THIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF DRAHO\u0160 AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
\n(Applications nos. 47922\/14 and 7 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n9 January 2018<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Draho\u0161 and Others v. Slovakia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a\u00a0Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Helen Keller, President, Having deliberated in private on 12 December 2017,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in eight applications (nos.\u00a047922\/14, 49902\/14, 55307\/14, 76478\/14, 13285\/15, 34749\/15, 9738\/16 and 45303\/16) against the Slovak Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by eighty-six applicants. The particulars of the applicants and the dates of introduction of the applications appear in Appendices 2 \u2011 9.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants Mr W.A. Rauscher-Nachwalger and the applicant organisation Cirkevn\u00fdzborEvanjelickejcirkviAugsbursk\u00e9hovyznanianaSlovensku Bratislava Star\u00e9mesto (hereinafter \u201cthe Old Town Evangelical Church\u201d) were represented before the Court by Mr\u00a0P.\u00a0Zelenay and Mr\u00a0M.\u00a0Kluka, respectively, while the rest of the applicants were represented by Mr\u00a0J.\u00a0Brichta. All of these representatives are lawyers practising in Bratislava.<\/p>\n The Government of the Slovak Republic (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Ms M.\u00a0Piro\u0161\u00edkov\u00e1.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained under Article\u00a01 of Protocol No.\u00a01, both alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, about restrictions which the rules governing rent control imposed on their right to peacefully enjoy their possessions.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The applications were communicated to the Government on 2\u00a0February and 18\u00a0November 2016 respectively.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants and the Government each submitted written observations (Rule 59 \u00a7 1) on the admissibility, merits and just satisfaction, and replied in writing to each other\u2019s observations.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The Government objected to the examination of the applications by a\u00a0Committee. Having considered their objection, the Court dismisses it.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants are all Slovak nationals, with the exception of Ms\u00a0J.\u00a0Formanov\u00e1, Ms\u00a0N.\u00a0Skru\u017en\u00e1 and Ms\u00a0H.\u00a0Mi\u0148ovsk\u00e1, who are Czech nationals, Mr\u00a0W.A.\u00a0Nachwalger, who is an Austrian national, and Mr\u00a0E.\u00a0Quastler, Ms\u00a0I.\u00a0Taussig and Ms\u00a0O.F.\u00a0Quastler, who are Israeli nationals. The Czech and Austrian Governments have been informed of their right to intervene under Article 36 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Rule\u00a044\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 (a) of the Rules of Court but did not avail themselves of this right.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants are owners of residential buildings or apartments which were subject to the rent-control scheme. Under the relevant legislation they were obliged to let their flats to tenants while charging no more than the maximum amount of rent fixed by the State. The legislation precluded them from unilaterally terminating the leases or selling the flats in question to anyone other than the respective tenants. The particulars of the flats affected by the rent control are set out in Appendices 10 \u2011 17 (columns\u00a0A \u2011 F).<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0The situation of the applicants is structurally and contextually the same as that of the applicants in Bitt\u00f3and Others v. Slovakia(no.\u00a030255\/09, 28 January 2014 (merits) and 7\u00a0July 2015 (just satisfaction)), and subsequently decided cases concerning the rent-control scheme in Slovakia (see Krahulec v. Slovakia, no.\u00a019294\/07;Bukov\u010danov\u00e1 and Others v.\u00a0Slovakia, no. 23785\/07; Rudolfer v. Slovakia, no. 38082\/07, 5 July 2016; Riedel\u00a0and Others v. Slovakia, nos. 44218\/07, 54831\/07, 33176\/08, 47150\/08; and Me\u010diar\u00a0and Others v. Slovakia, no. 62864\/09, 10\u00a0January\u00a02017; Matuschka and Others v. Slovakia [Committee], nos.\u00a033076\/10, 14383\/11, Balan and Others v. Slovakia [Committee], nos.\u00a051414\/11, 46098\/12, and Bajz\u00edk and Others v. Slovakia [Committee], nos. 46609\/13, 9892\/14, 27 June 2017).<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Property at 27 Panensk\u00e1 St. and 14\u00a0Konventn\u00e1 St. in Bratislava (application no. 34749\/15)<\/strong><\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0Two residential building at 27 Panensk\u00e1 St. and 14 Konventn\u00e1 St. in Bratislava were acquired in 2002 by a religious organisation with legal personality, Cirkevn\u00fdzborEvanjelickejcirkviAugsbursk\u00e9hovyznanianaSlovensku Bratislava (hereinafter \u201cthe Bratislava Evangelical Church\u201d). This body established three other entities with legal personalities, including the applicant organisation the Old Town Evangelical Church.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0The property in question was conveyed by the Bratislava Evangelical Church to the Old Town Evangelical Church by way of donation on 6 February 2013. On 15\u00a0February 2013 the previous owner ceased legally to exist and was legally succeeded by the Old Town Evangelical Church and the other two entities.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Flat no. 11 at 27\u00a0Panensk\u00e1 St. in Bratislava (application no.\u00a034749\/15)<\/strong><\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0On 22 February 2012 the Old Town Evangelical Church gave formal notices of termination of their lease to the two tenants residing in flat no. 11 situated in the residential building at 27\u00a0Panensk\u00e1 St. in Bratislava. By law, these tenants had under certain circumstances the right to claim that the municipality provide them with a\u00a0substitute flat on the termination of their lease. They did not avail themselves of that right.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 6 August 2013 the Old Town Evangelical Church applied to the Bratislava I District Court for an eviction order against the occupants of this flat who had failed to vacate it by the expiry of the twelve\u2011month notice period. As the occupants eventually vacated the flat on 25\u00a0February 2015, the Old Town Evangelical Church withdrew its action and the proceedings in respect of it were discontinued on 9 March 2015. Until the vacation of the flat, the occupants had paid the Old Town Evangelical Church compensation in an amount equal to the regulated rent.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Other relevant facts (applications nos. 49902\/14 and 76478\/14)<\/strong><\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0The tenants residing in flats nos. 1 and 9 on 22\u00a0Moyzesova St. in \u017dilina moved in 2002 into flats nos. 5 and 12 within the same building owing to rebuilding of the original flats. The tenants continued to pay the regulated rent.<\/p>\n In 2003 flat no. 5 was rebuilt and its area was changed from 110.27 sq. m to 59.18 sq. m.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0A similar situation arose in the residential building on 33 Pra\u017esk\u00e1 St. in Bratislava where in 2014 the tenant residing in flat no. 16 moved to flat no.\u00a09, and in the residential building located on 15\u00a0Vrbovsk\u00e1cesta St. in Pie\u0161\u0165any, where the tenant living in the flat no. 14 moved to flat no. 25.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant domestic law and practice governing the rent-control scheme in Slovakia and its historical background are set out in the Court\u2019s judgment in the case of Bitt\u00f3and Others, ((merits), cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a07\u201116 and\u00a032\u201172).<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0On 15 September 2011, the Termination and Settlement of Tenancy (Certain Apartments) Act (Law no.\u00a0260\/2011) came into force; this legislation was enacted with a view to ending the rent-control scheme by 31\u00a0December\u00a02016. The owners of apartments whose rent had been regulated were entitled to increase rent by 20% once a year as of 2011 and to give notice by 31\u00a0March 2012 of the termination of a\u00a0tenancy contract. Such termination of tenancy took effect after a twelve\u2011month notice period. However, if a tenant was exposed to material hardship and applied for a\u00a0substitute flat with the municipality, he or she would be able to continue to\u00a0use the apartment while still paying a regulated rent, even after the expiry of the notice period, until a new tenancy contract with a\u00a0municipality had been set up. Municipalities were obliged to provide a\u00a0person exposed to material hardship with a\u00a0municipal apartment at a\u00a0regulated rent. If\u00a0a\u00a0municipality did not comply with that obligation by 31\u00a0December 2016, the landlord could claim from the municipality the difference between the free-market rent and the regulated rent.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n 18.\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\u00a0Victim status of the Old Town Evangelical Church prior to 6\u00a0February 2013 (application no. 34749\/15)<\/strong><\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0In their observations of 3 November 2016 on the applicants\u2019 claims for just satisfaction, the Government objected to the victim status of the Old Town Evangelical Church prior to 6\u00a0February 2013 \u2013 the date on which it had acquired the property concerned.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0By way of a reply, the Old Town Evangelical Church objected that the Government could and should have raised this point earlier and that, as they had failed to do so, they should be prevented from raising it by operation of Rule\u00a055 of the Rules of Court. As to the substance, the Old Town Evangelical Church argued that it had become a victim of the alleged violations already in 2002 when its legal predecessor \u2013 the Bratislava Evangelical Church \u2013 had acquired the property.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that it is obliged to examine the question of its jurisdiction at every stage of the proceedings and that it is therefore not precluded from considering the compatibility ratione personae of the relevant part of the present application with the provisions of the Convention even on its own motion (see Ble\u010di\u0107 v. Croatia [GC], no.\u00a059532\/00, \u00a7\u00a7 65-69, ECHR 2006\u2011III).<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that in order to be able to lodge an application in accordance with Article\u00a034, the applicant must be able to show that he or she was \u201cdirectly affected\u201d by the measure complained of (see, among many other authorities, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin C\u00e2mpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848\/08, \u00a7 96, ECHR 2014).<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0In the present case, it is not disputed that the Old Town Evangelical Church acquired the property on 6 February 2013, that prior to that date the property had been owned by the Bratislava Evangelical Church, that that entity was by no means prevented from applying to the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention in its own name, which, however, it did not do.<\/p>\n The Court further notes that the Old Town Evangelical Church became directly affected by the rent-control scheme only once it acquired title to that property on the date mentioned and that in its subsequent application to the Court it asserts its Convention complaint in its own name, making no distinction between the time prior to and after that date. In so far as the Old Town Evangelical Church\u2019s argument has been substantiated, the Court has found no material or other interest to justify the Old Town Evangelical Church in asserting its Convention complaint in relation to a period when the property in question was still owned by the Bratislava Evangelical Church (for a summary of the applicable principles, see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin C\u00e2mpeanu v. Romania [GC], cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a096-97; see also Nassau VerzekeringMaatschappij N.V. v.\u00a0the Netherlands, no.\u00a057602\/09, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a019-20, 4\u00a0October 2011). Therefore, in so far as its application under Article 34 of the Convention concerns that property while it was still owned by that other entity, it is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention (see Petrov\u00e1 and Valo v.\u00a0Slovakia (dec.), no. 49103\/09, \u00a7\u00a044, 5\u00a0November 2013).<\/p>\n In this context, the Court wishes to point out that the situation of the Old Town Evangelical Church differs from situations when a person or entity is permitted to\u00a0continue pursuing an application lodged under Article 34 of the Convention by another person or entity which has died or ceased to exist in the course of the Strasbourg proceedings (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin C\u00e2mpeanu v. Romania, cited above, \u00a7 97, and Bitt\u00f3 and Others v. Slovakia (merits), no.\u00a030255\/09, \u00a7 74, 28 January 2014).<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, the part of the application of the Old Town Evangelical Church concerning the application of the rent-control scheme prior to 6\u00a0February 2013 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Six\u2011month time-limit in respect of flat no. 11 in the residential building at 27\u00a0Panensk\u00e1 St. in Bratislava (application no.\u00a034749\/15)<\/strong><\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0The Government further objected that rent control had ceased to\u00a0apply to flat no. 11 in the residential building at 27\u00a0Panensk\u00e1 St. in Bratislava more than six months prior to the introduction of the present application on 13 July 2015. They argued that the Old Town Evangelical Church had given the tenants residing in that flat notices of termination of their lease in February 2012 and that these tenants had accordingly been obliged to vacate the flat within a notice period of twelve months, that is to say before 28\u00a0February 2013. As the tenants did not claim a substitute flat from the municipality, the flat concerned had ceased to be subject to rent control on the expiry of the notice period. Thus, in the Government\u2019s submission, the relevant part of the application no. 34749\/15 was lodged out of time.<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0The Old Town Evangelical Church disagreed, arguing that the occupants of the flat had failed to vacate the flat voluntarily, that it had accordingly been forced to apply for an eviction order, in response to which the occupants had eventually moved out, but for the entire period of their occupation of the flat they had only paid the Old Town Evangelical Church compensation equal to the regulated rent. In sum, the Old Town Evangelical Church considered that the six\u2011month time-limit should be calculated from the date when the tenants had actually moved out of the flat, 25\u00a0February\u00a02015, and that accordingly its application to the Court of 13\u00a0July 2015 was in time.<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0Under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, the Court 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 against which no domestic remedy is available, such as the application of a 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 75).<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that according to the Government the rent control ceased to apply to the flat concerned on 28 February 2013 as a result of the expiry of the twelve-month notice period, combined with the fact that the occupants had not applied for substitute accommodation, and that after that date the Old Town Evangelical Church could have sought the occupants\u2019 eviction and\/or charged them market rent. The Court observes that in reply to that argument the Old Town Evangelical Church submitted that the occupants had remained in the flat, paying no more than the equivalent of regulated rent and disrespecting the expiry of the notice period. The Court fails to see how the Old Town Evangelical Church\u2019s counter-argument should serve to rebut that of the Government. To the contrary, the Old Town Evangelical Church\u2019s course of action appears rather to support it, in particular in as far as the Old Town Evangelical Church sought an eviction order before the courts. There is nothing to\u00a0suggest that it was prevented from complementing that action by a claim for damages. In these circumstances, the Court takes it as established that rent control ceased to apply to the flat in question on 28 February 2013.<\/p>\n Accordingly, the relevant part of the application of 13 July 2015 has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a01 and\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0The six-month time-limit in a situation when a tenant has moved to another flat to which rent control continued to apply (applications nos. 49902\/14 and 76478\/14)<\/strong><\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants who own the flats mentioned in paragraphs 14-15 above, where the tenants moved to another flat within the same residential building, considered these situations as continuing for the purposes of the calculation of the six\u2011month time-limit.<\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0The Government admitted that in certain situations where moving a\u00a0tenant from one flat to another within the housing facility may be caused by circumstances which could be a reason for the cancellation of rent with the obligation to provide the tenant a\u00a0substitute flat, and that in such cases the situation might be continuing for the purposes of calculation of six\u2011month time\u2011limit. However, they did not have sufficient information to assess this matter in the present cases.<\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that in all situations described above the tenants moved to other flats within the same residential building and that the relevant applicants could still charge them no more than the maximum regulated rent for using those flats. The Court had previously regarded a\u00a0similar situation as continuing for the purposes of the calculation of the six\u2011month time-limit(see Bajz\u00edk and Others v. Slovakia, [Committee] nos.\u00a046609\/13 and 9892\/14, \u00a7\u00a025, 27\u00a0June 2017) and sees no reason to hold otherwise in the present cases. It therefore considers that the situations described in paragraphs 14-15 above as continuing for the purposes of the calculation of the six-month time-limit.<\/p>\n D.\u00a0\u00a0Remainder of the applications<\/strong><\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the remaining complaints (other than that dealt with under A and B above) are not manifestly ill\u2011founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 of the Convention. It further 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 33.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained that their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions had been breached as a\u00a0result of the implementation of rules governing rent control that applied to their property. They relied on Article\u00a01 of Protocol No.\u00a01 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 34.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants argued that the restrictions applied to the use of their property under the rent\u2011control scheme had imposed a\u00a0disproportionate burden on their ownership rights. They argued that the rent which they had been allowed to charge for letting their property had been disproportionately low compared with similar flats to which the rent\u2011control scheme had not applied and that despite a\u00a0number of increases in the regulated rent, this had remained much lower than the market rent. The applicants supported their arguments by submitting expert opinions or other evidence showing the difference between the regulated and the market rent. Furthermore, the legislation enacted with a\u00a0view to eliminating the rent\u2011control scheme did not provide for compensation for persons in their position.<\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0The Government conceded that the rent\u2011control scheme had resulted in a\u00a0restriction on the use of the applicants\u2019 property, but argued that it had been in accordance with the law and had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting tenants against unaffordable increases in rent. As to the requirement of proportionality, they challenged the method used to calculate market rent in the expert opinions submitted by the applicants and argued that the restrictions imposed on the applicants\u2019 property had not been disproportionate. They submitted their own expert opinion, which set out the average monthly market rent for flats comparable to those of the applicants. Lastly, they maintained that the situation had been resolved by the legislation enacted in 2011, which had provided for the elimination of all rent control by the end of 2016.<\/p>\n 36.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant case-law of the Court is summarised in Bitt\u00f3 and Others ((merits), cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a094\u2011100).<\/p>\n 37.\u00a0\u00a0In Bitt\u00f3 and Others (merits) and subsequent rent-control cases (see, among other authorities, Me\u010diar and Others v. Slovakia, no. 62864\/09, 10\u00a0January 2017), the Court found (i) that the rent\u2011control scheme had amounted to an interference with the applicants\u2019 property, (ii) that that interference had constituted a\u00a0means of State control of the use of their property to be examined under the second paragraph of Article\u00a01 of Protocol\u00a0No.\u00a01, (iii) that it had been \u201clawful\u201d within the meaning of that Article, (iv)\u00a0that it had pursued a\u00a0legitimate 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 (see Bitt\u00f3 and Others (merits), cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0101\u201104).<\/p>\n 38.