Parket bij de Hoge Raad, 17-01-2014, ECLI:NL:PHR:2014:11, 13/02738

Bij geliberaliseerde woonruimte kan de huurder op de voet van art. 7:249 BW binnen de eerste zes maanden de huurprijs laten controleren, zodat kan worden beoordeeld of de woning gezien de hoogte van de huur niet-geliberaliseerd is. Verder geldt de regel over de jaarlijkse huurverhoging (art. 7:251).

Een geliberaliseerde woonruimte is volgens art. 7:247 BW een zelfstandige woonruimte (art. 7:234 BW), waarvan de aanvangshuur een jaarlijks door de Minister vast te stellen bedrag, de zogenaamde liberalisatiegrens, overschreed. Art 3 lid 2 UHW jo art. 2 Besluit koppelt dit bedrag tegenwoording aan de huurtoeslaggrens. De grens ligt per 1 januari 2013 op een huurpijs van € 681,02 per maand.¹²

Voor de bepaling van de vraag of de woning geliberaliseerd is, is dus steeds de aanvangshuur (eventueel: zoals deze is vastgesteld in de procedure van art. 7:249 BW) bepalend. Een bij de aanvang van de huur ongeliberaliseerde huur blijft dat, ook als de huurprijs door jaarlijkse verhogingen op enig moment boven de voor dat jaar geldende liberalisatiegrens zou komen.¹³ Circa 90% van de huurwoningen heeft een huurprijs onder de liberalisatiegrens.¹⁴

Het EHRM (Vierde Kamer) overweegt in zijn uitspraak van 22 februari 2005 onder meer:

“186. The Court once again acknowledges that the difficult housing situation in Poland, in particular an acute shortage of dwellings and the high cost of acquiring flats on the market, and the need to transform the extremely rigid system of distribution of dwellings inherited from the communist regime, justified not only the introduction of remedial legislation protecting tenants during the period of the fundamental reform of the country’s political, economic and legal system but also the setting of a low rent, at a level beneath the market value (see paragraphs 68–70, 149, 160 and 176 above). Yet it finds no justification for the State’s continued failure to secure to the applicant and other landlords throughout the entire period under consideration the sums necessary to cover maintenance costs, not to mention even a minimum profit from the lease of flats.”

“224. The Grand Chamber agrees with this assessment of the impugned situation. It would, however, add that, as established above, the violation of the right of property in the present case is not exclusively linked to the question of the levels of rent chargeable but, rather, consists in the combined effect of defective provisions on the determination of rent and various restrictions on landlords’ rights in respect of termination of leases, the statutory financial burdens imposed on them and the absence of any legal ways and means making it possible for them either to offset or mitigate the losses incurred in connection with maintenance of property or to have the necessary repairs subsidised by the State in justified cases (see paragraphs 203, 211 and 221 above). Furthermore, the Government's claim at the oral hearing that such a mechanism existed (see paragraph 189 above) has not been substantiated by any concrete examples from domestic law and practice.

In this regard the Court would once again refer to its case-law confirming that in many cases involving limitations on the rights of landlords — which were and are common in countries facing housing shortages — the limitations applied have been found to be justified and proportionate to the aims pursued by the State in the general interest (see Spadea and Scalabriono cited above, § 18; and Mellacher and Others, cited above, §§ 27 and 55). However, in none of those cases had the authorities restricted the applicants’ rights to such a considerable extent as in the present case.

In the first place, the applicant had never entered into any freely negotiated lease agreement with her tenants; rather, her house had been let to them by the State. Secondly, the circumstances of the instant case are different from those in the case of Spadea and Scalabrino. In the latter case, although the State had temporarily suspended evictions from privately owned flats, landlords retained their right to terminate leases by means of a simple notice to quit, without any further restrictions. In contrast, in the instant case Polish legislation attached a number of conditions to the termination of leases, thus seriously limiting the landlords’ rights in that respect. Finally, in the case of Mellacher and Others, while the domestic legislation restricted the rent chargeable, the levels of rent were never set, as in the present case, below the costs of maintenance of the property and landlords were able to increase the rent in order to cover the necessary maintenance expenses. That provision had at least made it possible for Austrian landlords to keep their property in a proper condition, whereas the Polish scheme did not, and does not, provide for any procedure for maintenance contributions or State subsidies, thereby causing the inevitable deterioration of the property for lack of adequate investment and modernisation (see paragraphs 82, 104 and 138).”²⁸

