STRAKA AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos. 11809/12 and 35284/13
Kristián STRAKA and Others against Slovakia
and Svetlana BORODINOVÁ and Others against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 4 November 2014 as a Chamber composed of:

Josep Casadevall, President,
Luis López Guerra,
Ján Šikuta,
Dragoljub Popović,
Johannes Silvis,
Valeriu Griţco,
Iulia Antoanella Motoc, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on 23 February 2012 and 21 May 2013 respectively,

Having regard to the decision to grant priority to application no. 11809/12 under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applications were lodged by 256 individual Slovak nationals, whose particulars appear in the Appendix (“the applicants”). They were represented by Mr P. Chrašč, a lawyer practising in Bratislava.

The applications were also lodged by the civic association Right to Housing (Právo na bývanie – “the applicant association”), whose registered office is in Bratislava and of whom the applicants are members. The applicant association was represented by Mr K. Straka, its President.

A. The circumstances of the cases

2. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants and the applicant association, may be summarised as follows.

3. Between 1945 and 2002 public authorities allotted flats to the applicants or their predecessors in accordance with the law then in force. Following the developments described below, their rights of use were transformed into tenancies and the houses in which the flats were located were restored to their original owners or denationalised. The applications concern the public authorities’ actions in connection with the denationalisation of the housing fund in Slovakia, the dismantling of rent control and the impact this has had on the individual applicants. The following facts are relevant.

1. Situation prior to the fall of the communist regime

4. Prior to the fall of the communist regime in 1989, the housing system in Czechoslovakia was part of a planned State-run economy. Citizens in cities and towns lived mostly in flats owned by the State or “legal persons”, such as State-owned companies. The construction of flats and their use and allocation were managed, financed and controlled by public authorities through a centralised management structure.

5. Others lived in flats which had been built by housing cooperatives of which they were members. Cooperative housing was also funded primarily from public sources. Under the relevant legislation, direct and non‑refundable government grants represented more than 60% of the total costs of construction.

6. Mostly in rural areas, inhabitants built their own family homes which were in their “personal” ownership. Their construction was also subsidised and promoted by the State by various means.

7. Persons living in flats owned by the State were holders of a right of use (osobné užívanie) under the Civil Code. They were entitled to use their flats for an indefinite period. Members of the same household as a person having a right of use were entitled to continue living in the flat after the latter’s death. Holders of a right of use were allowed to participate in the decision-making processes regarding alterations and reconstruction of the houses in which they lived. Exchanges of flats between holders of a right of use were permissible and frequent. They were subjected to approval by the owner, which was generally only a formality. The amount payable for the use of flats was regulated in accordance with the central wage policy. It did not reflect the costs of construction and maintenance. Users could be evicted only in exceptional circumstances, for example if they had failed to pay the sum due for three consecutive months or had committed a serious breach of the law in their use of a flat.

2. Restitution of property and housing reforms in the context of the country’s transition towards a market-oriented economy

8. In the former Czechoslovakia, to which Slovakia has been one of the successor States as of 1 January 1993, housing reforms started in 1990 in the context of (i) measures aimed at redressing certain wrongs that had been committed under the communist regime and (ii) the country’s transition towards a market-oriented economy. It involved the restitution of houses to former owners, the denationalisation of State-owned housing stock and later the gradual deregulation of rent.

(a) Restitution laws and the denationalisation of company-owned flats

9. New laws allowed for the restitution of property which had been taken away from owners under the communist regime. A number of dwelling houses, especially in towns, were returned to the original owners or their successors. The restitution of dwelling houses as such did not formally affect the legal position of those who had a right of use of individual flats.

10. In 1991 the process of “large-scale privatisation” was started. It consisted of the denationalisation of State-owned enterprises. In some cases, new owners divided the property of the company of which part, including the company’s housing stock, was transferred to third parties. In such cases, the users’ position was similar to that described in the preceding section. In 1999 a law was passed prohibiting the transfer of company-owned flats to persons other than their actual tenants.

(b) Further developments in housing policy

11. The main objective of the housing reforms after 1989 was the introduction of private ownership of housing stock. The reforms were primarily related to housing in flats.

(i) Replacement of rights of use by tenancies

12. With effect from 1 January 1992 the Civil Code was amended so that rights of use in respect of flats were cancelled and replaced by tenancies. Rents remained regulated. In the event of death of a tenant of a flat rented by spouses, the survivor is entitled to become the sole tenant. In other cases, tenancies are transferrable to a deceased tenant’s children, grandchildren, siblings or sons or daughters-in-law, if they can prove they shared the same household at the time of death and do not have their own flat. The same right may be enjoyed by other persons who took care of the deceased tenant’s household or were dependent on him or her for at least three years prior to his or her death, and who do not have their own flat.

13. The relevant provisions of the Civil Code restrict a landlord’s ability to terminate a tenancy to a limited number of cases, such as where the latter needs the flat for their own or their next of kin’s purposes, or where the tenant did not need the flat or failed to comply with his or her obligations. Termination of a tenancy by a landlord must be approved by a court, and in most cases tenants may only have to vacate the flat once they have been provided with substitute accommodation.

(ii) Legislation allowing for the transfer of ownership of flats to members of housing cooperatives and tenants in publicly-owned dwelling houses

14. Law no. 42/1992 provided for the transformation of cooperatives in the context of the country’s transition towards a market-oriented economy. Members of housing cooperatives were entitled to have ownership of the flats in which they lived transferred to them. They only had to pay the outstanding part of the State loan which had been provided in respect of the dwelling. In practice, tenants acquired ownership of cooperative flats either at a nominal price or, where the State loan had already been repaid, at no additional cost.

15. The Ownership of Flats and Non-Dwelling Premises Act 1993 (Law no. 182/1993) was enacted with effect from 1 September 1993. It allowed tenants in publicly-owned dwelling houses to buy their flats on favourable terms. The basis for calculating the price was the statistical value of a dwelling as defined in the period of the centrally planned economy. Tenants had a number of further advantages and benefits. As a result, they obtained ownership of flats at a nominal price which was only a fraction of their actual market value. The applicants indicated that one of the reasons for the large-scale denationalisation of public housing stock was so that the majority of the population could be compensated in a situation where the denationalisation of a substantial part of State property, such as companies, had resulted in it being transferred to a limited number of persons.

16. Subsequent amendments to Law no. 182/1993 extended its scope to cover flats the ownership of which had been transferred to a number of legal persons, such as consumption, agricultural and production cooperatives and companies. In its findings in case PL. ÚS 26/00, the Constitutional Court dismissed a challenge by the Prosecutor General to some of the amendments. It held, among other things, that the denationalisation of housing stock, in addition to being part of the economic transformation process, aimed at eliminating discrimination against residents of flats as compared to owners of individual houses who had acquired them with the help of public resources.

17. The large-scale denationalisation of housing stock in Slovakia, especially in big towns, resulted in almost all flats being transferred to private ownership. The rental sector nearly ceased to exist, with rental flats remaining mostly in restored and privatised houses.

(iii) Deregulation of rent

18. From 1992 a number of instruments of subordinate legislation were issued providing for a gradual increase in regulated rent.

19. On 25 September 2008 the Ministry of Finance issued Measure no. 02/R/2008. It allowed the rent-control scheme to continue to apply after 31 December 2011 where (i) tenants or persons sharing their household did not own or co-own, on 1 October 2008, a comparable flat or inhabitable real property in the same municipality or within 50 kilometres of its boundaries; (ii) the landlord and the tenant did not reach a different agreement on the rent before 1 January 2012; and (iii) the tenants concerned submitted a registration form to the Ministry of Construction and Regional Development before 31 December 2008.

20. Documents of that Ministry indicate that, by 20 January 2009 registration forms had been submitted by tenants in respect of 923 flats where rent control was applied. 2,311 persons lived in those flats. The documents indicate that it was envisaged that substitute accommodation would be made available to those concerned by the reforms where this was justified by their social situation. 76.5% of the tenants thus registered lived in flats located in Bratislava.

21. On the basis of that data, the authorities estimated that the rent-control scheme concerned approximately 1,000 flats, that is to say 0.24% of rented flats in houses that existed in 1991 and 0.06% of the inhabited housing facilities which were available in Slovakia in 2001.

22. On 15 September 2011 the Termination and Settlement of Tenancy (Certain Flats) Act came into force. It was enacted with a view to eliminating rent restrictions concerning individual owners (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below).

(c) Impact on the individual applicants

23. In application no. 11809/12, 135 of the 201 individual applicants had received notice of termination of their tenancies by 23 January 2013. By that date the applicants’ claim for substitute accommodation had been granted in thirty-six cases and refused in eight.

24. In application no. 35284/13, fifty-one individual applicants had received notice by the time their applications had been lodged on 21 May 2013. With the exception of four, the applicants in that case considered that they met the criteria of persons in “material need” of housing within the meaning of Law no. 260/2011.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

25. Details of the relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the case of Bittó and Others v. Slovakia (no. 30255/09, §§ 32-70, 28 January 2014). In addition, the following information is relevant.

1. Law no. 260/2011

26. The Termination and Settlement of Tenancy (Certain Flats) Act 2011 (Law no. 260/2011), as amended, applies in particular to flats used by individuals whose rent has been regulated. It entitled landlords, until 31 December 2012, to give notice of termination of a tenancy which was to take effect after twelve months. Tenants who are entitled to substitute accommodation or whose corresponding claim has not yet been determined do not have to vacate their flats until a municipality has provided substitute housing to them. Law no. 260/2011 further entitles landlords to increase rent by 20% once a year from 2012 to 2015 (sections 1 to 4).

27. Pursuant to section 5(1) to (3), tenants who received notice under the above provisions are entitled to substitute accommodation subject to them (i) submitting a claim in compliance with the provisions of Law no. 260/2011 and (ii) being in “material need” of housing, namely where they or persons sharing their household do not own an appropriate flat within the boundaries of the same municipality or district and where it is justified by their financial situation.

Subsections (4) to (6) of section 5 define the substitute accommodation to be made available, namely rental flats in the same municipality comprising of one room for a single tenant, two rooms for two to three tenants, three rooms for four to five tenants, and four rooms for six or more individuals.

28. Persons applying for substitute accommodation must submit a declaration of their property and indicate its overall value (section 6). Applications must also indicate the particulars of the tenants and persons living with them, including their date of birth, family status, identity card number and address. They must also comprise the claimants’ consent to the data contained therein being processed and published in conformity with the Personal Data Protection Act (section 8).

29. A municipality’s decision on a request for substitute accommodation is reviewable by the courts (section 9(6)).

30. Under section 9(8), municipalities keep lists of persons applying for substitute accommodation. The lists are public and to be made accessible on public noticeboards and, where available, websites of the municipalities.

31. Section 12 obliges municipalities to provide successful claimants with substitute accommodation by 31 December 2016, or else they must pay the flat owners the difference between the free market rent and regulated rent.

2. Law no. 261/2011

32. Law no. 261/2011 governs the funding of flats in which substitute accommodation is to be provided.

33. Section 11 defines the size of such flats and how they should be equipped. Their surface area may not exceed 45 square metres in single‑room flats and 90 square metres in four-room flats. Standards are set as regards heating, personal hygiene facilities and kitchen equipment.

3. Personal Data Protection Act 2013

34. The aim of the Act has been, among other things, to protect individuals against an unjustified interference with their private life in the processing of their personal data (section 1(a)). It sets out in detail the requirements for personal data to be obtained and processed with or without the consent of the person concerned, and its storage and destruction. Those intending to publish personal data must not interfere in an unjustified manner with the personal rights and privacy of those concerned (section 12(5)).

35. The Act further entitles those concerned to obtain information as regards the storage and processing of their personal data, and request redress where appropriate. If they consider the relevant legal provisions to have been disregarded, they are entitled to apply to the Personal Data Protection Office, which may order any shortcomings found to be remedied and sanction those liable. Its decisions in that regard are reviewable by the courts.