\u00a0\u00a0As to the requirement of proportionality, the Court noted in Bitt\u00f3 and Others (merits) and the subsequent rent-control cases that regardless of the difference in the calculation methods on which the parties relied, the evidence submitted by both parties was sufficient to conclude that the regulated rent had remained considerably lower than the market rent, even after several increases in the regulated rent provided for by the relevant legislation (see Bitt\u00f3 and Others (merits), cited above, \u00a7\u00a0113, andMe\u010diar and Others v. Slovakia, cited above, \u00a7\u00a026). The Court also took into account the fact that the legislation allowing for gradual increases in the regulated rent did not serve as a\u00a0basis for obtaining compensation for the use of the property under the rent-control scheme with any retrospective effect (see Bukov\u010danov\u00e1 and Others v. Slovakia, no. 23785\/07, \u00a7\u00a042, 5\u00a0July 2016). The Court concluded that in implementing the rent\u2011control 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\u00a0result of which there had been a\u00a0violation of their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Bitt\u00f3 and Others (merits), cited above, \u00a7\u00a0116).<\/p>\n 39.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that the present cases follow the pattern of Bitt\u00f3 and Others and subsequent rent-control cases. The Government voiced the same objections regarding the proportionality of the interference in question as it did in Bitt\u00f3 and Others and subsequent rent-control cases, and 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\u00a0violation of Article\u00a01 of Protocol No.\u00a01.<\/p>\n IV.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a014 OF THE CONVENTION, TAKEN TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE\u00a01 OF PROTOCOL No.\u00a01<\/p>\n 40.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants maintained that the restrictions imposed by the rent\u2011control scheme amounted to discriminatory treatment. The Court considers it appropriate to examine this complaint under Article\u00a014 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article\u00a01 of Protocol No.\u00a01. Article\u00a014 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\u00a0national minority, property, birth or other status.\u201d<\/p>\n 41.\u00a0\u00a0The Government disagreed and argued that the applicants\u2019 situation was not similar in any relevant respect to that of owners of buildings to which the rent\u2011control scheme did not apply.<\/p>\n 42.\u00a0\u00a0The Court dealt with essentially the same complaint in Bitt\u00f3 and Others ((merits), cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 120-25) and found that in view of its conclusion that there had been a\u00a0breach of the applicants\u2019 rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, no separate issue arose under Article 14 of the Convention. The Court sees no reason to hold otherwise in the present cases. Accordingly, it is not necessary to examine the merits of the applicants\u2019 complaint under those provisions.<\/p>\n V.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 43.\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>\n 44.\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\u2011control scheme.<\/p>\n 45.\u00a0\u00a0Most of the applicants submitted expert opinions determining the claimed amounts as the difference between the market rent applicable to similar dwellings and the regulated rent which the applicants had been able to charge under the relevant legislation throughout the period of their ownership of the property in question and the application of the rent\u2011control scheme. Those sums were then increased by the default interest applicable under Slovakian law. The applicant Mr\u00a0A.W.\u00a0Rauscher-Nachwalger based the calculation of pecuniary damage on the difference between the regulated rent and the market rent determined by the expert in the expert report submitted by the Government. The Old Town Evangelical Church calculated the pecuniary damage as the difference between the regulated rent paid by the tenants and the market rent based on a rental-price map of the National Association of Real Estate Agencies for a comparable apartment in the relevant year.<\/p>\n As for the scope of the applicants\u2019 claims, the applicants in applications nos. 9738\/16 and 45303\/06 asserted that the level of award should reflect that in Bitt\u00f3 and Others v. Slovakia ((just satisfaction), no.\u00a030255\/09, 7\u00a0July\u00a02015) and objected that the Court\u2019s awards in the post Bitt\u00f3 judgments had been lower. The applicant\u2019s specific individualclaims in respect of pecuniary damage are set out in Appendices 10 \u2011 17 (column\u00a0G).<\/p>\n In addition, the applicants claimed 50,000 euros (EUR) each in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage, with the exception of the applicant Mr\u00a0Rauscher\u2011Nachwalger who claimed EUR\u00a040,000.<\/p>\n 46.\u00a0\u00a0The Government objected to the applicants\u2019 claims in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as being excessive. They also contested the method by which the applicants had determined the alleged pecuniary damage and the alleged difference in the level of awards in Bitt\u00f3 and the subsequent judgments. Besides, the Government argued that claims in respect of pecuniary damage should be rejected with regard to those applicants who had acquired the flats by purchase because they must have been aware of the rent\u2011control scheme and could reflect that limitation in the purchase price.<\/p>\n 47.\u00a0\u00a0The applicable case\u2011law principles are summarised in Bitt\u00f3 and Others v. Slovakia ((just satisfaction),cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a020\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. As to the scope of the applicants\u2019 claim, the Court points out that any such 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 48.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has held in similar cases that the protection provided under the Convention should not be linked to the way applicants acquired their landlords\u2019 rights. In any event, the applicants who acquired flats by purchase could have reasonably expected that the rent\u2011control scheme would soon be dismantled in view of the Government\u2019s plans and declarations (see Bitt\u00f3 and Others v. Slovakia (just satisfaction), cited above, \u00a7\u00a026).<\/p>\n 49.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the scope of the award, the Court refers to the criteria further developed in Bukov\u010danov\u00e1 and Others v.\u00a0Slovakia (cited above, \u00a7\u00a051), 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 (cited above), (ii) the size of the property in question, (iii) the duration of the application of the rent\u2011control 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 subsequently been applied in Krahulec v. Slovakia,Rudolfer v. Slovakia, Riedel\u00a0and Others v. Slovakia, Me\u010diar\u00a0and Others v. Slovakia, Matuschka and Others v. Slovakia [Committee], Balan and Others v. Slovakia [Committee], and Bajz\u00edk and Others v. Slovakia [Committee] (all cited above), and the Court finds no reasons to depart from the approach taken in those cases.<\/p>\n As regards the situation when a tenant moved to another flat while rent control continued to apply (see paragraph 29 above), the Court will take into account the size of the flat in which the tenant was living at the relevant time (see Appendices 11 and 13). As regards the flat which had been rebuilt during the application of rent control, the Court will take into account the actual size of the flat at the relevant time (see Appendix 11).<\/p>\n 50.\u00a0\u00a0As to the temporal scope of the applicants\u2019 claims, the Court observes that under the Termination and Settlement of Tenancy (Certain Apartments) Actthe owners of property which remained subjected to rent control after 31\u00a0December\u00a02016 are entitled to claim from the municipality in question the difference between the free\u2011market rent and the regulated rent for that property (see paragraph 17 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\u2011satisfaction awards for the period subsequent to 31\u00a0December\u00a02016 (see Matuschka and Others [Committee], nos. 33076\/10 and 14383\/11, \u00a7\u00a044, 27 June 2017).<\/p>\n 51.\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 10 \u2011 17 (column\u00a0H) in a total amount of EUR\u00a03,628,380, plus any tax that may be chargeable in respect of these amounts.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n 52.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants\u2019 claims in respect of costs and expenses and the documents submitted by the applicants to support their claims are listed in separate Appendix\u00a018 (columns\u00a0A \u2011 D).<\/p>\n 53.\u00a0\u00a0The Government challenged the costs claimed by the applicants as being excessive.<\/p>\n 54.\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\u00a036, and Me\u010diar and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a045) the Court considers it reasonable to\u00a0award the sums specified in Appendix 18 (column\u00a0E). In applications in which expert opinions have been submitted and the applicants claim compensation in respect of their costs, the Court awards 25% of the amounts claimed. The total award in respect of costs of expert opinions in the given application is to be apportioned pro rata among the individual applicants concerned according to the respective costs of their individual expert opinions.<\/p>\n The award in respect of costs and expenses therefore totals EUR\u00a0197,310, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n 55.\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\u00a0Declaresapplication no. 34749\/15 inadmissible in so far as it concerns the application of the rent-control scheme in respect of the property of the applicant organisation Cirkevn\u00fd zbor Evanjelickej cirkvi Augsbursk\u00e9ho vyznania na Slovensku Bratislava Star\u00e9 mesto prior to 6\u00a0February 2013 and in so far as it concerns flat no. 11 located at 27\u00a0Panensk\u00e1 St. in Bratislava;<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Declaresthe remainder of the applications admissible;<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;<\/p>\n 5.\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 6.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months the following amounts:<\/p>\n (i)\u00a0\u00a0EUR\u00a03,628,380 (three million six hundred and twenty-eight thousand three hundred and eighty 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\u00a010\u00a0\u2011 17, column H);<\/p>\n (ii)\u00a0\u00a0EUR\u00a0197,310\u00a0(one hundred and ninety-seven thousand three hundred and ten euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses (to be distributed among the applicants according to Appendix 18, column E);<\/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 7.\u00a0\u00a0Dismissesthe remainder of the applicants\u2019 claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 January 2018, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Fato\u015f Arac\u0131\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 Helen Keller _____________<\/p>\n APPENDIX 1<\/strong><\/p>\n List of applications<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Application no. 47922\/14 \u2011Draho\u0161 and Others v. Slovakia<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Application no. 49902\/14 \u2011Martinovi\u010dov\u00e1 and Others v. Slovakia<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Application no. 55307\/14 \u2011 Rauscher-Nchwalger v. Slovakia<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Application no. 76478\/14 \u2011G\u00e1lfy and Others v. Slovakia<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Application no. 13285\/15 \u2011Mi\u0161\u00edk and Others v. Slovakia<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Application no. 34749\/15 \u2011Sl\u00e1vik and Others v. Slovakia<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Application no. 9738\/16 \u2011Palinay and Others v. Slovakia<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Application no. 45303\/16 \u2011Pitrunov\u00e1 and Others v. Slovakia<\/p>\n <\/p>\n APPENDIX 2<\/strong><\/p>\n List of applicants<\/strong><\/p>\n Application no. 47922\/14<\/strong><\/p>\n The application was lodged on 11 June 2014 by the following twelve applicants.<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr Ji\u0159\u00edDraho\u0161, who was born in 1957 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ms Eva Peciarov\u00e1, who was born in 1954 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr Milan Kov\u00e1\u010d, who was born in 1950 and lives in Tren\u010d\u00edn,<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr JozefKov\u00e1\u010d, who was born in 1954 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ms VieraJungov\u00e1, who was born in 1939 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr \u013dubom\u00edr\u0160\u010dasn\u00fd, who was born in 1960 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr \u013dudov\u00edtLab\u00edk, who was born in 1957 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ms Beata Lab\u00edkov\u00e1, who was born in 1960 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ms Em\u00edliaBal\u00e1\u017eov\u00e1, who was born in 1946 and lives in Pie\u0161\u0165any,<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0 AKJ\u00a0s.\u00a0r.\u00a0o.\u00a0, a company with limited liability, with its registered office in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0 PRIV\u00c9EFINA\u00a0s.\u00a0r.\u00a0o.\u00a0, a company with limited liability, with its registered office in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0 PERFEKT\u00a0a.\u00a0s., a joint-stock company with its registered office in Bratislava.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n APPENDIX 3<\/strong><\/p>\n Application no. 49902\/14<\/strong><\/p>\n List of applicants<\/strong><\/p>\n The application was lodged on 30 June 2014 by the following twenty\u2011seven applicants.