Voorts overweegt het hof:

“239.As regards the general measures to be applied by the Polish State in order to put an end to the systemic violation of the right of property identified in the present case, and having regard to its social and economic dimension, including the State's duties in relation to the social rights of other persons (see paragraphs 139, 157 and 225 above), the Court considers that the respondent State must above all, through appropriate legal and/or other measures, secure in its domestic legal order a mechanism maintaining a fair balance between the interests of landlords, including their entitlement to derive profit from their property, and the general interest of the community — including the availability of sufficient accommodation for the less well-off — in accordance with the principles of the protection of property rights under the Convention.

It is not for the Court to specify what would be the most appropriate way of setting up such remedial procedures or how landlords’ interest in deriving profit should be balanced against the other interests at stake; thus, under Article 46 the State remains free to choose the means by which it will discharge its obligations arising from the execution of the Court's judgments (see Broniowski, cited above, §§ 186 and 192).

The Court would, however, observe in passing that the many options open to the State certainly include the measures indicated by the Constitutional Court in its June 2005 Recommendations, setting out the features of a mechanism balancing the rights of landlords and tenants and criteria for what might be considered a ‘basic rent’, ‘economically justified rent’ or ‘decent profit’ (see paragraph 136–141 above).”

(ii) Urbárska

“62. Moreover, both the amount of rent received by the applicant, namely EUR 210 per year and the maximum amount of rent the applicant could obtain, namely EUR 420, were, as confirmed by the Constitutional Court, “certainly low”. Indeed, the amount of rent contrasts starkly with the market value of the premises as submitted by the applicant. The Court considers that, State control over levels of rent falls into a sphere subject to a wide margin of appreciation by the State and its application may often cause significant reductions in the amount of rent chargeable (see, in particular, Mellacher and Others, cited above, § 45). Nevertheless, this may not lead to results which are manifestly unreasonable, such as amounts of rent allowing only a minimal profit.

63. In the present case, having regard to the low rental value which could be fixed by the Rent Regulation Board, the applicant’s state of uncertainty as to whether he would ever recover his property, which has already been subject to this regime for nine years, the lack of procedural safeguards in the application of the law and the rise in the standard of living in Malta over the past decades, the Court finds that a disproportionate and excessive burden was imposed on the applicant. The latter was requested to bear most of the social and financial costs of supplying housing accommodation to Mr and Mrs P. (see, mutatis mutandis, Hutten-Czapska, cited above, § 225). It follows that the Maltese State failed to strike the requisite fair balance between the general interests of the community and the protection of the applicant’s right of property.”

“71. In the present case, the applicants’ premises were requisitioned in 1941 and subsequently used as public offices (see paragraph 7 above).

72. The Court notes that a requisition order imposes on the owner of the premises a landlord-tenant relationship (see paragraph 25 above). While this can be seen as creating a quasi-lease agreement between a landlord and a tenant, landlords have little or no influence on the choice of the tenant or the essential elements of such an agreement (see, mutatis mutandis, Hutten-Czapska,cited above, par. 196). This is especially so in the present case, where the building was occupied by the Government and the applicants had little or no chance to obtain the restitution of the property.

73. The Court further observes that the applicants received compensation for the loss of the control of their property, amounting to MTL 89 (approximately 213 EUR) for the years 1941-1988 and to MTL 340.53 (approximately EUR 817) from 1989 onwards. At the same time, the applicants had to pay a yearly ground rent of MTL 53 (approximately EUR 132 – see paragraphs 8 and 44 above). This means that the net income they could obtain from their building was approximately EUR 81 per year until 1988 and approximately 685 EUR per year after that date.

74. Even assuming that the applicants were not made to cover the costs of extraordinary maintenance and repairs of the building, as required by law, the Court cannot but note that the sums at issue – amounting to less than 7 EUR per month until 1988 and to less than EUR 58 per month from 1989 onwards – are extremely low and could hardly be seen as a fair compensation for the use of a building which was big enough to allocate public offices and an entire government department. The Court is not convinced that the interests of the landlords, ‘‘including their entitlement to derive profits from their property’’ (see Hutten-Czapska,cited above, par. 239), have been met by restricting the owners to such extremely low returns. It has not been shown by the Government to the Court’s satisfaction that in the particular circumstances of their case, the applicants had at their disposal effective remedies capable of redressing the above-mentioned situation.”

(iv) Lindheim e.a./Noorwegen

“26. (…)³⁴ they claimed that the domestic authorities had failed to strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interests of the community and the requirements of their protection. They claimed that the very essence of their right of property had been impaired because they were unable to derive any decent profit from their property. The third applicant specified that, according to him, the annual rent would have to equal at least 6% of the WOZ value of a property to assume that a decent profit could be made.”

De eerste verzoeker maakt een winst € 626,- per jaar. De derde verzoeker ontvangt een huur voor twee flats die gelijk is aan 2.9% van de WOZ-waarde. De situatie van de tweede verzoeker verschilde, omdat hij op de huur een verlies maakt van € 3.473,84 per jaar (rov. 6, 11 en 20).

“38. In the cases at hand, the Court observes that it has not been shown that the first and third applicants – who rely only on general data to substantiate their claims – do not receive a decent profit from their rental income. What is clear is that these applicants receive levels of rent well above the level of property tax chargeable on the flats, contrary to the situation in Lindheim and Others v. Norway (nos. 13221/08 and 2139/10, § 129, 12 June 2012). Also, there is no indication that the rental income does not cover the necessary maintenance costs and taxes as in Hutten-Czapska (cited above). There are also no other indications that the first and third applicants have had to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden.

39. As to the second applicant it is noted that, even assuming that the rent paid by Y does not cover all costs associated with the flat, it cannot be said that the decision of the Regional Court was disproportional. The applicant willingly bought the building, aware of the amount of rent being paid by Y. In addition, it can be assumed that a person buying a building in order to rent it out is aware of the restrictions imposed by domestic law as to the maximum amount of rent chargeable for a certain standard and the maximum allowed yearly rent increases. The Court agrees with the domestic authorities that it was the second applicant’s responsibility to incorporate this knowledge in the price negotiations when he bought the building.

40. In these circumstances, the Court finds that, bearing in mind the wide margin of appreciation afforded to Contracting States in regulating housing problems, the control of the use of property in the present cases can be considered to be justified within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. It follows that this part of the applications of the first and the second applicant and the application of the third applicant are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.”

“27. The first and second applicants also complained that their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 and under Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention had been violated. They claimed that there was no justification for the difference in treatment between them – as landlords with existing tenancy agreements that they were unable to terminate – and landlords with newly concluded tenancy agreements. Whilst the applicants could not charge the maximum rent allowed within the Dutch points system because they were restricted to the maximum allowed annual rent increase, landlords who concluded a new tenancy agreement on housing with the same standard as the accommodation owned by the applicants were able to charge the maximum rent allowed within the Dutch points system.”

“42. Even if it is to be assumed that landlords such as the applicants on the one hand, and landlords who have newly concluded a tenancy agreement on the other, find themselves in a relevantly similar situation and that they are, directly or indirectly, treated differently, the Court finds, in the light of all the material in its possession, that such difference in treatment is justified by the interests of the social protection of tenants.”

De uitspraak is kritisch besproken in de EHRC-noot van Stevens. Hij meent dat het niet uitgesloten is dat een of meer andere verhuurders in staat zullen zijn aan te tonen dat de litigieuze huur(prijs)beschermingsregels hem of haar beletten een redelijke winst te genereren. Rov. 39 bevat volgens Stevens een onjuist oordeel, omdat het niet zou moeten uitmaken wanneer en hoe iemand eigenaar is geworden. Wanneer iemand eigenaar is, dient hij de bescherming van art. 1 EP te krijgen, waarbij het EHRM volgens Stevens had moeten beoordelen of de regels van huur(prijs)bescherming (en niet de beslissing van de rechtbank) in dit geval tot gevolg hebben dat de verhuurder een disproportionele en excessieve last draagt. Het feit dat verzoeker twee verlies lijdt zou mogelijk tot een andere slotsom hebben geleid dan bij verzoekers een en drie.

(ii) Hoge Raad 29 oktober 2010 (heffing rioolrechten)

“3.27. Het Europese Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens (hierna: EHRM) heeft onder andere in zijn uitspraken van 22 februari 2005 en 19 juni 2006 (Grote Kamer) inzake Hutten-Czapska/Polen nr. 35014/97 een nadere invulling gegeven aan artikel 1 Eerste Protocol EVRM in verband met de in de huurwetgeving van sommige lidstaten voorziene beperkingen met betrekking tot de uitoefening van het recht betreffende de verhuur van woningen. Het uitgangspunt van artikel 1 Eerste Protocol EVRM is dat ieder recht heeft op het ongestoord genot van zijn eigendom. Dit laat op grond van de tweede volzin van deze bepaling echter onverlet dat de Nederlandse staat het recht heeft om in overeenstemming met het algemeen belang het gebruik van eigendom te reguleren, bijvoorbeeld door huurbeschermings- en huurprijsmaatregelen in te voeren. Aan die bevoegdheid zijn blijkens de rechtspraak van het EHRM echter grenzen. Dit hof heeft in de zaak die heeft geleid tot het arrest van 25 januari 2011 (LJN BP3497) overwogen dat uit de rechtspraak van het EHRM kan worden afgeleid dat een uitzondering aan de orde kan zijn als de rechten van de eigenaar van de woning door een huurbeschermingsmaatregel onevenredig worden aangetast. Meer specifiek kan het bestaan van een structurele wanverhouding tussen de exploitatiekosten en de huuropbrengsten die vanwege een huurbeschermingsmaatregel niet voor verbetering in aanmerking komt, tot het oordeel leiden dat de rechten van de eigenaar onevenredig worden aangetast.

“3.42. Ten overvloede overweegt het hof nog het volgende. Ook als zou moeten worden aangenomen dat de exploitatie van de woning structureel verliesgevend is, kan dat niet zondermeer leiden tot de toewijzing van de door [eiser in de zaak 12/04165] geformuleerde vordering. Die vordering komt er op neer dat het hof de huurprijs voor de woning zal vaststellen op (omgerekend) € 1.000,00, dan wel € 1.250,00 per maand (…). Daarbij is van belang, zoals hiervoor al is overwogen, dat indien de wettelijke huurbeschermings- en huurprijsbepalingen in bepaalde gevallen zouden leiden tot een inbreuk op artikel 1 Eerste Protocol EVRM het primair de taak is van de overheid de balans te herstellen tussen enerzijds de belangen van de eigenaren van de woningen, waaronder begrepen het belang om rendement te genereren, en anderzijds het algemeen belang. Dit rechtsherstel kan op verschillende manieren worden bereikt. Een keuze uit die mogelijkheden vergt een afweging van de belangen van verhuurders, huurders en het algemeen belang, waarbij met name ook dient te worden bepaald wie de kosten van het rechtsherstel dient te dragen. De overheid heeft wat dit betreft een ruime afwegingsbevoegdheid en een ruime vrijheid om te bepalen hoe zij deze balans wil herstellen. Vanuit die optiek bezien ligt het niet zondermeer voor de hand dat de rechter in een individueel geval ingrijpt in een huurovereenkomst als de onderhavige op de door [eiser in de zaak 12/04165] voorgestane wijze, namelijk door de huurprijs fors te verhogen. Die oplossing komt er immers feitelijk op neer dat een individuele huurovereenkomst geheel wordt onttrokken aan het wettelijke systeem van huurbeschermings- en huurprijsbepalingen en de verhuurder een bepaald rendement wordt verleend dat door een individuele huurder dient te worden bekostigd. Van rechtsherstel in een individueel geval bestaat naar het oordeel van het hof slechts ruimte indien en voor zover de rechtsgevolgen van de huurovereenkomst in de gegeven omstandigheden naar maatstaven van redelijkheid en billijkheid onaanvaardbaar zijn. De concrete vordering van [eiser in de zaak 12/04165] is op een dergelijk rechtsgevolg onvoldoende toegespitst, dan wel zijn vordering is onvoldoende concreet gemotiveerd om het ingrijpen in de huuroveenkomst op een wijze als door [eiser in de zaak 12/04165] voorgestaan te kunnen rechtvaardigen”