4. Implementation of Law nos. 260/2011 and 261/2011 by municipalities

36. The website of the Bratislava municipality contains, among other things, lists of persons whose claims for a rental flat, within the meaning of Law no. 260/2011, have been granted by a final decision. Separate lists are kept according to the number of rooms to which claimants are entitled. They indicate the first name, surname and address of those concerned.

37. The website further contains guidelines explaining the procedure under Law no. 260/2011 and forms which persons claiming substitute accommodation are required to complete. These comprise a claim form setting out the particulars of the claimant and persons living with him or her, information about the flat to be vacated and an indication whether the claimant and/or persons living with him or her have their own flat elsewhere.

38. Claim forms are to be accompanied by a declaration of property pursuant to section 6 of Law no. 260/2011. The claimant and persons concerned have to provide full details of their immovable property and its value. They are further required to declare any movable property exceeding 20,000 euros in value.

39. In addition, those concerned have to confirm in writing that they voluntarily consent to the above data being processed, in accordance with the Data Protection Act, by the municipality concerned, for the purposes of and to the extent that it is necessary for the decision on their claim for substitute accommodation, the granting of such accommodation and verification of the information submitted. The validity of the consent is expressly limited to the duration of the examination of the claim or, as the case may be, conclusion of a tenancy agreement in respect of a substitute flat.

40. The Bratislava municipality also publishes on its website lists of persons to whom municipal flats have been allocated outside the procedure set out in Law no. 260/2011. They contain the first name and surname of persons to whom a municipal flat has been rented and its size. The accompanying comment indicates that the information has been made public with a view to increasing the control and involvement of the public in municipal life.

41. Lists of persons whose claims for a rental flat within the meaning of Law no. 260/2011 have been granted, similar to those described in paragraph 36 above, are published on the websites of other municipalities, for example Trenčín, Žilina and Banská Bystrica.

C. Other relevant documents

42. Information about relevant international documents and comparative law in respect of housing policies is set out in the case of Berger-Krall and Others v. Slovenia (no. 14717/04, §§ 87-92 and 112-16, 12 June 2014).

43. On 9 November 2010 the Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber) delivered a judgment in joined cases C-92/09 and C‑93/09 (Volker und Markus Schecke GbR and Hartmut Eifert v. Land Hessen), which concerned the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data. It held that, by requiring publication of the names of all natural persons who were beneficiaries of aid from agricultural funds and the exact amounts received by them, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission had “exceeded the limits which compliance with the principle of proportionality impose[d]”.

COMPLAINTS

44. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, both taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, the applicants complained that their rights of use of the flats which had been allocated to them had been revoked and that the subsequent rent deregulation legislation had further impaired their rights in respect of those flats. Unlike a large number of persons who had lived in flats the construction of which had been financed or supported by public means, that is to say funds accumulated by the citizens of Slovakia, the applicants as sitting tenants had been prevented from acquiring ownership of the flats in which they lived. Furthermore, they had not been provided with compensation in that respect.

45. Under Article 8 of the Convention the applicants complained that unlike their fellow citizens, who were able to acquire ownership of the flats which they had used, their rights as sitting tenants had been affected. Law no. 260/2011 and related legislative amendments had further weakened their legal protection and allowed flat owners to terminate existing tenancies. The substitute housing required to be provided by law was of a lower quality than the flats in which the applicants lived.

46. In addition, the applicants complained under Article 8 of the Convention that Law no. 260/2011 had violated their right to the protection of their personal data by obliging (i) those seeking substitute housing to submit a declaration of their financial situation to local authorities; and (ii) local authorities to publish lists of those who had applied for substitute accommodation. They referred to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in cases C-92/09 and C-93/09 (see paragraph 43 above).

47. According to its representative, the applicant association had been affected by the above violations of the Convention and its Protocols indirectly, in that the rights of its members had been breached.

THE LAW

A. Preliminary issues

48. The Court notes that the applications have the same factual and legal background. It is therefore appropriate to join them, pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court.

49. Following the death of Mr Jurkovič, one of the applicants in application no. 11809/12, his wife and daughter, who lived in the same household, expressed the wish to continue the application in his stead (see Appendix, point 94). It has been the Court’s practice, in cases where an applicant has died in the course of the proceedings, to take into account the statements of his or her heirs or close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings before it (see Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, §§ 98-101, ECHR 2013). It finds no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present cases. Accordingly, Ms Júlia Jurkovičová and Ms Oľga Jurkovičová may pursue application no. 11809/12 in so far as it was lodged by the late Mr Emil Jurkovič.

50. Finally, the Court notes that the applicant association lodged the applications along with the individual applicants who are its members. Its representative indicated that the applicant association had been affected indirectly, in the form of a violation of the rights of its members (see paragraph 47 above).

51. The Court has considered associations to have standing allowing them to complain about a breach of Convention rights where they (and not their members) have been directly affected by the measures complained of (see, for example, Nencheva and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 48609/06, § 90, 18 June 2013, and A.S.P.A.S. and Lasgrezas v. France, no. 29953/08, §§ 25‑26, 22 September 2011, both with further references).

52. Since the above requirement has not been met in the present cases, the applicant association cannot be considered to have “victim” status within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention.

It follows that its complaints are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

B. Complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, both taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention

53. The applicants complained that their rights of use of the flats which had been allocated to them had been revoked, that they had been prevented from acquiring ownership of the flats in which they lived as sitting tenants, and that they had been provided with no compensation in that respect. They alleged a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, both taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention. Those provisions read:

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

Article 14

“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”

54. The Court notes at the outset that the rights of use the applicants had originally enjoyed were cancelled as of 1 January 1992 (see paragraph 12 above). Since Slovakia has been bound by the Convention since 18 March 1992, the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione temporis to determine whether the effects of the rights of use could give rise to any proprietary interest attracting the guarantees of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

55. As to the remaining complaints, the Court reiterates that an applicant may allege a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 only in so far as the impugned measures relate to his or her “possessions” within the meaning of that provision. “Possessions” can be “existing possessions” or assets, including claims, in respect of which an applicant can argue that he or she has at least a “legitimate expectation” that they will be realised, that is to say that he or she will obtain effective enjoyment of a property right (see, inter alia, Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002‑VII, and Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 35, ECHR 2004‑IX).

56. As to the applicants’ argument that under national law they had been unable to buy the flats in which they lived as tenants, the Court points out that there is no right to acquire possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Raviv v. Austria, no. 26266/05, § 61, 13 March 2012).

57. The Court has also examined the applicants’ argument that they considered themselves entitled to benefit, in the context of the housing reforms, from the denationalisation of State property in a similar way as persons living in publicly-owned houses or houses built with public subsidies. However, the belief that the law should be changed to the applicants’ advantage cannot be regarded as a form of legitimate expectation, which must be of a nature more concrete than a mere hope and be based on a legal provision or a legal act such as a judicial decision to attract the guarantees of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see also Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], cited above, §§ 45-51).

58. Finally, it remains to be examined whether the effects of Law no. 260/2011, including the right of the house owners to terminate the applicants’ tenancies, were likely to have interfered with the latter’s right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.

59. In that connection, the Court reiterates that the right to live in a particular property not owned by an applicant does not as such constitute a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Bunjevac v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 48775/99, 19 January 2006, Gaćeša v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43389/02, 1 April 2008, and Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29920/05, 3553/06, 18876/10, 61186/10, 21176/11, 36112/11, 36426/11, 40841/11, 45381/11, 55929/11 and 60822/11, § 178, 1 July 2014, with further references).

60. Accordingly, the applicants have not shown that they had a claim sufficiently established to be enforceable, and they therefore cannot argue that they had a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see also, to the contrary, Gerasimov and Others, cited above, § 182). Consequently, the facts of the cases do not fall within the ambit of that provision.

61. Having regard to the fact that Article 14 of the Convention is not autonomous and to the above conclusions that the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 are incompatible with the provisions of the Convention, the Court considers that Article 14 cannot apply in the instant cases either (see Polacek and Polackova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 38645/97, §§ 69-70, 10 July 2002, and Berger and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 17120/04, 13 December 2005).

62. It follows that this part of the applications is incompatible, partly ratione temporis (paragraph 54 above) and partly ratione materiae (paragraphs 60 and 61 above), with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.

C. Complaint under Article 8 of the Convention

63. The applicants complained that as a result of the developments described above their rights as sitting tenants had been affected. In particular, Law no. 260/2011 and related legislative amendments had weakened their legal protection and allowed flat owners to terminate existing tenancies of their own accord. The substitute housing which the municipalities had to provide to tenants in need was of a lower quality and in a less attractive location. Tenants who were not in material need of housing faced the risk of their tenancy agreement being terminated without the right to any substitute accommodation.

64. The applicants further complained that Law No. 260/2011 had breached their privacy by obliging (i) those applying for substitute accommodation to submit a declaration of their financial situation to local authorities, and (ii) local authorities to publish lists of those who had applied for substitute accommodation on public noticeboards and their websites.

65. The applicants relied on Article 8 of the Convention which in its relevant parts provides:

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private ... life, his home ...

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

1. As regards the elimination of rent control and the effects of Law no. 260/2011

66. The Court reiterates that Article 8 of the Convention does not recognise the right to be provided with a home. Whether a State provides funds to enable everyone to have a home is a matter for political not judicial decision (see Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27238/95, § 99, ECHR 2001‑I).

67. However, where, as in the present cases, the national legislation allows for the deregulation of rent and termination of tenancies by landlords, and makes the provision of substitute accommodation subject to certain criteria, the Court is entitled to examine whether its effects on tenants are compatible with their right to respect for their home as guaranteed by Article 8 (see, mutatis mutandis, Bah v. the United Kingdom, no. 56328/07, § 40, ECHR 2011).

68. According to the information available (see paragraphs 23-24 above) the applicants’ situations differ as regards the termination of their tenancies by their landlords, their eligibility for substitute accommodation, and the state of the proceedings or decision on their claims for such accommodation. In view of the arguments and documents before it, the Court does not consider it necessary to separately address the different situations of the individual applicants in the present cases.

69. The impugned legislation obviously impacted upon the applicants’ rights to respect for their home as it amended the conditions of the tenancy by enabling landlords to serve notice. Their eligibility for public assistance in obtaining substitute accommodation was subject to certain conditions. The Court therefore considers that the facts of the cases qualify as an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their home and fall within the ambit of Article 8.

70. The interference complained of has a legal basis (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” above). It has not been argued and there is no indication that the relevant legislation did not comply with the requirement of being sufficiently clear and foreseeable.

71. The relevant legislation aimed at alleviating and ultimately eliminating the burden which the regulation of rent imposed on owners of houses and which, in a different case, the Court had found to be excessive (see Bittó and Others, cited above, § 116). The interference complained of therefore pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of others within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 8.

72. As regards the proportionality of the interference, the Court reiterates that a wide margin of appreciation is usually allowed to the States under the Convention when it comes to general measures of economic or social strategy. Because of their direct knowledge of their society and its needs, the national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to appreciate what is in the public interest on social or economic grounds, and the Court will generally respect the legislature’s policy choice unless it is “manifestly without reasonable foundation”. This margin is even wider when the issues involve an assessment of the priorities as to the allocation of limited State resources (see, for example, Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 83, ECHR 2009, and Koufaky and Adedy v. Greece (dec.), nos. 57665/12 and 57657/12, § 31, 7 May 2013, with further references).

73. In the present cases, the Court considers it relevant that the law allowed the rent-control scheme to continue to apply where (i) tenants exposed to financial hardship or persons sharing their household did not own or co-own a comparable flat or inhabitable real property in the same municipality or in its vicinity; (ii) the landlord and tenant did not reach a different agreement on rent; and (iii) the tenants concerned justified that they are in material need. Under sections 5 to 14 of Law no. 260/2011, municipalities have to provide tenants exposed to financial hardship with a municipal flat with regulated rent. Otherwise, such tenants have maintained the right to continue using their flat with regulated rent even after expiry of the notice period, until a new tenancy agreement with a municipality has been concluded (see Bittó and Others, cited above, §§ 50-52 and 63-64, and paragraphs 26-31 above).

74. Thus, the ongoing reforms are accompanied by guarantees preventing tenants who are demonstrably in need and who cannot afford to pay the market rent from being evicted without having been provided with substitute accommodation.

75. Furthermore, proceedings on claims for substitute accommodation by persons in need are accompanied by the appropriate procedural guarantees, as the municipal authorities’ decisions on such claims are reviewable by independent courts (see paragraph 29 above and contrast McCann v. the United Kingdom, no. 19009/04, § 55, ECHR 2008). It has not been argued that such guarantees proved ineffective in any of the present applicants’ cases.

76. In these circumstances, and having regard to the States’ margin of appreciation in similar cases, the Court considers that the interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their home was not disproportionate or otherwise contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (compare also Berger‑Krall and Others, cited above, §§ 268-276).

77. It follows that this part of the applications is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

2. As regards the processing and availability of tenants’ personal data

78. The applicants further complained that Law no. 260/2011 had breached their privacy by obliging (i) those applying for substitute accommodation to submit a declaration of their financial situation to local authorities, and (ii) local authorities to publish lists of those who had applied for substitute accommodation on public noticeboards and their websites.

79. The Court has held that the concept of “private life” is a broad term not susceptible to exhaustive definition. In determining whether the personal information retained by the authorities involves any of the private-life aspects within the meaning of Article 8, the Court will have due regard to the specific context in which the information at issue has been recorded and retained, the nature of the records, the way in which these records are used and processed and the results that may be obtained (for a recapitulation of the relevant case-law see S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, §§ 66-67, ECHR 2008, and M.M. v. the United Kingdom, no. 24029/07, § 187, 13 November 2012, both with further references).

80. In the present cases, the Court firstly notes that collecting and using data of tenants who have applied for substitute housing under Law no. 260/2011 is subject to their express consent. The information requested is limited to what is considered necessary with a view to determining their claim for a substitute flat, and its use outside the examination of this claim is excluded. The validity of the consent expires upon determination of the claim (see paragraph 39 above).

81. Secondly, the information available indicates that municipalities have made public, with reference to section 9(8) of Law no. 260/2011, information related to their decisions to grant substitute flats under that Law. In particular, the information sets out the first name and surname of those concerned, their address and the size of substitute accommodation to which they are entitled (see paragraphs 40-41 above). The Court has also noted that the Bratislava municipality, for example, has published similar information on the allocation of municipal flats outside the procedure set out in Law no. 260/2011 with a view to increasing the control and involvement of the public in municipal life (see paragraph 40 above).

82. Even assuming that the obligation of tenants to submit the above information in their claim for substitute accommodation and the publication of lists of persons to whom such substitute accommodation has been granted amount to an interference with their private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1, the Court takes the view that such interference is compatible with the requirements of the second paragraph of that Article. In particular, it has a legal basis (see paragraph 30 above), can be considered as pursuing the legitimate aims of ensuring the economic interests of the State in the context of the administration of public housing facilities and protecting the rights of persons contributing to public funds from which such housing is financed. Furthermore, the data in question appears to be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which it is collected and/or further processed. The Court finds no indication that the interference complained of is disproportionate to the aims pursued.

83. It follows that this part of the applications is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications;

Decides that Ms J. Jurkovičová and O. Jurkovičová have standing to pursue application no. 11809/12 to the extent that it was lodged by Mr E. Jurkovič;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

