Mellacher v. Austria
European Court of Human Rights
12 EHRR 391 (1989)
- Written by Kelly Simon, JD
Facts
Leopold and Maria Mellacher (plaintiffs) owned an apartment building in Graz, Austria. The Mellachers rented out one apartment for 1,870 Austrian schillings per month in their building under a lease agreement. Subsequently, the 1981 Rent Act (the rent act) was passed. The tenant applied to the Graz Arbitration Board (the board) for a reduction in his rent, pursuant to the rent act. In response, the board significantly reduced his rent and ordered that the Mellachers pay the tenant for previous overcharges. The Mellachers appealed the board’s orders, arguing that the reduction of the rent that the Mellachers and their tenant had lawfully negotiated was an unconstitutional expropriation of their property without compensation. The regional civil court in Graz rejected the Mellachers’ appeal and refused to submit the case to the Austrian constitutional court, as the rent act had already been upheld as constitutional by the constitutional court. The Mellachers filed an application with the European Commission of Human Rights, and the case was referred to the European Court of Human Rights. In their application, the Mellachers argued that Austria (defendant) had failed to protect their property rights as required by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the convention).
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ryssdal, J.)
Dissent (Cremona, Bindschedler-Robert, Gölcüklü, Bernhardt, Spielmann, J.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 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.
