Hutten-Czapska v. Poland

Application No. 35014/97 (2006)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Hutten-Czapska v. Poland

European Court of Human Rights
Application No. 35014/97 (2006)

Facts

During the period of communist rule, the government of Poland (defendant) implemented a rent-control system that was in place until 1994. Under this system, municipal housing authorities required employees to live in houses under the scheme. After the collapse of communism, local courts continued to allow tenants to live in these homes without relocating, despite losses of income by the property owners. In the rent-control system prior to 1994, the government-controlled rent covered 30 percent of the cost of maintaining buildings and applied to private and public buildings. This system allowed tenants to pay below-market-value rent and required the landlords to cover the remainder. In 1994, the government enacted a special lease scheme that placed limits on how much landlords could charge in rent and when landlords could limit leases. In 1998, the rent-control system expanded to cover 60 percent of maintenance costs, but landlords continued to lose money on properties included in the rent-control system. Maria Hutten-Czapska (plaintiff) obtained ownership over a plot of land in Gdynia, Poland, that previously belonged to her parents. Hutten-Czapska challenged the rent-control system under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. Hutten-Czapska argued that the rent-control system violated her right to enjoyment of her property by imposing tenancy agreements on her property and inadequately compensating her by maintaining a low rate of rent. Hutten-Czapska argued that the rent-control system also deprived her of the ability to regain possession of her property because the system restricted her ability to end lease agreements under the rent-control system.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership