00e1<\/td>\n | 1\/4: 31\/07\/2001 –<\/td>\n | Franti\u0161k\u00e1nske n\u00e1m.3, Bratislava<\/td>\n | 14<\/td>\n | 25.29<\/td>\n | 12\/12\/1996 – 31\/12\/2016<\/td>\n | 39,875.90<\/td>\n | 5,200<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| TRADE EXIM s.r.o.<\/td>\n | 3\/4: 12\/12\/1996 –<\/td>\n | 15<\/td>\n | 25.29<\/td>\n | 186,630.41<\/td>\n | 20,900<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| 16<\/td>\n | 24.08<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Cirkevn\u00fd zbor Evanjelickej cirkvi augsbursk\u00e9ho vyznania na Slovensku Trnava<\/td>\n | 1\/1: 18\/03\/1992 –<\/td>\n | Hlavn\u00e1 52, Trnava<\/td>\n | 1<\/td>\n | 109.24<\/td>\n | 18\/03\/1992 – 31\/12\/2016<\/td>\n | 6,323,272.97<\/td>\n | 761,600<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| 2b<\/td>\n | 139.28<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 3<\/td>\n | 112.8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 4<\/td>\n | 200.81<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 5<\/td>\n | 106.34<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 6<\/td>\n | 74.87<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 7<\/td>\n | 91.99<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 8<\/td>\n | 119.75<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 9<\/td>\n | 160.09<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 11<\/td>\n | 160.45<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 12<\/td>\n | 107.03<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 14<\/td>\n | 154.88<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 15<\/td>\n | 121.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 16<\/td>\n | 154.17<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Resident a.s.<\/td>\n | 1\/1: 07\/12\/2005 –<\/td>\n | \u0160ulekova 3,<\/p>\n Bratislava<\/td>\n | 3<\/td>\n | 123.24<\/td>\n | 07\/12\/2005 – 31\/12\/2016<\/td>\n | 173,974,71<\/td>\n | 25,300<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| R\u00edmskokatol\u00edcka cirkev, Farnos\u0165 Bratislava – Blument\u00e1l<\/td>\n | 1\/1: 12\/12\/1996 –<\/td>\n | Blument\u00e1lska 7, Bratislava \u2013 Star\u00e9 Mesto<\/td>\n | 1<\/td>\n | 42.51<\/td>\n | 12\/12\/1996 – 31\/12\/2016<\/td>\n | 4,406,723.27<\/td>\n | 446,100<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| 2<\/td>\n | 41.81<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 3<\/td>\n | 34.56<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 7<\/td>\n | 34.18<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 8<\/td>\n | 36.61<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 9<\/td>\n | 36.2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 11<\/td>\n | 45.77<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 12<\/td>\n | 33.63<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 18<\/td>\n | 34.02<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 21<\/td>\n | 31.36<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 23<\/td>\n | 29.65<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 24<\/td>\n | 29.92<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 29<\/td>\n | 37.43<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 30<\/td>\n | 28.33<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 31<\/td>\n | 28.11<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 32<\/td>\n | 28.05<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 33<\/td>\n | 39.48<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 35<\/td>\n | 24.66<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 38<\/td>\n | 33.15<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 40<\/td>\n | 33.53<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 41<\/td>\n | 34.56<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 45<\/td>\n | 34.01<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 46<\/td>\n | 55.92<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 48<\/td>\n | 57.33<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 49<\/td>\n | 66.62<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 50<\/td>\n | 31.97<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 52<\/td>\n | 55.68<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 53<\/td>\n | 33.79<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 54<\/td>\n | 34.62<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 56<\/td>\n | 35.85<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 57<\/td>\n | 35.55<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 60<\/td>\n | 40.25<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| R\u00edmskokatol\u00edcka cirkev, Bratislavsk\u00e1 arcidiec\u00e9za<\/td>\n | 1\/1: 18\/03\/1992 –<\/td>\n | Kapitulsk\u00e1 2, Bratislava<\/td>\n | 1<\/td>\n | 117.2<\/td>\n | 18\/03\/1992 – 31\/12\/2016<\/td>\n | 6,340,516.17<\/td>\n | 528,000<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| 2<\/td>\n | 86.2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 1\/1: 18\/03\/1992 –<\/td>\n | Prepo\u0161tsk\u00e1 12, Bratislava<\/td>\n | 1<\/td>\n | 88.9<\/td>\n | 18\/03\/1992 – 31\/12\/2016<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 1\/1: 22\/07\/1996 –<\/td>\n | Svoradova 13, Bratislava<\/td>\n | 2<\/td>\n | 39<\/td>\n | 22\/07\/1996 -31\/12\/2016<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 9<\/td>\n | 67.1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 10<\/td>\n | 65<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| B2<\/td>\n | 74<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 1\/1: 22\/07\/1996 –<\/td>\n | \u0160karniclova 2, Bratislava<\/td>\n | 3<\/td>\n | 97.3<\/td>\n | 22\/07\/1996 – 31\/12\/2016<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 4<\/td>\n | 103.3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 1\/1: 22\/07\/1996 –<\/td>\n | \u0160karniclova 4, Bratislava<\/td>\n | 1<\/td>\n | 81.3<\/td>\n | 22\/07\/1996 – 31\/12\/2016<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 2<\/td>\n | 81.3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 3<\/td>\n | 81.3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 4<\/td>\n | 99.3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 5<\/td>\n | 81.3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 6<\/td>\n | 103.3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 1\/1: 18\/12\/1996 –<\/td>\n | Vajnorsk\u00e1 1, Iv\u00e1nka pri Dunaji<\/td>\n | 2<\/td>\n | 55.86<\/td>\n | 18\/12\/1996 -31\/12\/2016<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 3<\/td>\n | 45.05<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| APARTMENT INVEST, s.r.o.<\/td>\n | 256\/288: 30\/11\/2005 -04\/12\/2005<\/p>\n 1\/1: 05\/12\/2005 –<\/td>\n | Karad\u017ei\u010dova 9, Bratislava<\/td>\n | 2<\/td>\n | 46.35<\/td>\n | 30\/11\/2005 – 31\/12\/2016<\/td>\n | 372,683.42<\/td>\n | 54,800<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| 3<\/td>\n | 74.03<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 4<\/td>\n | 71.89<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 16<\/td>\n | 75.50<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| PERSPEKT, a.s.<\/td>\n | 1\/2: 23\/07\/2007 – 11\/02\/2008<\/p>\n 2\/3: 12\/02\/2008 – 3\/12\/2015<\/p>\n 1\/1: 04\/12\/2015 –<\/td>\n | Panensk\u00e1 3, Bratislava<\/td>\n | 3<\/td>\n | 82.68<\/td>\n | 23\/07\/2007 – 31\/12\/2016<\/td>\n | 184,779.69<\/td>\n | 27,900<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| 6<\/td>\n | 78.53<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 7<\/td>\n | 81.36<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Bilim s.r.o.<\/p>\n (until 31\/5\/2018 R.K. INVEST Levice, s.r.o.)<\/td>\n | 1\/1: 14\/07\/2009 –<\/td>\n | Dreven\u00e1 10,<\/p>\n Bratislava<\/td>\n | 3<\/td>\n | 107.82<\/td>\n | 14\/07\/2009 – 31\/12\/2016<\/td>\n | 233,174.25<\/td>\n | 39,900<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| 4<\/td>\n | 66.08<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 13<\/td>\n | 66.08<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 15<\/td>\n | 66.08<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| TERA TRADE, s.r.o.<\/td>\n | 1\/1: 05\/05\/2006 –<\/td>\n | Hviezdoslavovo n\u00e1m.\u00a016,<\/p>\n Bratislava<\/td>\n | 1<\/td>\n | 115.51<\/td>\n | 05\/05\/2006 – 31\/12\/2016<\/td>\n | 681,322.86<\/td>\n | 80,200<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| 2<\/td>\n | 60.1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 6<\/td>\n | 44.34<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 10<\/td>\n | 54.82<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 16<\/td>\n | 156.1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Hviezdoslavovo n\u00e1mestie 11,<\/p>\n spol. s r.o.<\/td>\n | 34\/120:<\/p>\n 19\/07\/2005 –<\/td>\n | Hviezdoslavovo n\u00e1m.\u00a011,<\/p>\n Bratislava<\/td>\n | 1<\/td>\n | 43.28<\/td>\n | 19\/07\/2005 – 31\/12\/2016<\/td>\n | 447,143.21<\/td>\n | 54,700<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| 2<\/td>\n | 37.31<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 3<\/td>\n | 96.19<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 4<\/td>\n | 95.86<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 5<\/td>\n | 95.16<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 6<\/td>\n | 96.19<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 7<\/td>\n | 191.02<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 9<\/td>\n | 96.19<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 10<\/td>\n | 95.86<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| 11<\/td>\n | 95.16<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nTotal<\/strong><\/td>\n| 2,530,300<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n *\u00a0<\/strong>joint marital ownership<\/p>\n**\u00a0The applicant moved from one flat to another while the rent control still applied.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n APPENDIX 4<\/p>\n Application no. <\/strong>48691\/17<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |