FIRST SECTION
\nCASE OF KUKL\u00cdK AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
\n(Applications nos. 15493\/12 and 4 others – see list appended)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n4 October 2018<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Kukl\u00edk and Others v. the Czech Republic,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a\u00a0Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President, Having deliberated in private on 11 September 2018,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in five applications (nos.\u00a015493\/12, 34297\/13, 25705\/14, 39843\/16 and 45417\/16) against the Czech Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by six applicants,namely Mr F. Kukl\u00edk (\u201cthe first applicant\u201d), Mr J. Jo\u0161t (\u201cthe second applicant\u201d), Ms O. Heldenburgand MrM. Heldenburg (\u201cthe third and the fourth applicants\u201d), Mr O. R\u00e1\u017e (\u201cthe fifth applicant\u201d), and Mr V. Stuchl\u00fd (\u201cthe sixth applicant\u201d). Their details appear in the Appendix.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants were represented by various lawyers, as indicated in the appended table. The Czech Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Mr V\u00edt A. Schorm, of the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On 2 July 2015 (applications nos. 15493\/12, 34297\/13 and 25705\/14), 14 September 2016 (application no. 39843\/16) and13 October 2016 (application no. 45417\/16)the complaints concerning Article\u00a01\u00a0Protocol\u00a0No.\u00a01 were communicated to the Government. On the same dates, the remainingcomplaints were all declared inadmissible, pursuant to Rule 54 \u00a7 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants are owners of residential buildings or apartments which were subject to the rent control system. However, as found by the Constitutional Court, the Czech rent control systemwas unconstitutional and violated the right of property of owners protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. This situation, described as a \u201clegal vacuum\u201d, existed between 1 January 2002 and 30 March 2006 and no legal basis existed for rentcontrol measures either in the period between 31 March and 31\u00a0December 2006. The interference was considered by the Court to be unlawful in this period of time (see R & L, s.r.o.,and Others v. the Czech Republic, nos. 37926\/05 and 4 others, \u00a7\u00a7 123-127, 3 July 2014).<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Application no. 15493\/12 lodged by Mr Kukl\u00edk<\/strong><\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant is a co-owner of a tenement building in Prague. One flat in the building was rented under the rent control system.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0On 16 March 2004 the applicant and three other co-owners lodged a\u00a0claim against J.M., who occupied the flat, seeking to be paid 3,338 Czech korunas(CZK \u2013 131 euros (EUR)) in respect of the outstanding rent for October and November 2003, CZK 5,118 (EUR 201) in respect of services for the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, and CZK 50 (EUR 2) in respect of the use of equipment in the flat for the period of October and November 2003.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On 29 March 2005 the Prague 3 District Court (obvodn\u00ed soud) decided, inter alia, to split the co-owners\u2019 claim into separate proceedings and to suspend these proceedings pending a final decision on J.M.\u2019s right to the tenancy of the flat. On 30 May 2005 the court decided that J.M. was the tenant of the flat because the tenancy had transferred to her upon the death of her grandfather. Following an appeal by the applicant and the co-owners, on 21\u00a0September 2005 the Municipal Court (m\u011bstsk\u00fd soud) upheld this judgment. On 23\u00a0January 2007 the Supreme Court (Nejvy\u0161\u0161\u00ed soud) dismissed an appeal on points of law (dovol\u00e1n\u00ed) lodged by the co-owners.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0In the meantime, on 28 November 2005, the District Court ordered J.M. to pay CZK 30 (EUR 1.2) to the co-owners of the tenement building. It\u00a0dismissed the remainder of their action. Following an appeal by the applicant and the co-owners, on 1 March 2006 the Municipal Court upheld this judgment.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0Following a complaint by the applicant and the co-owners, in a\u00a0judgment (n\u00e1lez) of 26 July 2007 the Constitutional Court (\u00dastavn\u00ed soud) quashed this judgment,referring to its case-law in this matter.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0By a judgment of 27 November 2007 the Municipal Court upheld on appeal the judgment of the District Court of 28 November 2005. However, after a further appeal, on 19\u00a0February 2009 the Constitutional Court quashed it.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On 29 May 2009 the Municipal Court quashed the judgment of the District Court of 28 November 2005 on appeal in respect of the co-owners\u2019 claim for payment of CZK 3,388 (EUR 133). On 20 August 2009 the District Court, after refusing a request by the co-owners\u2019 for the amount of CZK 3,388 to be modified, dismissed their action.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0On 15 September 2011 the Constitutional Court dismissed a\u00a0constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant against the District Court\u2019s last judgment.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 4 May 2007 the applicant and other co-owners brought an action for damages against the tenant, seeking CZK 172,210 (EUR 6,780). They claimed that during the earlier set of proceedings, J.M. had concealed the fact that her then-husband owned another flat. They therefore claimed damages corresponding to the difference between the market rent and the rent actually paid for the period from 1 May 2004 until 30\u00a0November 2006.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0On an unspecified date, the District Court allowed the State to join the proceedings upon the landlords\u2019 request.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0In a judgment of 5 May 2011 the District Court dismissed the co-owners\u2019 action, stating that the tenant had not been obliged to disclose her then husband\u2019s ownership in the earlier proceedings and thatthe landlords could therefore not claim damages in this respect. Neither could they claim unjust enrichment, since the judgment of 30 May 2005 too constituted the legal entitlement under which J.M. had acquired the right to tenancy. In respect of the claimed damages relating to the rent control system, the District Court referred to Constitutional Court\u2019s opinionno. Pl. \u00daS-st.\u00a027\/09 (hereinafter \u201cthe plenary opinion\u201d) of 28 April 2009, according to which ordinary courts could set a new level of rent only pro futuro (that is to say from the date of the bringing of an action by tenants) until 1\u00a0January\u00a02007, when Act no. 107\/2006 on the deregulation of rents had entered into force. The courts could not, therefore, determine the rent retroactively. Finally, it dismissed the claim for damages against the State as statute-barred.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0In a separate judgment given on the same date, the District Court, after the co-owners had brought an action for payment of CZK 75,292 (EUR 2,964) against the tenant (and subsequently also against the State), ordered the tenant to pay CZK 60 (EUR 2.36) to the landlords. It dismissed the action in respect of the State as statute-barred. On 21\u00a0September 2011 the Municipal Court upheld on appeal this judgment in respect of the tenant but quashed it in respect of the State on the grounds that the publication of the plenary opinion in 2009[1] should have been taken into account for the calculation of the beginning of the three-year statutory limitation period under section 32(1) of the State Liability Act.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0On 27 October 2011 the Municipal Court upheld the judgment of the District Court of 5 May 2011 concerning the damages claimed by the co-owners in the amount of CZK 172,210 (EUR 6,780). It endorsed the reasoning of the lower court, dismissing the claimants\u2019 objection that the three-year statutory limitation period under the State Liability Act should have started to run on the date of the adoption of the plenary opinion \u2013 that is to say on 28 April 2009.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0In a judgment of 6 February 2012 the District Court ordered the State to pay CZK 4,846 (EUR 191) to the co-owners in respect of the damage they had sustained.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 November 2012 the Constitutional Court dismissed a\u00a0constitutional complaintlodged by the applicant against the Municipal Court\u2019s judgment of 27\u00a0October 2011.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Application no. 34297\/13 lodged by Mr Jo\u0161t<\/strong><\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant owns a flat in a tenement building in Pardubice, which was rented under the rent control system.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0On 31 March 2006 he lodged an action against the tenant seeking the determination of the rent in the locality in question.<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0Following the adoption of the plenary opinion, the applicantapplied for the State to be admitted to the proceedings. The Pardubice District Court (okresn\u00ed soud) dismissed the application motion on 24 June 2009, stating that the admittance of the State would be against the principle of procedural economy. On 19 August 2009 the Hradec Kr\u00e1lov\u00e9 Regional Court (krajsk\u00fd soud) upheld this decision on appeal. It specified that as the original issue of the proceedings had been the determination of the rent in the locality in question, the admittance of the State would lead to a claim for damages. It\u00a0therefore advised the applicant to bring a separate action for damages.<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0In a judgment of 11 January 2010 the District Court decided that the tenant should pay rent of CZK 3,500 (EUR 138) per month during the period from 31 March until 31 December 2006. The court found that both parties agreed that the sum of CZK 3,500 (EUR 138) was the market rent for a flat in the locality in question.At the same time, it dismissed the applicant\u2019s claim in respect of the period from 1 January 2002 until 30\u00a0March 2006 and from 1\u00a0January 2007 onwards.<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 December 2010 the applicant brought an action for damages against the State seeking CZK 133,248 (EUR 5,246)with the Prague 1 District Court. The relevant period was defined as being from 1\u00a0January\u00a02002 until 31 March 2006 and the sum was calculated as the difference between collected rent and the market rent (CZK (3,500 minus 792) multiplied by six months (the period from 1 January 2002 until 30\u00a0June\u00a02002), and CZK (3,500 minus 900) multiplied byforty-five months (the period from 1 July 2002 until 31 March 2006). In a judgment of 9\u00a0September 2011 the District Court dismissed this action, accepting the State\u2019s argument that it had become statute-barred. On 22 February 2012 the Municipal Court upheld this judgment on appeal.<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 November 2012 the Constitutional Court dismissed a\u00a0constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant as manifestly ill-founded.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Application no. 25705\/14 lodged by Mr and Ms Heldenburg<\/strong><\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants own a tenement building in Prague. One of the flats is rented under the rent control system. In July 2002 the rent and payment for maintenance services were CZK 2,653.95 (EUR 104) and CZK 424 (EUR\u00a017) respectively, as fixed by the Prague 8 District Court.<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 September 2003the applicants informed the tenant that the monthly rent would be increased to CZK 10,000 (EUR 394), but he refused to pay the new rent. The tenancy agreement was terminated on 31\u00a0December 2004.<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 May 2005 the applicants brought an action with the Prague\u00a08\u00a0District Court against the former tenant for payment of CZK\u00a0117,846 (EUR 4,640) in outstanding rent for the period between November 2003 and December 2004.<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0In a judgment of 17 June 2010 the District Court ordered the tenant to pay CZK 17,223.30 (EUR 678), which corresponded to the difference between the payments that the tenant had actually made during the relevant period and the amount which was supposed to be paid according to the previous judgment of the Prague 8 District Court (see paragraph26above). The court referred, inter alia, to the plenary opinion, which banned the general courts fromimposing aretrospective increase in rent.<\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0On 17 March 2011 the Municipal Court upheld on appeal this judgment in respect of the former tenant\u2019s refusal of the rent increase, ordering the tenant to pay to the applicants CZK 12,028 (EUR 474) in respect of default charges.<\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0On 19 March 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the applicants on points of law, reiterating the plenary opinion. It further added that the repeal of the price regulation could not be considered as constituting a change in law which would allow the applicants to increase the rent.<\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0On 30 October 2013 the Constitutional Court dismissed a\u00a0constitutional complaint lodged by theapplicants as manifestly ill-founded.<\/p>\n D.\u00a0\u00a0Application no. 39843\/16 lodged by Mr R\u00e1\u017e<\/strong><\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant is the co-owner of a tenement building in Prague in which nine out of eleven flats were rented under the rent control system.<\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0On 7 October 2004 he brought an action against the State, represented by the Ministry of Finance, for damages in the amount of CZK\u00a0772,524 (EUR 30,414), corresponding to the difference between the regulated rent and the market rent in the locality in question for the period from 1 January 2003 until 31\u00a0December 2003. He submitted that the State was responsible for his loss of profit owing to its inactivity and continuing unlawful interference with his proprietary rights.<\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 February 2005 the Prague 1 District Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s action. It held that the failure of Parliament to enact deregulating legislation did not constitute an \u201cincorrect official procedure\u201d within the meaning of the State Liability Act (Act no. 82\/1998). It also stated that Article 420 of the Civil Code was not applicable, as the relation between a\u00a0citizen and the State could not be considered a civil relationship within the meaning of the Civil Code.