CYIL vol. 10 (2019)

VÍT ALEXANDER SCHORM

CYIL 10 ȍ2019Ȏ

4. A couple of clones at the end Finally, two judgments virtually replicate existing case law against the Czech Republic without bringing any novelties. 4.1 The established response to some of the remaining rent control cases In the case of Kuklík and Others v. the Czech Republic (nos. 15493/12 and four others, committee judgment of 4 October 2018), the Court simply applied the conclusions it had reached with respect to the period of a “legal vacuum” between 2002 and 2006 (both years included) when there was no legal basis for a surviving pricing regulation in flats rented by the State under the Communist regime which later passed into private hands, in particular, through the restitution of the buildings concerned after the fall of the regime. The interference with the landlords’ property rights in that period between the abrogation of the rent control scheme by the Constitutional Court and the effective operation of a new law which amended the legislation in the area and allowed, in particular, for a gradual unilateral rent increase, was considered by the Court as unlawful, thus in contradiction to the requirements laid down in Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the Convention ( R & L, s.r.o. and Others v. the Czech Republic , nos. 37926/05 and four others, Chamber judgment of 3 July 2014). The Court also applied its case law on just satisfaction ( Čapský and Jeschkeová v. the Czech Republic , nos. 25784/09 and 36002/09, and Heldenburg v. the Czech Republic , no. 65546/09, both judgments (just satisfaction) of 9 February 2017; these cases were part of the group in R & L, s.r.o. and Others v. the Czech Republic , judgment on the merits cited above). Insofar as the claims had been raised before the Court and supported by documents, the awards covered a lump sum non-pecuniary damage, various amounts corresponding to the difference between the potential market rent and the maximum regulated rent under the head of pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. 12 4.2 The same fair trial problem + the same side of the domestic proceedings = the same solution from Strasbourg Since the applicant in the case of Colloredo Mansfeldová v. the Czech Republic (no. 51896/12, committee judgment of 11 January 2018) is not only a cousin of the applicant in the case of Colloredo Mannsfeld v. the Czech Republic (nos. 15275/11 and 76058/12, judgment of 15 December 2016), 13 but both also participated on the same side in identical sets of domestic proceedings, they were both touched by the same problem of the fairness of these proceedings. In its later judgment, the Court could copy-paste its opinion; it indeed considered the impossibility for the applicant(s) to consult and comment on a key document from 1947 on whose grounds the domestic courts nonetheless resolved the case to their detriment, contrary to the principle of adversarial proceedings. The requests of both cousins for reopening of the proceedings have been pending before the Constitutional Court. 14

12 Further details about this case law are given e.g. in our contribution to the 2014 edition of this Yearbook, pp. 409-411, as well as to its 2018 edition, pp. 400-402. 13 See also our contribution to the 2017 edition of this Yearbook, p. 594. 14 According to information available at the website of the Constitutional Court on 1 September 2019.

482