<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ms Jana Martinovi\u010dov\u00e1, who was born in 1959 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ms Eva \u010ce\u0159ovsk\u00e1, who was born in 1959 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ms Jana Formanov\u00e1, who was born in 1943 and lives in Brno, the Czech Republic,<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ms Nade\u017edaSkru\u017en\u00e1, who was born in 1948 and lives in Prague, the Czech Republic,<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr J\u00faliusVa\u0148ura, who was born in 1990 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr J\u00e1nVa\u0148ura, who was born in 1992 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr J\u00e1nBienik, who was born in 1951 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ms Anna Bienikov\u00e1, who was born in 1949 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ms Ren\u00e1taVongrejov\u00e1, who was born in 1937 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0 Ms JaroslavaEdedyov\u00e1, who was born in 1949 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0 Ms Katar\u00ednaMur\u00e1\u0148ov\u00e1, who was born in 1982 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0 Ms Anna Lalkovi\u010dov\u00e1, who was born in 1954 and lives in Zvolen,<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0 Mr Ferdinand Lalkovi\u010d, who was born in 1949 and lives in Zvolen,<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0 Ms Anna Sopkov\u010d\u00edkov\u00e1, who was born in 1978 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0 Mr Boris \u0160tef\u00e1nek, who was born in 1954 and lives in Z\u00e1zriv\u00e1,<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0 Ms Viera\u0160tef\u00e1nkov\u00e1, who was born in 1961 and lives in Z\u00e1zriv\u00e1,<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0 Ms Eleon\u00f3ra\u017didekov\u00e1, who was born in 1959 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0 Ms Katar\u00ednaPisar\u010d\u00edkov\u00e1, who was born in 1962 and lives in Zlat\u00e9Klasy,<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0 Mr Stanislav Pav\u00fak, who was born in 1942 and lives in Modra,<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0 Ms Eva N\u00e9methov\u00e1, who was born in 1937 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0 Ms L\u00fddiaMichal\u010dekov\u00e1, who was born in 1935 and lives in Nitra,<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0 Ms Helena Mi\u0148ovsk\u00e1, who was born in 1949 and lives in Prague, the Czech Republic,<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0 Ms Helena Wagnerov\u00e1, who was born in 1944 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0 Ms \u0160tef\u00e1niaKoporcov\u00e1, who was born in 1943 and lives in L\u00e1b,<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0 Mr Pavel Koporec, who was born in 1962 and lives in L\u00e1b,<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0 Ms Milena Z\u00e1les\u0148\u00e1kov\u00e1, who was born in 1963 and lives in L\u00e1b,<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0 Kongreg\u00e1cia sestier Najsv\u00e4tej\u0161ieho Spasite\u013ea, Slovensk\u00e1 provincia, a religious organisation with its registered office in Bratislava.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n APPENDIX 4<\/strong><\/p>\n Application no. 55307\/14<\/strong><\/p>\n List of applicants<\/strong><\/p>\n The application was lodged on 31 July 2014 by the following applicant.<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Alexander Rauscher-Nachwalger, who was born in 1959 and lives in Vienna, Austria.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n APPENDIX 5<\/strong><\/p>\n Application no. 76478\/14<\/strong><\/p>\n List of applicants<\/strong><\/p>\n The application was lodged on 28 November 2014 by the following fourteen applicants.<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr Peter G\u00e1lfy, who was born in 1954 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr Ivan Kov\u00e1\u010d, who was born in 1958 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr Vladim\u00edrSlavom\u00edrFr\u0165ala, who was born in 1956 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr Du\u0161anBadal, who was born in 1941 and lives in Prague, Czech Republic,<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr EyalQuastler, who was born in 1956 and lives in Granville, Ohio, USA,<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ms Iris Taussig, who was born in 1953 and lives in Herzelyia, Israel,<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ms OrlyFroydentalQuastler, who was born in 1967 and lives in Tel Aviv, Israel,<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ms Eva G\u00e1likov\u00e1, who was born in 1951 and lives in Pezinok,<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ms Anna Markov\u00e1, who was born in 1949 and lives in \u0160amor\u00edn,<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0 Ms VlastaVe\u010der\u00edkov\u00e1, who was born in 1954 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0 Mr JozefRezek, who was born in 1956 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0 NESTVEST,\u00a0s.\u00a0r.\u00a0o., a company with limited liability, with its registered office in Bratislava, succeeded by Stepreal\u00a0s.r.o., a\u00a0company with limited liability with its registered seat\u00a0in\u00a0Bratislava,<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0 IVOS\u00a0–\u00a0spol.\u00a0s.\u00a0r.\u00a0o., a company with limited liability, with its registered office in Nitra,<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0 STAVEBN\u00c1 SPOLO\u010cNOS\u0164 RAVING, a.s., a joint-stock company, with is registered office in Pie\u0161\u0165any.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n APPENDIX 6<\/strong><\/p>\n Application no. 13285\/15<\/strong><\/p>\n List of applicants<\/strong><\/p>\n The application was lodged on 10 March 2015 by the following thirteen applicants.<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr Peter Mi\u0161\u00edk, who was born in 1946 and lives in Kremnica,<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr BranislavMi\u0161\u00edk, who was born in 1972 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr Radovan Mi\u0161\u00edk, who was born in 1984 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ms M\u00e1riaSoukupov\u00e1, who was born in 1941 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ms Eva Sofkov\u00e1, who was born in 1947 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr Tom\u00e1\u0161Plank, who was born in 1956 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ms Ingrid Plankov\u00e1, who was born in 1956 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr Du\u0161anPohovej, who was born in 1951 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ms So\u0148aPohovejov\u00e1, who was born in 1957 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0 NOE,\u00a0s.\u00a0r.\u00a0o., a company with limited liability, with its registered seat in Dunajsk\u00e1Streda,<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0 DANY\u00a020,\u00a0s.\u00a0r.\u00a0o.,\u00a0a company with limited liability, with its registered seat in Hlohovec,<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0 Konventn\u00e1 Apartments, s. r. o.,\u00a0a company with limited liability, with its registered seat in Bratislava, succeeded by Feiglerovdoma.s., a joint-stock company with its registered seat\u00a0in\u00a0Bratislava,<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0 W.O.C.H. REAL a. s., a joint-stock company, with its registered seat in Bratislava.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n APPENDIX 7<\/strong><\/p>\n Application no. 34749\/15<\/strong><\/p>\n List of applicants<\/strong><\/p>\n The application was lodged on 13 July 2015 by the following six applicants.<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr PavolSl\u00e1vik, who was born in 1949 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 APOLLO spa & living, s. r. o., a company with limited liability, with its registered office in Pie\u0161\u0165any,<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 OTP BUILDINGS, s. r. o., a company with limited liability, with its registered office in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u017didovsk\u00e1 n\u00e1bo\u017eensk\u00e1 obec Bratislava, a religious organization, with its registered office in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Evanjelick\u00e1 cirkev Augsbursk\u00e9ho vyznania na Slovensku, a\u00a0religious organization, with its registered office in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Cirkevn\u00fd zbor Evanjelickej cirkvi Augsbursk\u00e9ho vyznania na Slovensku Bratislava Star\u00e9 mesto, a\u00a0religious organization, with its registered office in Bratislava.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n APPENDIX 8<\/strong><\/p>\n List of applicants<\/strong><\/p>\n Application no. 9738\/16<\/strong><\/p>\n The application was lodged on 12\u00a0February 2016 by the following six applicants.<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr\u00a0LadislavPalinay who was born on 11 August 1951 and lives in Bansk\u00e1Bystrica,<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ms\u00a0Marcela Hudecov\u00e1 who was born on 10 May 1947 and lives in Bansk\u00e1Bystrica,<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ms\u00a0Libu\u0161aPalinayov\u00e1 who was born on 11 June 1955 and lives in Bansk\u00e1Bystrica,<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr\u00a0Milan Hudec who was born on 1 March 1947 and lives in Bansk\u00e1Bystrica,<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ms\u00a0EditaLammov\u00e1 who was born on 22 June 1946 and lives in Nitra,<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Sk Centre a.\u00a0s., a joint\u2011stock company with its registered seat in Bratislava.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n APPENDIX 9<\/strong><\/p>\n List of applicants<\/strong><\/p>\n Application no. 45303\/16<\/strong><\/p>\n The application was lodged on 27\u00a0July 2016 by the following seven applicants.<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ms\u00a0BarboraPitrunov\u00e1 who was born on 29\u00a0March\u00a01982 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr\u00a0LadislavBodick\u00fd who was born on 10\u00a0August\u00a01941 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr\u00a0Michal Ruttkay who was born on 30\u00a0December\u00a01955 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr\u00a0MatejRuttkay who was born on 6\u00a0July\u00a01961 and lives in Nitra,<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr\u00a0Juraj Ruttkay who was born on 29\u00a0August\u00a01984 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ms\u00a0Zuzana Ruttkayov\u00e1 who was born on 4\u00a0October\u00a01987 and lives in Bratislava,<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr\u00a0VlastimilMare\u0161 who was born on 23\u00a0January\u00a01961 and lives in Pezinok.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n APPENDIX 10<\/strong><\/p>\n Application no. 47922\/14<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Applicant<\/strong><\/td>\n Residential building address<\/strong><\/td>\n Flat no.<\/strong><\/td>\n Area<\/strong><\/p>\n [m2<\/sup>]<\/strong><\/td>\n Period of application of rent control<\/strong><\/td>\n Ownership share<\/strong><\/td>\n Pecuniary damage claimed<\/strong><\/p>\n [\u20ac]<\/strong><\/td>\n Just satisfaction awarded<\/strong><\/p>\n [\u20ac]<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 2<\/p>\n 3<\/td>\n 49.09<\/p>\n 87.66<\/td>\n 26\/02\/1998 –<\/p>\n 26\/02\/1998 –<\/td>\n 3<\/td>\n 87.66<\/td>\n 26\/02\/1998 –<\/td>\n Bratislava – Star\u00e9Mesto<\/td>\n 5<\/p>\n 6<\/td>\n 97.82<\/p>\n 115.73<\/td>\n 19\/06\/1991 –<\/p>\n 19\/06\/1991 –<\/td>\n 1\/4: 18\/4\/2000 – 18\/11\/2010<\/p>\n 1\/2: 19\/11\/2010 –<\/td>\n Bratislava – Star\u00e9Mesto<\/td>\n 5<\/p>\n 6<\/td>\n 97.82<\/p>\n 115.73<\/td>\n 19\/06\/1991 –<\/p>\n 19\/06\/1991 –<\/td>\n Bratislava – Star\u00e9Mesto<\/td>\n 5<\/p>\n 6<\/td>\n 97.82<\/p>\n 115.73<\/td>\n 19\/06\/1991 –<\/p>\n 19\/06\/1991 –<\/td>\n Bratislava – Star\u00e9Mesto<\/td>\n 1\/1: 31\/12\/1994 –<\/td>\n Bratislava – Star\u00e9Mesto<\/td>\n 2<\/p>\n 3<\/p>\n 4<\/p>\n 7<\/p>\n 12<\/p>\n 14<\/p>\n 10<\/p>\n 11<\/td>\n 94.22<\/p>\n 27.84<\/p>\n 51.26<\/p>\n 103.61<\/p>\n 99.74<\/p>\n 54.44<\/p>\n 27.01<\/p>\n 99.60<\/td>\n 10\/12\/2010 –<\/p>\n 10\/12\/2010 –<\/p>\n 10\/12\/2010 –<\/p>\n 10\/12\/2010 –<\/p>\n 10\/12\/2010 –<\/p>\n 10\/12\/2010 – 14\/08\/2014<\/p>\n 10\/12\/2010 – 01\/05\/2014<\/p>\n 10\/12\/2010 – 01\/05\/2014<\/td>\n 1\/3: 23\/11\/2011 – 04\/2\/2016<\/p>\n 2\/3: 5\/2\/2016 –<\/td>\n Beata LAB\u00cdKOV\u00c1<\/td>\n Bratislava – Star\u00e9Mesto<\/td>\n 8<\/p>\n 9<\/p>\n 11<\/td>\n 32.45<\/p>\n 48.65<\/p>\n 32.00<\/td>\n 08\/03\/2001 –<\/p>\n 08\/03\/2001 –<\/p>\n 08\/03\/2001 –<\/td>\n Bratislava – Star\u00e9Mesto<\/td>\n 8<\/p>\n 9<\/p>\n 11<\/td>\n 32.45<\/p>\n 48.65<\/p>\n 32.00<\/td>\n 31\/12\/2010 –<\/p>\n 31\/12\/2010 –<\/p>\n 31\/12\/2010 –<\/td>\n Bratislava – Star\u00e9Mesto<\/td>\n 12<\/p>\n 14<\/p>\n 15<\/td>\n 86.59<\/p>\n 86.64<\/p>\n 20.74<\/td>\n 31\/05\/1991 – 19\/10\/2016<\/p>\n 31\/05\/1991 –<\/p>\n 31\/05\/1991 –<\/td>\n 1\/1: 13\/11\/2013 –<\/td>\n Bratislava – Star\u00e9Mesto<\/td>\n 10<\/td>\n 72.00<\/td>\n 29\/04\/2009 – 14\/12\/2014<\/td>\n Bratislava – Star\u00e9Mesto<\/td>\n * joint marital ownership<\/p>\n APPENDIX 11<\/strong><\/p>\n Application no. 49902\/14<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Applicant<\/strong><\/td>\n Residential building address<\/strong><\/td>\n Flat no.<\/strong><\/td>\n Area<\/strong><\/p>\n [m2<\/sup>]<\/strong><\/td>\n Period of application of rent control<\/strong><\/td>\n Ownership share<\/strong><\/td>\n Pecuniary damage claimed<\/strong><\/p>\n [\u20ac]<\/strong><\/td>\n Just satisfaction awarded<\/strong><\/p>\n [\u20ac]<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 4<\/p>\n 7<\/td>\n 72.29<\/p>\n 113.42<\/td>\n 27\/09\/1991 –<\/p>\n 27\/09\/1991- 31\/12\/2013<\/td>\n 4<\/p>\n 7<\/td>\n 72.29<\/p>\n 113.42<\/td>\n 27\/09\/1991 –<\/p>\n 27\/09\/1991- 31\/12\/2013<\/td>\n 5<\/p>\n 6<\/p>\n 9<\/td>\n 126.14<\/p>\n 127.05<\/p>\n 74.33<\/td>\n 15\/11\/1991 –<\/p>\n 15\/11\/1991 –<\/p>\n 15\/11\/1991 –<\/td>\n 5<\/p>\n 6<\/p>\n 9<\/td>\n 126.14<\/p>\n 127.05<\/p>\n 74.33<\/td>\n 15\/11\/1991 –<\/p>\n 15\/11\/1991 –<\/p>\n 15\/11\/1991 –<\/td>\n Bratislava – Nov\u00e9Mesto<\/td>\n 6<\/p>\n 9<\/p>\n 10<\/p>\n 13<\/p>\n 15<\/p>\n 16<\/p>\n 18+19<\/td>\n 63.65<\/p>\n 49.64<\/p>\n 59.72<\/p>\n 33.79<\/p>\n 49.46<\/p>\n 56.72<\/p>\n 65.17<\/td>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 – 30\/05\/2016<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/td>\n <\/p>\n 19\/42:21\/1\/2013 – 3\/2\/2014<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 11\/42: 4\/2\/2014 –<\/td>\n <\/td>\n Bratislava – Nov\u00e9Mesto<\/td>\n 6<\/p>\n 9<\/p>\n 10<\/p>\n 13<\/p>\n 15<\/p>\n 16<\/p>\n 18+19<\/td>\n 63.65<\/p>\n 49.64<\/p>\n 59.72<\/p>\n 33.79<\/p>\n 49.46<\/p>\n 56.72<\/p>\n 65.17<\/td>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 – 30\/05\/2016<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/td>\n <\/p>\n 11\/42: 4\/2\/2014 –<\/td>\n <\/td>\n Bratislava – Nov\u00e9Mesto<\/td>\n 6<\/p>\n 9<\/p>\n 10<\/p>\n 13<\/p>\n 15<\/p>\n 16<\/p>\n 18+19<\/td>\n 63.65<\/p>\n 49.64<\/p>\n 59.72<\/p>\n 33.79<\/p>\n 49.46<\/p>\n 56.72<\/p>\n 65.17<\/td>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 – 30\/05\/2016<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/td>\n <\/td>\n Bratislava – Nov\u00e9Mesto<\/td>\n 6<\/p>\n 9<\/p>\n 10<\/p>\n 13<\/p>\n 15<\/p>\n 16<\/p>\n 18+19<\/td>\n 63.65<\/p>\n 49.64<\/p>\n 59.72<\/p>\n 33.79<\/p>\n 49.46<\/p>\n 56.72<\/p>\n 65.17<\/td>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 – 30\/05\/2016<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/td>\n <\/td>\n Bratislava – Nov\u00e9Mesto<\/td>\n 6<\/p>\n 9<\/p>\n 10<\/p>\n 13<\/p>\n 15<\/p>\n 16<\/p>\n 18+19<\/td>\n 63.65<\/p>\n 49.64<\/p>\n 59.72<\/p>\n 33.79<\/p>\n 49.46<\/p>\n 56.72<\/p>\n 65.17<\/td>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 – 30\/05\/2016<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/td>\n Bratislava – Nov\u00e9Mesto<\/td>\n 6<\/p>\n 9<\/p>\n 10<\/p>\n 13<\/p>\n 15<\/p>\n 16<\/p>\n 18+19<\/td>\n 63.65<\/p>\n 49.64<\/p>\n 59.72<\/p>\n 33.79<\/p>\n 49.46<\/p>\n 56.72<\/p>\n 65.17<\/td>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 – 30\/05\/2016<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/td>\n Bratislava – Nov\u00e9Mesto<\/td>\n 6<\/p>\n 9<\/p>\n 10<\/p>\n 13<\/p>\n 15<\/p>\n 16<\/p>\n 18+19<\/td>\n 63.65<\/p>\n 49.64<\/p>\n 59.72<\/p>\n 33.79<\/p>\n 49.46<\/p>\n 56.72<\/p>\n 65.17<\/td>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 – 30\/05\/2016<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/td>\n Bratislava – Nov\u00e9Mesto<\/td>\n 6<\/p>\n 9<\/p>\n 10<\/p>\n 13<\/p>\n 15<\/p>\n 16<\/p>\n 18+19<\/td>\n 63.65<\/p>\n 49.64<\/p>\n 59.72<\/p>\n 33.79<\/p>\n 49.46<\/p>\n 56.72<\/p>\n 65.17<\/td>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 – 30\/05\/2016<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/td>\n <\/p>\n 2\/42: 4\/2\/2014 –<\/td>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n 9,800<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n <\/td>\n (ul. 1. m\u00e1ja 18), \u017dilina<\/td>\n
\nPere Pastor Vilanova,
\nAlena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1, judges,
\nand Fato\u015f Arac\u0131, 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 A.<\/strong><\/p>\n B.<\/strong><\/p>\n C.<\/strong><\/p>\n D.<\/strong><\/p>\n E.<\/strong><\/p>\n F.<\/strong><\/p>\n G.<\/strong><\/p>\n H.<\/strong><\/p>\n \n Ji\u0159\u00ed DRAHO\u0160<\/td>\n Jakubovon\u00e1m. 17, Bratislava – Star\u00e9Mesto<\/td>\n 1<\/p>\n 49.09<\/p>\n 26\/02\/1998 –<\/p>\n 1\/1<\/td>\n 1,377,659.63<\/td>\n 62,300<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Ji\u0159\u00ed DRAHO\u0160<\/td>\n Jakubovon\u00e1m. 19, Bratislava – Star\u00e9Mesto<\/td>\n 2<\/p>\n 49.09<\/p>\n 26\/02\/1998 –<\/p>\n 1\/1<\/td>\n 45,800<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Eva PECIAROV\u00c1<\/td>\n \u0160pit\u00e1lska 37,<\/p>\n 3<\/p>\n 115.73<\/p>\n 19\/06\/1991 – 29\/11\/2016<\/p>\n 1\/2: 19\/6\/1991 – 17\/4\/2000<\/p>\n 935,410.80<\/td>\n 58,200<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Milan KOV\u00c1\u010c<\/td>\n \u0160pit\u00e1lska 37,<\/p>\n 3<\/p>\n 115.73<\/p>\n 19\/06\/1991 – 29\/11\/2016<\/p>\n 1\/4<\/td>\n 609,555.88<\/td>\n 36,800<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Jozef KOV\u00c1\u010c<\/td>\n \u0160pit\u00e1lska 37,<\/p>\n 3<\/p>\n 115.73<\/p>\n 19\/06\/1991 – 29\/11\/2016<\/p>\n 1\/4<\/td>\n 609,555.88<\/td>\n 36,800<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Viera JUNGOV\u00c1<\/td>\n \u010cajakova 36,<\/p>\n 1<\/td>\n 75.11<\/td>\n 18\/03\/1992 –<\/td>\n 2\/3: 18\/3\/1992 – 30\/12\/1994<\/p>\n 313,088.72<\/td>\n 32,600<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \u013dubom\u00edr \u0160\u010cASN\u00dd<\/td>\n Heydukova 19,<\/p>\n 1<\/p>\n 107.38<\/p>\n 10\/12\/2010 –<\/p>\n 1\/6: 10\/12\/2010 – 22\/11\/2011<\/p>\n 103,616.57<\/td>\n 26,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \u013dudov\u00edt LAB\u00cdK<\/p>\n \u0160ancov\u00e1 76,<\/p>\n 7<\/p>\n 41.11<\/p>\n 08\/03\/2001 –<\/p>\n 1\/2*<\/td>\n 106,999.98<\/td>\n 21,600*<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n PRIV\u00c9EFINA s.r.o.<\/td>\n \u0160ancov\u00e1 76,<\/p>\n 7<\/p>\n 41.11<\/p>\n 31\/12\/2010 –<\/p>\n 1\/2<\/td>\n 36,183.98<\/td>\n 8,700<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Em\u00edlia BAL\u00c1\u017dOV\u00c1<\/td>\n \u0160ancov\u00e1 102,<\/p>\n 11<\/p>\n 68.56<\/p>\n 31\/05\/1991 –<\/p>\n 1\/3: 31\/5\/1991 – 12\/11\/2013<\/p>\n 1,217,429.82<\/td>\n 48,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n AKJ s.r.o.<\/td>\n \u017dilinsk\u00e1 2,<\/p>\n 3<\/p>\n 33.55<\/p>\n 29\/04\/2009 – 14\/12\/2014<\/p>\n 1\/1<\/td>\n 64,808.12<\/td>\n 9,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n PERFEKT a.s.<\/td>\n Karpatsk\u00e1 7,<\/p>\n 1<\/td>\n 72.11<\/td>\n 25\/04\/1995 – 10\/02\/2016<\/td>\n 1\/1<\/td>\n 280,753.50<\/td>\n 28,200<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Total<\/strong><\/td>\n 416,300<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n \n\n
\n A.<\/strong><\/p>\n B.<\/strong><\/p>\n C.<\/strong><\/p>\n D.<\/strong><\/p>\n E.<\/strong><\/p>\n F.<\/strong><\/p>\n G.<\/strong><\/p>\n H.<\/strong><\/p>\n \n Jana MARTINOVI\u010cOV\u00c1<\/td>\n \u0160tef\u00e1nikova 16, Bratislava – Star\u00e9 Mesto<\/td>\n 1<\/p>\n 38.41<\/p>\n 27\/09\/1991 –<\/p>\n 1\/2<\/td>\n 502,492.59<\/td>\n 46,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Eva \u010cE\u0158OVSK\u00c1<\/td>\n \u0160tef\u00e1nikova 16, Bratislava – Star\u00e9 Mesto<\/td>\n 1<\/p>\n 38.41<\/p>\n 27\/09\/1991 –<\/p>\n 1\/2<\/td>\n 502,492.59<\/td>\n 46,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Jana FORMANOV\u00c1<\/td>\n Gr\u00f6sslingov\u00e1 43, Bratislava – Star\u00e9Mesto<\/td>\n 3<\/p>\n 155.3<\/p>\n 15\/11\/1991 –<\/p>\n 1\/4<\/td>\n 549,169.63<\/td>\n 54,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Nade\u017eda SKRU\u017dN\u00c1<\/td>\n Gr\u00f6sslingov\u00e1 43, Bratislava – Star\u00e9Mesto<\/td>\n 3<\/p>\n 155.3<\/p>\n 15\/11\/1991 –<\/p>\n 1\/4<\/td>\n 549,169.63<\/td>\n 54,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n J\u00falius VA\u0147URA<\/td>\n Tren\u010dianska 15, Bratislava II<\/td>\n 8<\/td>\n 72.57<\/td>\n 13\/11\/2012 –<\/td>\n 1\/4<\/td>\n 4,820.96<\/td>\n 1,400<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n J\u00e1n VA\u0147URA<\/td>\n Tren\u010dianska 15, Bratislava II<\/td>\n 8<\/td>\n 72.57<\/td>\n 13\/11\/2012 –<\/td>\n 1\/4<\/td>\n 4,820.96<\/td>\n 1,400<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n J\u00e1n BIENIK<\/td>\n Budy\u0161\u00ednska 2,<\/p>\n 5<\/p>\n 45.75<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 7\/42: 25\/9\/2009 – 20\/1\/2013<\/p>\n 58,068.58<\/td>\n 13,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Anna BIENIKOV\u00c1<\/p>\n Budy\u0161\u00ednska 2,<\/p>\n 5<\/p>\n 45.75<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 5\/42: 25\/9\/2009 – 3\/2\/2014<\/p>\n 39,369.83<\/td>\n 8,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Ren\u00e1ta VONGREJOV\u00c1<\/p>\n Budy\u0161\u00ednska 2,<\/p>\n 5<\/p>\n 45.75<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 2\/21<\/td>\n 24,015.63<\/td>\n 5,300<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Jaroslava EDEDYOV\u00c1<\/p>\n Budy\u0161\u00ednska 2,<\/p>\n 5<\/p>\n 45.75<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 1\/21<\/td>\n 12,007.82<\/td>\n 2,700<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Katar\u00edna MUR\u00c1\u0147OV\u00c1<\/p>\n Budy\u0161\u00ednska 2,<\/p>\n 5<\/p>\n 45.75<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 1\/21<\/td>\n 12,007.82<\/td>\n 2,700<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Anna LALKOVI\u010cOV\u00c1<\/td>\n Budy\u0161\u00ednska 2,<\/p>\n 5<\/p>\n 45.75<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 5\/42<\/td>\n 30,019.53<\/td>\n 6,600<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Ferdinand LALKOVI\u010c<\/td>\n Budy\u0161\u00ednska 2,<\/p>\n 5<\/p>\n 45.75<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 5\/42<\/td>\n 30,019.53<\/td>\n 6,600<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Anna SOPKOV\u010c\u00cdKOV\u00c1<\/td>\n Budy\u0161\u00ednska 2,<\/p>\n 5<\/p>\n 45.75<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2009 –<\/p>\n 6\/21: 25\/9\/2009 – 20\/1\/2013<\/p>\n 46,655.28<\/td>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n \n Boris \u0160TEF\u00c1NEK<\/p>\n Moyzesova 22<\/p>\n 1 \u2192<\/p>\n