              Stephen PhillipsJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident

Appendix

1. Application no. 11809/12    Kristián STRAKA, who was born in 1945 and lives in Bratislava    Zdenko ADAMAŤ, who was born in 1941 and lives in Trenčín    Marián ANDROVIČ, who was born in 1957 and lives in Bratislava    Eva ATANAŠČINOVÁ, who was born in 1951 and lives in Bratislava    Dana BAJZOVÁ, who was born in 1964 and lives in Bratislava    Dana BALAJOVÁ, who was born in 1943 and lives in Bratislava    Edita BALÁŽOVÁ, who was born in 1953 and lives in Bratislava    Alena BALGOVÁ, who was born in 1946 and lives in Bratislava    Gabriela BALOGHOVÁ, who was born in 1958 and lives in BratislavaDaniela BALTAYOVÁ, who was born in 1949 and lives in BratislavaDaniel BARAN, who was born in 1978 and lives in BratislavaPavel BARAN, who was born in 1953 and lives in BratislavaMartin BAROŠ, who was born in 1972 and lives in BratislavaViola BARTALSKÁ, who was born in 1946 and lives in BratislavaMarián BARTOŠ, who was born in 1952 and lives in BratislavaRóbert BATTHYÁNY, who was born in 1965 and lives in BratislavaMilan BELANIK, who was born in 1958 and lives in ŽilinaAngelika BENKOVÁ, who was born in 1946 and lives in BratislavaĽubica BENKOVÁ, who was born in 1958 and lives in BratislavaKarol BIELIK, who was born in 1945 and lives in BratislavaRudolf BLAHUNKA, who was born in 1924 and lives in BratislavaMiroslav BLAŽEK, who was born in 1942 and lives in BratislavaMartin BOBÁK, who was born in 1984 and lives in BratislavaFrantišek BOGNÁR, who was born in 1939 and lives in BratislavaRóbert BOGNÁR, who was born in 1969 and lives in BratislavaDušan BOŠEĽA, who was born in 1960 and lives in BratislavaTomáš BRAUNSTEINER, who was born in 1954 and lives in BratislavaEdita BÚTOROVÁ, who was born in 1955 and lives in BratislavaKatarína ČESNEKOVÁ, who was born in 1953 and lives in BratislavaOtília CHRISTOVOVÁ, who was born in 1950 and lives in BratislavaSilvia ČORDÁŠOVÁ, who was born in 1953 and lives in BratislavaDaniela CSINOVÁ, who was born in 1951 and lives in BratislavaViera CUCOROVÁ, who was born in 1949 and lives in BratislavaJanka CZANIKOVÁ, who was born in 1953 and lives in CíferJán DANIŠ, who was born in 1976 and lives in CíferPeter DOBIAŠ, who was born in 1973 and lives in BratislavaMarta DOMONKOŠOVÁ, who was born in 1946 and lives in BratislavaZdeňka DONKOVÁ, who was born in 1957 and lives in TrenčínIvana DÖRNHOFERÖVÁ, who was born in 1958 and lives in BratislavaMária DÓŠOVÁ who was born in 1954 and lives in BratislavaIngeborg DRBALOVÁ who was born in 1953 and lives in BratislavaAnna DUDOVÁ, who was born in 1950 and lives in BratislavaJana DUDOVÁ, who was born in 1971 and lives in BratislavaMária ĎURIŠINOVÁ, who was born in 1935 and lives in BratislavaMiroslav FÁBRY, who was born in 1954 and lives in BratislavaMilada FAJNOROVA, who was born in 1925 and lives in BratislavaHana FAŠUNGOVÁ, who was born in 1974 and lives in BratislavaMária FERENCOVÁ, who was born in 1943 and lives in TrenčínJanka FIEDLEROVÁ, who was born in 1948 and lives in BratislavaĽubomír FISCHER, who was born in 1957 and lives in BratislavaEva FLEISCHHACKEROVÁ, who was born in 1948 and lives in BratislavaDagmar FOLTYNOVÁ, who was born in 1947 and lives in BratislavaNikoleta FORGÁČOVÁ, who was born in 1989 and lives in BratislavaStanislav FRACZKIEWICZ, who was born in 1964 and lives in BratislavaJudita FRŤALOVÁ, who was born in 1955 and lives in BratislavaEva GAGOVÁ, who was born in 1947 and lives in TrenčínIvan GALKO, who was born in 1942 and lives in BratislavaJozef GALLIS, who was born in 1959 and lives in BratislavaZuzana GAVOROVÁ, who was born in 1957 and lives in BratislavaMária GLESKOVÁ, who was born in 1948 and lives in BratislavaViera GOLISOVÁ, who was born in 1941 and lives in BratislavaRastislav GRANEC, who was born in 1967 and lives in BratislavaAdela GYÖKERESOVÁ, who was born in 1928 and lives in BratislavaSlávka HABDÁKOVÁ, who was born in 1961 and lives in BratislavaJúlia HANUDELYOVÁ, who was born in 1926 and lives in BratislavaDana HAUSKNECHTOVÁ, who was born in 1961 and lives in BratislavaKatarína HAUSKRECHTOVÁ, who was born in 1955 and lives in BratislavaEva HAVÍROVÁ, who was born in 1952 and lives in BratislavaRudolf HEFKA, who was born in 1951 and lives in TrenčínMarie HERCEGOVÁ, who was born in 1951 and lives in BratislavaMarta HERUCOVÁ, who was born in 1956 and lives in BratislavaMarian HLINICKÝ, who was born in 1953 and lives in BratislavaErika HOLOTOVÁ, who was born in 1949 and lives in BratislavaKatarína HOLUBOVÁ, who was born in 1957 and lives in BratislavaJán HORÁK, who was born in 1942 and lives in BratislavaViera HORVATHOVÁ, who was born in 1927 and lives in BratislavaBožena HORVÁTHOVÁ, who was born in 1926 and lives in BratislavaEva HORVÁTHOVÁ, who was born in 1969 and lives in BratislavaĽudmila HORVÁTHOVÁ, who was born in 1941 and lives in BratislavaVlastimil HRUBÝ, who was born in 1927 and lives in BratislavaMarián HRUŠKA, who was born in 1969 and lives in BratislavaDanka HUMAYOVÁ, who was born in 1954 and lives in BratislavaZuzana HUPKOVÁ, who was born in 1955 and lives in BratislavaZoltán IVÁNY, who was born in 1939 and lives in BratislavaFedor JAGLA, who was born in 1945 and lives in BratislavaZuzana JAKABOVÁ, who was born in 1953 and lives in BratislavaAnna JAMBOROVÁ, who was born in 1950 and lives in ŽilinaMilan JANČÁT, who was born in 1947 and lives in BratislavaMikuláš JANÍK, who was born in 1947 and lives in BratislavaPavol JANKEJE, who was born in 1947 and lives in BratislavaEduard JÁNOŠÍK, who was born in 1963 and lives in TrenčínAlžbeta JIRÁSKOVÁ, who was born in 1947 and lives in BratislavaRoman JORDAN, who was born in 1975 and lives in BratislavaEmil JURKOVIČ, who was born in 1927, lived in Bratislava, and died on 14 September 2012[1]Katarína KÁČEROVÁ, who was born in 1971 and lives in BratislavaŠtefan KAIS, who was born in 1954 and lives in BratislavaTomáš KAISER, who was born in 1973 and lives in BratislavaFrantišek KALESNÝ, who was born in 1951 and lives in BratislavaGabriela KAPCOVÁ, who was born in 1949 and lives in Bratislava     Soňa KÁŠOVÁ, who was born in 1945 and lives in Bratislava     Magda KIROVÁ, who was born in 1946 and lives in Bratislava     Viera KISSOVÁ, who was born in 1945 and lives in Bratislava     Dušan KLIMENT, who was born in 1948 and lives in