<\/p>\n 36.\u00a0\u00a0On 29 August 2005 the Prague Municipal Court upheld this judgment. It endorsed the assessment of the first-instance court as to the inapplicability of the State Liability Act. It further noted that as for the period preceding the adoption of judgment no. Pl. \u00daS 2\/03 of the Constitutional Court of 19 March 2003 (published in the Official Gazette on 20 March 2003 under the number 84\/2003), by which the Constitutional Court had abolished Regulation No. 567\/2002 on 20\u00a0March\u00a02003, the applicant could not claim the non-existence of legal regulation as this had indeed existed until the Constitutional Court\u2019s judgment. Thus, there had indeed been a decree regulating the matter, and the said judgment did not have retroactive effect. The appellate court also stated that the applicant should have first brought an action against the tenants for the rent to be determined according to the local and material conditions before initiating proceedings against the State.<\/p>\n 37.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 29 October 2007. The Supreme Court considered, in particular, that the judgment of the appellate court had been in compliance with its previous case-law.<\/p>\n 38.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint, claiming that he had pursued his action on the basis of the previous case-law of the Constitutional Court, especially judgments no. Pl. \u00daS 20\/05 and no.\u00a0I.\u00a0\u00daS\u00a0717\/05. He submitted that the inactivity of the legislative body had amounted to a violation of his rights \u2013 specifically his right to enjoy his possessions.<\/p>\n 39.\u00a0\u00a0On 30 July 2009 the Constitutional Court quashed the judgment of the Supreme Court and those of the lower courts. It referred to its plenary opinion (see paragraph 15 above).<\/p>\n 40.\u00a0\u00a0In four following submissions, the applicant supplemented the original wording of his action, specifying that he sought only damages in respect of five out of the nine flats rented under the rent control system and limiting the amount claimed to CZK 501,228 (EUR 19,733) for the period of 1 January 2003 until 31 December 2003 (see paragraph 34 above).<\/p>\n 41.\u00a0\u00a0In a judgment of 29 November 2011, the District Court ordered the State to pay compensation in the amount of CZK 95,934 (EUR 3,777), dismissing the rest of the applicant\u2019s claim. It held that the applicant\u2019s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessionshad been restricted and found it reasonable to award the applicant the aforesaid sum. As to the method of calculation, it stated:<\/p>\n \u201c…the court considers it appropriate to establish the amount of the damage … as an average of regulated and deregulated rent …\u201d<\/p>\n 42.\u00a0\u00a0On 27 June 2012 the Municipal Court reduced on appeal the damages awarded to the applicant to CZK 40,980 (EUR 1,613). It found that the first-instance court had erroneously calculated those damages. It\u00a0stated that the amount of damages should not exceed the rent that could have been collected in 2007 after Act no. 107\/2006 on the deregulation of rents had entered into force. The damages awarded should correspond to the difference between the possible unilaterally increased rent in 2007 and the rent under the rent control system in 2003. In 2003, the applicant had been able to collect CZK\u00a0109,956 (EUR\u00a04,329) and in 2007 he had been able to collect CZK 150,936 (EUR 5,942) by renting out the five flats. The\u00a0difference, therefore,amounted to CZK 40,980 (EUR 1,613).<\/p>\n 43.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law which was, however, dismissed by the Supreme Court on 29 April 2015. The Supreme Court reiterated its previous case-law, in particular judgment no.\u00a022\u00a0Cdo\u00a03188\/2012, in which it had held that an owner of flats should be compensated if rent under the rent control system, taking into account local circumstances and other concrete circumstances, did not cover the justifiable costs of maintenance and repair within a reasonable time and make an adequate profit. In the opinion of the Supreme Court, compensation for the restriction of the right to property could not be considered as constituting compensation for damage and did not cover loss of profit. Nevertheless, the amount awarded must have been .proportional. In this regard, the appellate court correctly applied the amount of rent by using the method of calculation specified in Act no. 107\/2006.<\/p>\n 44.\u00a0\u00a0On 12 April 2006 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s complaint as manifestly ill-founded. It relied on its previous case-law in which it had approved the above-described methods of calculating compensation and had stated that the compensation for unconstitutional restriction of property rights did not constitute a claim for damages and, therefore, did not constitute compensation for loss of profit.<\/p>\n E.\u00a0\u00a0Application no. 45417\/16 lodged by Mr Stuchl\u00fd<\/strong><\/p>\n 45.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant is the owner of a tenement flat in Prague which was rented under the rent control system.<\/p>\n 46.\u00a0\u00a0On 31 May 2007 he brought an action against the State ( represented by the Ministry of Finance) and his tenant for damages in the amount of CZK\u00a0129,448 (EUR 5,096), corresponding to the difference between the regulated rent and the market rent in the locality in question for the period from 1 June 2004 until 31\u00a0March 2006. On 20 August 2009 he withdrew the action against the tenant but maintainedhis claim against the State. He\u00a0argued that the State was responsible for his loss of profit due to its inactivity and continuing unlawful interference with his proprietary rights.<\/p>\n 47.\u00a0\u00a0Following a request by the Prague 1 District Court, on 25 June 2009 an expert opinion on the standard level of rent was produced.<\/p>\n 48.\u00a0\u00a0On 29 November 2010 the Prague 1 District Court awarded the applicant damages in the amount of CZK 98,208 (EUR 3,866) and dismissed the rest of the applicant\u2019s claim in the amount of CZK 31,240 (EUR 1,230), representing the legal interest on the awarded amount from 1\u00a0June 2006 until 30 April 2008.<\/p>\n 49.\u00a0\u00a0On 23 August 2011 the Prague Municipal Court upheld on appeal the first-instance judgment and revoked it in respect of the part concerning legal costs.<\/p>\n 50.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint,alleging a violation of his right to a fair trial and his right to enjoyment of his possessions. He\u00a0specifically complained that he had not been compensated for his legal costs. The Constitutional Court dismissed the appeal on 10 January 2012 as manifestly ill-founded, asserting that the applicant\u2019s fundamental rights were not at stake.<\/p>\n 51.\u00a0\u00a0The State lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court, which quashed the decisions of the lower courts in respect of the award of damages and legal costs on 23\u00a0April 2013. The rest of the decision of the District Court, namely the part concerning unawarded interest in the amount of CZK 31,240 (EUR 1,230), became final, as no appeal was lodged against it. In its decision, the Supreme Court stated that the lower courts had not assessed correctly the amount of compensation which should have been awarded. It held in this regard that the severity of the restriction of the applicant\u2019s right to property should have been duly examined.<\/p>\n 52.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant lodged a new constitutional complaint, which was rejected by the Constitutional Court on 26 August 2013 as premature and therefore inadmissible.<\/p>\n 53.\u00a0\u00a0Following the judgment of the Supreme Court (see paragraph\u00a051\u00a0above),in the ensuing proceedings, on 3 February 2014 the District Court reduced damages awarded to the applicant to the amount of CZK 6,439 (EUR 254) and determinedthe legal costs. The court stated that the compensation should not exceed the rent that could have been collected in 2007 after Act no. 107\/2006 on the deregulation of rents entered into force. The damages awarded should correspond to the difference between the possible unilaterally increased rent in 2007 and the rent under the rent control system in the period from 2004 until 2006. During these years, the applicant had been able to collect CZK\u00a05,850 (EUR\u00a0230) per month. However, under the rent control system, the rent had been CZK 1,386 (EUR\u00a055), and since 1 January 2007 the amount had been CZK 1,678 (EUR\u00a066) per month. The District Court concluded that the monthly difference corresponded to CZK 292.69 (EUR 12), and in the further period of twenty-two months (1 June 2004-31 March 2006), the monthly difference amounted to CZK 6,439 (EUR 254).<\/p>\n 54.\u00a0\u00a0On 3 June 2014 the Municipal Court upheld the first-instance judgment but quashed it in respect of the legal costs awarded.<\/p>\n 55.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, which the Supreme Court rejected as inadmissible on 14 July 2015.<\/p>\n 56.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant lodged a third constitutional complaint, which on 19\u00a0January 2016 the Constitutional Court dismissed as manifestly ill-founded. Relying on its previous case-law, it concluded that the courts could not have disproportionally interfered with the applicant\u2019s property rights, even though they had calculated the compensation as the difference between the market rent and the deregulated rent under Act no. 107\/2006.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE<\/p>\n 57.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant domestic law and practice are described in the decision in the case of Vomo\u010dil and Art 38, a.s. v. Czech Republic (dec.), nos.\u00a038817\/04 and 1458\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 21-26, 5 March 2013 and in the judgment in the case ofR & L, s.r.o. and Others (cited above, nos. 37926\/05, 25784\/09, 36002\/09, 44410\/09 and 65546\/09, \u00a7 42 and Annex II, 3 July 2014). Further, relevant domestic practice for the purpose of just satisfaction is described in \u010capsk\u00fd and Jeschkeov\u00e1 v. the Czech Republic ((just satisfaction), nos. 25784\/09 and 36002\/09, \u00a7\u00a7 7-11, 9 February 2017) and Heldenburg v. the Czech Republic ((just satisfaction), no. 65546\/09, \u00a7\u00a7 10-14, 9 February 2017).<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n 58.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers that given their common factual and legal background the eight applications should be joined, in accordance with Rule\u00a042\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0ADMISSIBILITY<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Application no. 34297\/13 lodged by Mr Jo\u0161t and application no.\u00a025705\/14 lodged by Mr and Ms Heldenburg<\/strong><\/p>\n 59.\u00a0\u00a0In their observations of 15 November 2016 on the applicants\u2019 claims for just satisfaction, the Government argued that these applications should be declared inadmissible for an abuse of the applicants\u2019 right of thepetition within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) in fine of the Convention. The Government stated that the applicantshad mixed up their comments on the friendly-settlement negotiations with those on their claims for just satisfaction and had misused the information obtained in the course of the friendly-settlement negotiations in the contentious proceedings.<\/p>\n 60.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observesthat a similar argument raised by the same respondent Government in two comparable cases (see \u010capsk\u00fd and Jeschkeov\u00e1v. the Czech Republic ((just satisfaction), cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 17-23) and Heldenburgv. the Czech Republic((just satisfaction), cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a022-32) has been already examined and rejected. As the Court, in the instant cases, finds no particular circumstances which would require it to depart from its finding in those cases, the Government\u2019s inadmissibility plea on account of a violation of the rules of confidentiality of the friendly settlement negotiations must be dismissed.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Application no. 39843\/16 lodged by Mr R\u00e1\u017e<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Victim status<\/em><\/p>\n 61.\u00a0\u00a0The Government maintained that the applicant could no longer claim under Article 34 of the Convention to be a victim, given that the domestic courts acknowledged that there had been a violation of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and had granted him adequate compensation for that violation, whichhad actually been paid to him.<\/p>\n 62.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that for an applicant to be able to claim to be the victim of a violation, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, not only must he have victim status at the time the application is lodged, but that status must continue to remain at all stages of the proceedings. A\u00a0decision or measure favourable to an applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a \u201cvictim\u201d unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see Scordino v. Italy (no.\u00a01) [GC], no. 36813\/97, \u00a7 180, ECHR 2006\u2011V).<\/p>\n 63.\u00a0\u00a0Turning to the present case the Court notes that the domestic courts acknowledged that the applicant\u2019s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions had been breached and awarded the compensation of CZK\u00a040,980 (EUR 1,613) (see paragraph 42 above). The applicant however sought CZK 501,228 (EUR 19,733) calculated as a difference between the market rent in the locality in question and the regulated rent for five flats rented out under the rent control system over a period of twelve months (from 1 January 2003 until 31 December 2003). In the Court\u2019s opinion, where, as in the present case, the victim status and therefore, the existence of a violation, is linked with the monetary redress afforded at domestic level, the Court\u2019s assessment necessarily involves comparison between the actual award and the amount that the Court would award in similar cases (see,mutatis mutandis, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1), cited above, \u00a7\u00a7181 and 202). In the instant case, having regard to the Court\u2019s awards in similar cases (see \u010capsk\u00fd and Jeschkeov\u00e1 ((just satisfaction), cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 48-49), and Heldenburg ((just satisfaction), cited above, \u00a7 51), the Court finds that the amount of compensation awarded by the domestic courts cannot be considered an appropriate redress for the violations complained of in the light of the standards set by the Court in comparable situations.<\/p>\n 64.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, the Court considers that the national authorities did not afford adequate redress to the applicant in respect of his complaint about an allegedviolation of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and that he can still claim to be a victim of the alleged violation.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Abuse of the right of individual application<\/em><\/p>\n 65.\u00a0\u00a0In their observations of 13 April 2017 the Government stated that the applicant had failed to reveal that in July 2003 he had concluded a contract on the contribution from a \u201cflood fund\u201d and had received CZK 700,000 (EUR 27,559) to cover damage caused by a flood in the summer of 2002. With regard to the importance of the information for the Court\u2019s decision on the applicant\u2019s case, the Government proposed that the applicant\u2019s course of action be considered to amount to anabuse of the right ofpetition within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) in fine of the Convention.<\/p>\n 66.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that the submission of incomplete and thus misleading information may amount to an abuse of the right of application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation has been provided for the failure to disclose that information (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810\/10, \u00a7 28, ECHR\u00a02014, with further case-law references).<\/p>\n 67.\u00a0\u00a0The same applies if new, important developments have occurred during the proceedings before the Court and the applicant, despite being expressly required to do so by Rule 47 \u00a7 7 (the former Rule 47 \u00a7 6) of the Rules of Court, has failed to disclose that information to the Court, thereby preventing it from ruling on the case in the full knowledge of the facts. However, even in such cases, the applicant\u2019s intention to mislead the Court must always be established with sufficient certainty (ibid.).<\/p>\n 68.\u00a0\u00a0Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the applicant argued that he had invested in construction work a total amount of CZK 1,939,682 (EUR 76,365). However, as can be seen from his submission, and moreover as acknowledged by the Government, in his application before the Court he sought compensation for pecuniary damage only in the amount of CZK\u00a01,002,033 (EUR 39,450). This sum consists of CZK 460,248 (EUR\u00a018,120), which is the difference between the sum claimed before the Czech courts, and the sum finally awarded (see paragraphs 34, 40and42 above), and CZK 541,784.98 (EUR 21,330), which is the unpaid interest, as calculated by the applicant. The applicant did not include the contribution from the flood fund in his claims before the Court.<\/p>\n 69.\u00a0\u00a0In view of the above, the Court does not find that the application is based on knowingly untrue facts and it cannot discern any intention on the part of the applicant to mislead it. Accordingly, the Court does not find it appropriate to declare the application inadmissible as abusive within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Remainder of the applications<\/strong><\/p>\n 70.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the remaining applicationsare not manifestly ill\u2011founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 of the Convention. It\u00a0further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must, therefore, be declared admissible.<\/p>\n III.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1<\/p>\n 71.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained that the rent control systemhad violated their right to property, which the State had failed to protect. 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 72.\u00a0\u00a0The Government did not dispute the applicants\u2019 allegations.<\/p>\n 73.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers that the situation of the applicants is structurally and contextually the same as that of the applicants in R\u00a0&\u00a0L, s.r.o.,and Others v. the Czech Republicwhich gave rise to a\u00a0violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Subsequentlythe issue of just satisfaction was examinedin \u010capsk\u00fd and Jeschkeov\u00e1((just satisfaction), cited above) and Heldenburg ((just satisfaction), cited above) and the Court decided that the persons concerned were entitled to a\u00a0compensation reflecting the difference between the market rent and the regulated rent. In the instant case, the Government did not provide any reasons to hold that the interference with the applicants\u2019 rights was justified under the Convention.<\/p>\n 74.\u00a0\u00a0It follows, having regard to its well-established case-law on the subject, that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.<\/p>\n IV.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 75.\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 76.\u00a0\u00a0Rule 60 of the Rules of Court states:<\/p>\n \u201c1. An applicant who wishes to obtain an award of just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention in the event of the Court finding a violation of his or her Convention rights must make a specific claim to that effect.<\/p>\n 2. The applicant must submit itemised particulars of all claims, together with any relevant supporting documents, within the time-limit fixed for the submission of the applicant\u2019s observations on the merits unless the President of the Chamber directs otherwise.<\/p>\n 3. If the applicant fails to comply with the requirements set out in the preceding paragraphs the Chamber may reject the claims in whole or in part.<\/p>\n …\u201d<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Pecuniary damage<\/strong><\/p>\n 77.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants claimed compensation for the pecuniary damage which they had suffered as a result of the obligation to let their flats under the conditions imposed by the rent control system. They claimed the following amounts in respect of pecuniary damage:<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0the first applicant: CZK 1,130,238.38 (EUR 44,498);<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0the second applicant: CZK 133,248 (EUR 5,246);<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0the third and fourth applicant: CZK 100,623 (EUR 3,962);<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0the fifth applicant: CZK 1,002,033 (EUR 39,450);<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0the sixth applicant: CZK 91,768.82 (EUR 3,613).<\/p>\n 78.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested these claims butsuggested, referring to their own method of calculation (see \u010capsk\u00fd and Jeschkeov\u00e1 (just satisfaction), cited above, \u00a7 33, and Heldenburg (just satisfaction), cited above, \u00a7 39) that adequate compensation for pecuniary damage should be in the following amounts:<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0the first applicant: CZK 13,470 (EUR 530);<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0the second applicant: CZK 13,583 (EUR 535);<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0the third and fourth applicant: CZK 10,759 (EUR 424).<\/p>\n As regards the fifth applicant, the Government pointed out that the applicant had failed to specify his just satisfaction claim, in accordance with Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. They therefore submitted that there was no call to award him any amount in respect of pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n In relation to the sixth applicant, the Government proposed that the Court award the applicant a sum set on an equitable basis, but no more than EUR\u00a03,000.<\/p>\n 79.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to its findings in \u010capsk\u00fd and Jeschkeov\u00e1 ((just satisfaction), cited above, \u00a7 39), and Heldenburg ((just satisfaction), cited above, \u00a7 43)the Court considers that the applicants must have sustained damage for which they are entitled to compensation in respect of the loss of the right to use their property under the conditions guaranteed by Article\u00a01\u00a0of Protocol No. 1 (see R & L, s.r.o., and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a0104).<\/p>\n 80.\u00a0\u00a0Concerning the scope of the award, the Court observesthat the determination of the compensation should be based, inter alia, on the difference between the rent under free-market conditions and the rent to which the applicants were entitled under the domestic legislation, which the Court has found to be unlawful(see \u010capsk\u00fd and Jeschkeov\u00e1 ((just satisfaction), cited above, \u00a7 45), and Heldenburg v. the Czech Republic ((just satisfaction), cited above, \u00a7 49).However, under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court, any claim for just satisfaction, including in respect of pecuniary damage, must be itemised and submitted in writing together with the relevant supporting documents or vouchers, failing which the Court may reject the claim in whole or in part (see Novruz Ismayilovv. Azerbaijan, no.\u00a016794\/05, \u00a7 92, 20 February 2014).<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Application no. 15493\/12 lodged by Mr Kukl\u00edk<\/em><\/p>\n 81.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant claimed pecuniary damage in the amount of CZK\u00a01,130,238.38 (EUR 44,498), for the period from 28 May 1995 until 31\u00a0August 2011.<\/p>\n 82.\u00a0\u00a0The Government noted, firstly, that the period specified by the applicant stands outside the scope of the relevant period, as determined by the Court in R\u00a0& L, s.r.o., and Others (cited above).<\/p>\n 83.\u00a0\u00a0The Court takes into account the Government\u2019s objection and considers that the relevant period, in so far as the scope of the case is concerned, is the period between 1 May 2004 and 30 November 2006 (see \u010capsk\u00fd and Jeschkeov\u00e1 (just satisfaction), cited above, \u00a7 42, and Heldenburg (just satisfaction), cited above, \u00a7 46).<\/p>\n 84.\u00a0\u00a0Furthermore, the Government argued that the applicant had not supported his claims by submitting any written explanation.<\/p>\n 85.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the applicant calculated his claims for pecuniary damage as the difference between the rent received under the rent control system and the free-market rent for comparable flats. He presented his estimates of free-market rent only in a table, without substantiating them with any relevant evidence, such asa relevant expert opinion showing the difference between the regulated and the market rent (contrast Me\u010diar and Others v. Slovakia, no. 62864\/09, \u00a7 8, 10 January 2017, and \u010capsk\u00fd and Jeschkeov\u00e1 (just satisfaction), cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 48-49; contrast alsoRiedel and Others v. Slovakia, nos. 44218\/07 and 3 others, \u00a7\u00a7 11-14, 10\u00a0January\u00a02017; \u010capsk\u00fd and Jeschkeov\u00e1(just satisfaction), cited above, \u00a7\u00a046; and Heldenburg (just satisfaction), cited above, \u00a7 50).<\/p>\n 86.\u00a0\u00a0Therefore, particularlyhaving regard to all the evidential material in its possession, the Court considers that in the absence of any relevant documents substantiating the applicant\u2019s free-market rent estimates, the Court is unable to make any award under this head.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Application no. 34297\/13 lodged by Mr Jo\u0161t<\/em><\/p>\n 87.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant claimed pecuniary damage in the amount of CZK\u00a0133,248 (EUR 5,246) for the period from 1 January 2002 until 31\u00a0March 2006.<\/p>\n 88.\u00a0\u00a0The Government argued that the applicant had not supported his claims with any written explanation or calculation.<\/p>\n 89.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the applicant calculated the pecuniary damage as the difference between the rent collected under the rent control system and the level of market rent(CZK 3,500\/month) established by the courts in thedomestic proceedings (see paragraph 24above).The sum and the method of calculation were specified by the applicant before the domestic courts in his claim statement, and it was not disputedin the proceedings before national courtsor by the Government.<\/p>\n 90.\u00a0\u00a0Therefore, in particular having regard to all the evidential material in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant the sum of CZK 133,248 (EUR 5,246) in respect of pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Application no. 25705\/14 lodged by Mr and Ms Heldenburg<\/em><\/p>\n 91.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants claimed pecuniary damage in the amount of CZK\u00a0100,623 (EUR 3,962) for the period from 1 November 2003 until 31\u00a0December 2004.They calculated their claim for pecuniary damages as the difference between the regulated rent and the market rent. The applicants deducted the amount of CZK 17,223 that was granted to them by the national courts in the proceedings against the tenant before the Prague 8 District Court (see paragraph 29above). They further claimed default interest of 0.25% per day on the amount due since 30 March 2007.<\/p>\n 92.\u00a0\u00a0The Government stated that the applicants had failed to submit any particular calculations through which they had arrived at the amount they demanded.<\/p>\n 93.\u00a0\u00a0The Courtobservesthat similarly to case no. 15493\/12, the applicants did not support their estimates of what a free-market rent would be by submitting, for example, a relevant expert opinion (contrast Me\u010diar and Others, cited above, \u00a7 8, and \u010capsk\u00fd and Jeschkeov\u00e1 (just satisfaction), cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 48-49) or other relevant evidence (compare Riedel and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 11-14; \u010capsk\u00fd and Jeschkeov\u00e1 (just satisfaction), cited above, \u00a7 46; and Heldenburg (just satisfaction), cited above, \u00a7 50) showing the difference between the regulated and the market rent. Moreover, the present case differs from application no. 34297\/13, as the level of market rentwas not unambiguously established by the courts in the domestic proceedings.<\/p>\n 94.\u00a0\u00a0Therefore, in particular having regard to all the evidential material in its possession, the Court considers that in the absence of any relevant documents showing the market-value rent which could have been collected in the relevant period, the Court is unable to make any award under this head.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Application no. 39843\/16 lodged by Mr R\u00e1\u017e<\/em><\/p>\n 95.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant claimed pecuniary damages in the amount of CZK\u00a0460,248 (EUR 18,120) for the period from 1 January 2003 until 31\u00a0December 2003. He also claimed default interest in the amount of CZK\u00a0541,785 (EUR 21,330).<\/p>\n 96.\u00a0\u00a0The Government argued that he had failed to support his claims by submitting any expert opinion, lease contracts or written explanation.<\/p>\n 97.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observesthat the applicant submitted his estimates of what a free-market rent would be with reference to the domestic proceedings and two lease contracts. Considering thatneither the level of market rent claimed by the applicant in the present case, nor the surface area of the apartments with regulated rent had been disputed in the proceedings before the domestic courts (see paragraphs 41-42 above), and having regard to all the evidential material in its possession, especially two lease contracts submitted by the applicant, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant the sum of CZK 450,000 (EUR 17,717).<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Application no. 45417\/16 lodged by Mr Stuchl\u00fd<\/em><\/p>\n 98.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant, relying on an expert opinion, claimed pecuniary damage in the amount of CZK 91,768.82 (EUR 3,613) for the period from 1\u00a0June 2004 until 31 March 2006. He also claimed late interest in the amount of CZK 66,493.73 (EUR 2,618).<\/p>\n 99.\u00a0\u00a0The Government disagreed and argued that the method of calculation used by the experthad been erroneous. They further noted that they could not submit a counterproposal as the market renthad not been officially assessed and that the free-market rent had been overestimated. Therefore, damages should be awarded on an equitable basis, but in the amount of no more than EUR\u00a03,000.<\/p>\n 100.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the applicant submitted his estimates of free-market rent on the basis of an expert opinion drawn up at the requestof the Prague 1 District Court in the course of the domestic proceedings (see paragraph 47above). In addition, he supported his argument with two rental contracts for similar flats in the same building rented under free-market rent conditions.<\/p>\n 101.\u00a0\u00a0Therefore, in particular having regard to all the material in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants the sum of CZK 91,768.82 (EUR 3,613) in respect of pecuniary damage and dismisses the remainder of the applicant\u2019s claim.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Non-pecuniary damage<\/strong><\/p>\n 102.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage which they had suffered as a result of the obligation to let their flats under the conditions imposed by the rent control system. They claimed the following amounts in respect of pecuniary damage:<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0the first applicant: CZK 1,000,000 (EUR 39,370);<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0the second applicant: CZK 10,000,000 (EUR 393,700);<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0the third and fourth applicant: CZK 300,000 (EUR 11,811);<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0the fifth applicant: EUR 3,000;<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0the sixth applicant: EUR 5,000.<\/p>\n 103.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants\u2019 claims for compensation for non-pecuniary damage were regarded by the Government as excessive. Although the applicants had unquestionably experienced certain feelings of disappointment due to the legal vacuum that the Court had found to have violated the Convention, the Government were convinced that under the circumstances, the conclusion per sethat the Convention had been violated constituted sufficient redress for the non-pecuniary damage that the applicants may have suffered.<\/p>\n 104.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates its findings in \u010capsk\u00fd and Jeschkeov\u00e1 ((just satisfaction), cited above, \u00a7 51) that the applicants must have sustained non\u2011pecuniary damage in the form of continuous feelings of disappointment, frustration and even concerns regarding the risk of the deterioration of their properties. Therefore, having regard to the nature of the breach and to the \u201clegal vacuum\u201d which lasted for five years and which cannot be compensated for solely by the finding of a violation of the Convention, the Court awards, making its assessment on an equitable basis, the first, the second, the fifth and the sixth applicant each EUR 3,000, and the third and the fourth applicant jointly EUR 3,000 under this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable thereon.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n 105.\u00a0\u00a0The applicantsclaimed the following total amounts in respect of costs and expenses:<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0the first applicant: CZK 414,943 (EUR 16,336);<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0the second applicant: CZK 112,614 (EUR 4,434);<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0the third and fourth applicant: CZK 153,742.30 (EUR 6,053);<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0the fifth applicant: CZK 178,710 (EUR 7,036);<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0the sixth applicant: CZK 181,866 (EUR 7,160).<\/p>\n 106.\u00a0\u00a0The Government disputed those amounts.<\/p>\n 107.\u00a0\u00a0According to the Court\u2019s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see Iatridis v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 31107\/96, \u00a7\u00a054, ECHR 2000-XI, and Tarakhel v. Switzerland [GC], no. 29217\/12, \u00a7\u00a0142, 4 November 2014).<\/p>\n 108.\u00a0\u00a0The Court furthermore reiterates that Rule 60 \u00a7 2 of the Rules of Court and consequently the Court\u2019s case-law (see Efstathiou and Michailidis & Co. Motel Amerika v. Greece, no. 55794\/00, \u00a7 40, Reports 2003-IX) requires applicants to submit itemised particulars of all their just satisfaction claims, together with any relevant supporting documents, failing which the Court may reject the claims in whole or in part (Rule 60 \u00a7 3). The Court requires itemised bills and invoices that are sufficiently detailed as to enable it to determine to what extent the above-mentioned requirements have been met (see \u017d\u00e1kov\u00e1 v. the Czech Republic (just satisfaction), no.\u00a02000\/09, 6 April 2017, \u00a7 52).<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Application no. 15493\/12 lodged by Mr Kukl\u00edk<\/em><\/p>\n 109.\u00a0\u00a0The first applicant claimed a total sum of CZK\u00a0414,943 (EUR\u00a016,336), covering the following items:<\/p>\n (i) CZK 123,893 (EUR 4,878) in respect of the legal assistance provided at the domestic level;<\/p>\n (ii) CZK 156,650 (EUR 6,167) for the costs of the proceedings before the national courts;<\/p>\n (iii) CZL 134,400 (EUR 5,291) for travel costs incurred by the applicant and his lawyers in attending hearings before national courts.<\/p>\n 110.\u00a0\u00a0The Government argued, firstly, that some of the documents submitted by the applicant were vague and that it was not possible to determine which domestic proceedings they related to. Secondly, some of those documents (or parts thereof) did not concern the relevant proceedings; thirdly, some documents were illegible. In addition, they stated that the amount claimed was excessive.<\/p>\n 111.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the applicant did not provide sufficient documentation for his costs and expenses. He only submitted documents to prove the amount of CZK 146,802 (EUR 5,780) in costs and expenses incurred in the domestic proceedings.