Citaat | Parket bij de Hoge Raad 17 januari 2014

Onder 2.9.3 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 17 januari 2014

Een alinea uit Parket bij de Hoge Raad 17 januari 2014, ECLI:NL:PHR:2014:9.

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).”

Zelf controleren

Voor dit citaat hoeft niemand Bron op zijn woord te geloven. Het document dat rechtspraak.nl publiceerde, staat op https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/41d02cfd1a7f4df027127e73b55f62deaa11ccc6844b60ab20c6542bd543ab96. Wie het ophaalt en de SHA-256 ervan berekent, krijgt 41d02cfd1a7f4df027127e73b55f62deaa11ccc6844b60ab20c6542bd543ab96, en de alinea staat in dat document op bytes 28724 tot 30252.