Bratislava     Eva KLIMENTOVÁ, who was born in 1957 and lives in Bratislava     Terézia KLIMENTOVÁ, who was born in 1936 and lives in Bratislava     Anna KOCHOVÁ, who was born in 1942 and lives in Bratislava     Viera KOCIHOVÁ, who was born in 1954 and lives in Bratislava     Jozef KOLLÁR, who was born in 1919 and lives in Bratislava     Miroslav KONEČNÝ, who was born in 1973 and lives in Bratislava     Edita KOŠOVÁ, who was born in 1961 and lives in Bratislava     Tatiana KOVAČEVIČOVÁ, who was born in 1945 and lives in Bratislava     Milan KOVÁČIK, who was born in 1953 and lives in Bratislava     Margita KOVÁČOVÁ, who was born in 1954 and lives in Cífer     Miloš KOZÁK, who was born in 1946 and lives in Trenčín     Vladimír KOZMON, who was born in 1932 and lives in Bratislava     Miroslav KRAJČÍK, who was born in 1958 and lives in Bratislava     Ferdinand KRÁL, who was born in 1944 and lives in Bratislava     Mária KRCHNÁKOVÁ, who was born in 1920 and lives in Bratislava     Kamila KRKOŠOVÁ, who was born in 1964 and lives in Bratislava     Jozef KROČKA, who was born in 1947 and lives in Bratislava     Milan KUČERA, who was born in 1950 and lives in Bratislava     Alexandra KUPCOVÁ, who was born in 1951 and lives in Bratislava     Jozef KURIC, who was born in 1952 and lives in Trenčín     Helena KURUCOVÁ, who was born in 1950 and lives in Bratislava     Soňa LACUŠKOVÁ, who was born in 1952 and lives in Bratislava     Zdenka LAPÁKOVÁ, who was born in 1931 and lives in Bratislava     Zoroslav LAURINC, who was born in 1949 and lives in Bratislava     Mária LIPOVÁ, who was born in 1947 and lives in Bratislava     Valéria LÖRINTZY, who was born in 1945 and lives in Bratislava     Anna MACHOVÁ, who was born in 1924 and lives in Trenčín     Jozefína MADŽOVÁ, who was born in 1941 and lives in Bratislava     Marta MAGYAROVÁ, who was born in 1953 and lives in Bratislava     Renáta MAJERČÍKOVÁ, who was born in 1949 and lives in Bratislava     Marta MALIŠOVÁ, who was born in 1939 and lives in Bánska Štiavnica     Rudolf MANINKA, who was born in 1964 and lives in Bratislava     Róbert MARUŠIC, who was born in 1970 and lives in Bratislava     Mária MATALONIOVÁ, who was born in 1957 and lives in Bratislava     František MATEJKA, who was born in 1943 and lives in Bratislava     Peter MICHOŇEK, who was born in 1959 and lives in Bratislava     Želmíra MIKULCOVÁ, who was born in 1961 and lives in Bratislava     Ingrid MIKULOVÁ, who was born in 1965 and lives in Trenčín     Ivan MINARČIN, who was born in 1965 and lives in Bratislava     Alžbeta MIŠÍKOVÁ, who was born in 1953 and lives in Bratislava     Barbara MIŤAČKOVÁ, who was born in 1973 and lives in Bratislava     Emília MONCOĽOVÁ, who was born in 1944 and lives in Bratislava     Mária MORAVSKÁ, who was born in 1949 and lives in Bratislava     Ľudovít MORVAY, who was born in 1938 and lives in Bratislava     Mária MRÁZIKOVÁ, who was born in 1921 and lives in Bratislava     Matúš MURIN, who was born in 1935 and lives in Bratislava     Jozef MYJAVEC, who was born in 1950 and lives in Bratislava     Bernarda NAGYOVÁ, who was born in 1956 and lives in Bratislava     Adriana NITRANOVÁ, who was born in 1953 and lives in Bratislava     Vladislav NOVÝSEDLÁK, who was born in 1954 and lives in Poprad     Ivan ORSÁG, who was born in 1948 and lives in Trenčín     Anna PAGAČOVIČOVÁ, who was born in 1962 and lives in Bratislava     Ladislav PATRNČIAK, who was born in 1943 and lives in Bratislava     Dolores PEKOVÁ, who was born in 1934 and lives in Bratislava     Mária PERCZEOVÁ, who was born in 1944 and lives in Bratislava     Darina PEŠKOVÁ, who was born in 1951 and lives in Bratislava     Eva PETRÁKOVÁ, who was born in 1958 and lives in Bratislava     Peter PETROVIČ, who was born in 1959 and lives in Bratislava     Milan PÍKA, who was born in 1922 and lives in Bratislava     Margita POVODOVÁ, who was born in 1946 and lives in Bratislava     Ľuboša REPTIŠOVÁ, who was born in 1948 and lives in Bratislava     Fridrich RIGO, who was born in 1956 and lives in Bratislava     Mária SANITRÍKOVÁ, who was born in 1925 and lives in Bratislava     Roman SASKO, who was born in 1963 and lives in Bratislava     Miroslav ŠČASNÝ, who was born in 1966 and lives in Bratislava     Gabriel SCHNÜRMACHER, who was born in 1958 and lives in Bratislava     Drahoslava SEKERKOVÁ, who was born in 1957 and lives in Bratislava     Kristína ŠIMKOVÁ, who was born in 1953 and lives in Bratislava     Ladislav ŠIMONČIČ, who was born in 1931 and lives in Bratislava     Jozef SIVÁK, who was born in 1945 and lives in Bratislava     Rudolf ŠKODA, who was born in 1967 and lives in Bratislava     Dušan SLOVÁK, who was born in 1966 and lives in Bratislava     Helena STARÁ, who was born in 1952 and lives in Bratislava     Patricia ŠTEFANKOVÁ, who was born in 1956 and lives in Bratislava     Emília ŠTEFFEKOVÁ, who was born in 1961 and lives in Bratislava     Drahomíra ŠULEKOVÁ, who was born in 1943 and lives in Bratislava     Teodor SÜMEGI, who was born in 1949 and lives in Bratislava     Mária ŠUTAROVÁ, who was born in 1940 and lives in Bratislava     Marian ŠUTLÁK, who was born in 1949 and lives in Bratislava     Marta ŠVAJLENOVÁ, who was born in 1939 and lives in Bratislava     Anna TOBOLKOVÁ, who was born in 1949 and lives in Bratislava     Giovanni TOMAŠKIN, who was born in 1971 and lives in Bratislava     Ladislav TÓTH, who was born in 1952 and lives in Bratislava     Eva UHLÍKOVÁ, who was born in 1953 and lives in Bratislava     Darina ULIČNÁ, who was born in 1955 and lives in Bratislava     Eva URÍČKOVÁ, who was born in 1946 and lives in Bratislava     Oľga VAČEKOVÁ, who was born in 1949 and lives in Bratislava     Miloš VACULA, who was born in 1954 and lives in Bratislava     Igor VANČEK, who was born in 1944 and lives in Bratislava     Július VARGA, who was born in 1937 and lives in Bratislava     Helena VARGOVÁ, who was born in 1925 and lives in Bratislava     Ján VÁVRA, who was born in 1937 and lives in Bratislava     Ján VIDO, who was born in 1930 and lives in Bratislava     Rozália ZÁVODSKÁ, who was born in 1934 and lives in Bratislava     Veronika ZELENAYOVÁ, who was born in 1939 and lives in Bratislava     Viera ZELMANOVÁ, who was born in 1970 and lives in Bratislava     Peter ŽIGO, who was born in 1956 and lives in Trenčín     Ružena ZIMANOVÁ, who was born in 1947 and lives in Bratislava

