## Facts

- A landlord sought the difference between market rent (CZK 4,839) and the tenant’s continued payment of a historically regulated rent (CZK 1,171) for July 2003.
- The first-instance court dismissed the claim, reasoning that the Civil Code did not allow unilateral rent increases absent a specific implementing statute.
- The appellate court agreed it could not authorize rent increases without legislative criteria and referred the matter for constitutional review.
- The referring court challenged the dwelling-lease provisions of the Civil Code (§§ 685–716), or at least § 696(1), arguing the rent-regulation framework violated constitutional property protections due to missing legislation.
- The constitutional court considered whether prolonged failure to enact an implementing statute for § 696(1) created an unconstitutional rent-freeze and how ordinary courts should resolve rent disputes during legislative omission.

## Issues

1. Whether Parliament’s long-term failure to enact an implementing statute defining when landlords may unilaterally increase rent under § 696(1) violates constitutional property guarantees and proportionality.
2. Whether § 696(1) and the broader statutory regime for dwelling leases (§§ 685–716) are unconstitutional and should be annulled.
3. Whether, and on what basis, ordinary courts must provide effective relief to protect landlords’ property rights while safeguarding tenants’ interests when legislation is deficient.

## Decision

- The court held that Parliament’s long-term inaction in failing to adopt implementing legislation for § 696(1) is unconstitutional.
- The court dismissed the request to annul § 696(1).
- The court rejected as manifestly unfounded the request to annul the remaining dwelling-lease provisions (§§ 685–695, § 696(2), §§ 697–716).
- The court directed ordinary courts to decide individual rent disputes in a constitutionally conforming manner, including permitting increases to a proportionate level while considering tenants’ protected interests.

## Legal Principles

- Prolonged legislative omission can itself be unconstitutional when it defeats a statutory scheme’s assumed safeguards and results in disproportionate interference with protected property interests.
- Housing policy burdens may not be shifted indefinitely from the state onto a limited class of private owners through below-market rent constraints without a fair balance and clear legal criteria.
- The legal order must not create unjustified inequality among property owners based on whether their properties remain subject to regulated rents.
- When ordinary legislation lacks necessary instruments to protect fundamental rights, courts must apply constitutional property and proportionality principles directly to provide effective, proportionate protection for both landlords and tenants.

## Conclusion

The court found that the absence of implementing legislation for rent increases produced an unconstitutional situation but preserved the statutory lease framework, instead requiring ordinary courts to grant constitutionally proportionate rent relief case by case until the legislature acts.


Rent Control Case (Pl. ÚS 20/05) (Czech Const. Ct. 2006)