<\/p>\n 112.\u00a0\u00a0In those circumstances, the Court awards the applicant CZK\u00a0146,802 (EUR 5,780) in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to him on this amount.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Application no. 34297\/13 lodged by Mr Jo\u0161t<\/em><\/p>\n 113.\u00a0\u00a0The second applicant claimed a total sum of CZK 112,614 (EUR\u00a04,434) in respect of the costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the national courts.<\/p>\n 114.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to support his claim with relevant documents.<\/p>\n 115.\u00a0\u00a0According to the Court\u2019s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see paragraphs 107above). In the present case, regard being had to the fact that no relevant documents have been submitted, the Courtrejects the claim for costs and expenses.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Application no. 25705\/14 lodged by Mr and Ms Heldenburg<\/em><\/p>\n 116.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants claimed CZK 122,982.30 (EUR 4,842) in respect of the costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the national courts, CZK 25,460 (EUR 1,002) for legal representation before the Court and CZK 5,300 (EUR 209) for the cost of the translation of their submissions to the Court.<\/p>\n 117.\u00a0\u00a0The Government considered that it was impossible to verify if the amounts claimed had actually been incurred as the invoices had also related to other proceedings. Moreover, in the Government\u2019s opinion, the applicants\u2019claim was excessive.<\/p>\n 118.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants submitted documents substantiating the amount of CZK 48,853.77 (EUR 1,923) in costs and expenses incurred in the domestic proceedings and CZK 5,300 (EUR 209) as the cost of the translation of their submissions to the Court.<\/p>\n 119.\u00a0\u00a0In those circumstances, the Court awards the applicants CZK\u00a054,153.77 (EUR 2,132) in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them on this amount.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Application no. 39843\/16 lodged by Mr R\u00e1\u017e<\/em><\/p>\n 120.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant claimed a total sum of CZK 178,710 (EUR 7,036),which covers the following items:<\/p>\n (i)\u00a0\u00a0CZK 63,450 (EUR 2,498) for the costs of the proceedings before the national courts;<\/p>\n (ii)\u00a0\u00a0CZK 83,360 (EUR 3,282) in respect of the legal assistance provided at domestic level;<\/p>\n (iii)\u00a0\u00a0CZK 31,900 (EUR 1,256) for his legal representation before the Court.<\/p>\n 121.\u00a0\u00a0The Government stated that the claimed amounts were excessive. They suggested awarding the applicant no more than EUR 2,000 in respect of costs and expenses.<\/p>\n 122.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant submitted documents substantiating the amount of CZK 130,750 (EUR 5,148) in costs and expenses incurred in the domestic proceedings and CZK 31,900 (EUR 1,256) in costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the Court.<\/p>\n 123.\u00a0\u00a0In those circumstances, the Court awards the applicant CZK\u00a0162,650 (EUR 6,404) in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to him on this amount.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Application no. 45417\/16 lodged by Mr Stuchl\u00fd<\/em><\/p>\n 124.\u00a0\u00a0The sixth applicant claimed a total sum of CZK 181,866 (EUR\u00a07,160),which covers the following items:<\/p>\n (i)\u00a0\u00a0CZK 14,769 (EUR 581) for the costs of the proceedings before the national courts;<\/p>\n (ii)\u00a0\u00a0CZK 115,386 (EUR 4,543) in respect of the legal assistance provided at domestic level;<\/p>\n (iii)\u00a0\u00a0CZK 3,311 (EUR 130) for the costs of the translation of his submissions to the Court;<\/p>\n (iv)\u00a0\u00a0CZK 48,400 (EUR 1906) for his legal representation before the Court.<\/p>\n 125.\u00a0\u00a0The Government found these amounts excessive and suggested awarding the applicant no more than EUR 3,000.<\/p>\n 126.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the applicant did not provide sufficient documentation for their costs and expenses. The applicant submitted documents substantiating the amount of CZK 130,155 (EUR 5,124) in costs and expenses incurred in the domestic proceedings and CZK 51,711 (EUR\u00a02,036) in costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the Court.<\/p>\n 127.\u00a0\u00a0In those circumstances, the Court awards the applicant CZK\u00a0181,866 (EUR 7,160) in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to him on this amount.<\/p>\n D.\u00a0\u00a0Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n 128.\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>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Declaresthe applications admissible;<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months,the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/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 rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period, plus three percentage points.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Dismissesthe remainder of the applicants\u2019 claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 October 2018, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Renata Degener\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 Krzysztof Wojtyczek <\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong><\/p>\n Date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n Date of birth<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n Location<\/strong><\/td>\n \u00a0per applicant (in euros)<\/strong><\/td>\n non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros)<\/strong><\/td>\n 14\/03\/2012<\/td>\n 29\/07\/1953<\/td>\n –<\/td>\n 24\/05\/2013<\/td>\n 28\/10\/1966<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 28\/03\/2014<\/p>\n <\/td>\n 11\/07\/1979<\/p>\n Michal Heldenburg<\/strong><\/p>\n 15\/02\/1975<\/td>\n –<\/td>\n (jointly)<\/td>\n (jointly)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 01\/07\/2016<\/td>\n 10\/11\/1950<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 29\/07\/2016<\/td>\n 03\/05\/1956<\/td>\n <\/td>\n
\nAle\u0161 Pejchal,
\nArmen Harutyunyan, judges,
\nand Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nDeputy Registrar\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\n\n
\n No.<\/strong><\/td>\n Application no.<\/strong><\/p>\n Applicant name<\/strong><\/p>\n Representative name<\/strong><\/p>\n Amount awarded for pecuniary damage<\/strong><\/p>\n Amount awarded for<\/strong><\/p>\n Amount awarded for costs and expenses (in euros)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n \n 1.<\/td>\n 15493\/12<\/p>\n Frantisek KUKL\u00cdK<\/strong><\/p>\n –<\/td>\n <\/p>\n 3,000<\/td>\n 5,780<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2.<\/td>\n 34297\/13<\/p>\n Jan JO\u0160T<\/strong><\/p>\n Jan NAJMAN<\/td>\n 5,246<\/p>\n 3,000<\/td>\n –<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 3.<\/td>\n 25705\/14<\/p>\n Olga HELDENBURG<\/strong><\/p>\n Michal \u0160TROF<\/td>\n <\/p>\n 3,000<\/p>\n 2,132<\/p>\n \n 4.<\/td>\n 39843\/16<\/p>\n Old\u0159ich R\u00c1\u017d<\/strong><\/p>\n Dita KR\u00c1PKOV\u00c1<\/td>\n 17,717<\/p>\n 3,000<\/td>\n 6,404<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 5.<\/td>\n 45417\/16<\/p>\n Vladimir STUCHL\u00dd<\/strong><\/p>\n Michal KOJAN<\/td>\n 3,613<\/p>\n 3,000<\/td>\n 7,160<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n