2. Application no. 35284/13    Svetlana BORODINOVÁ, who was born in 1962 and lives in Bratislava    Boris BAČIK, who was born in 1968 and lives in Piešťany    Zuzana BARTAKOVIČOVÁ, who was born in 1954 and lives in Vrbové    Mária BERNÁTOVÁ, who was born in 1944 and lives in Zvolen    Viliam BÍRO, who was born in 1942 and lives in Bratislava    Milan BRODY, who was born in 1946 and lives in Bratislava    Ján BUKNA, who was born in 1941 and lives in Zvolen    Jozef ČITÁRI, who was born in 1959 and lives in Zvolen    Katarína FAJNOROVÁ, who was born in 1961 and lives in BratislavaNikoleta GAZOVÁ-GSTACH, who was born in 1970 and lives in WienŽofia HAVRANOVÁ, who was born in 1950 and lives in BratislavaRoland HENNEL, who was born in 1941 and lives in BratislavaAdriana HERDOVÁ, who was born in 1965 and lives in BratislavaBlanka HERMANOVÁ, who was born in 1949 and lives in Stupava-OboraPeter HRON, who was born in 1953 and lives in BratislavaJiří HRUBÝ, who was born in 1945 and lives in BratislavaOndrej HRUTKA, who was born in 1948 and lives in ZvolenŠtefan HUDÁČEK, who was born in 1956 and lives in Banská BystricaLibuša ISSA, who was born in 1947 and lives in BratislavaFrantišek JASSINGER, who was born in 1932 and lives in BratislavaEleonóra KASTELOVÁ, who was born in 1951 and lives in BratislavaMária KIČKOVÁ, who was born in 1947 and lives in BratislavaJuraj KOPPER, who was born in 1950 and lives in ZvolenBoris KOZMON, who was born in 1962 and lives in BratislavaJán KRAJČOVIČ, who was born in 1954 and lives in BratislavaValéria KRASCSENITSOVÁ, who was born in 1964 and lives in BratislavaIvica KROŠLÁKOVÁ, who was born in 1943 and lives in BratislavaMária KRŠKOVÁ, who was born in 1930 and lives in BratislavaHelena KUKUČKOVÁ, who was born in 1961 and lives in BratislavaAlexander KURTANSKÝ, who was born in 1948 and lives in BratislavaAndrea LITVÁKOVÁ, who was born in 1967 and lives in BratislavaMária LÖRINCIOVÁ, who was born in 1930 and lives in BratislavaJarmila MATEJOVOVÁ, who was born in 1963 and lives in BratislavaPavol MELEČÍNSKÝ, who was born in 1939 and lives in ZvolenOndrej MIKLÁNEK, who was born in 1983 and lives in BratislavaVladimír MIKLÁŠ, who was born in 1932 and lives in BratislavaMarta MIKLOŠOVÁ, who was born in 1969 and lives in BratislavaLaura MIKLÓŠOVÁ, who was born in 1984 and lives in BratislavaŽelmíra MILKOVÁ, who was born in 1946 and lives in BratislavaZdenka MIŠKEIOVÁ, who was born in 1957 and lives in Banská BystricaJarmila MORÁVKOVÁ, who was born in 1957 and lives in BratislavaLívia NEMČOVSKÁ, who was born in 1959 and lives in BratislavaMarta NEMOGOVÁ, who was born in 1928 and lives in BratislavaVladimír PALKO, who was born in 1953 and lives in ZvolenTadeus PATLEVIČ, who was born in 1972 and lives in BratislavaAnna PAULÍČKOVÁ, who was born in 1951 and lives in BratislavaKlarissa POMŠÁROVÁ, who was born in 1951 and lives in BratislavaMatilda POTOCZKÁ, who was born in 1927 and lives in BratislavaDezider ŠIMKO, who was born in 1934 and lives in ZvolenJaroslav SUCHOŇ, who was born in 1961 and lives in BratislavaJán SYNÁK, who was born in 1955 and lives in BratislavaŠtefan TANEČKA, who was born in 1939 and lives in Zvolen Mária VACULČÍKOVÁ, who was born in 1940 and lives in BratislavaJanka VIDOVÁ, who was born in 1951 and lives in TrenčínPeter ZAGAR, who was born in 1961 and lives in Bratislava

[1] Following the death of Mr Jurkovič, his wife, Ms Júlia Jurkovičová, and daughter, Ms Oľga Jurkovičová, who lived in the same household, expressed the wish to continue the application in his stead.

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy