Conclusion

This conclusion reassesses whether, after the ECtHR&s;s rent-control jurisprudence, states retain regulatory space over private renting. It argues that they do. The Court&s;s measure remains the fair-balance test, mediated by a significant margin of appreciation and rooted in the premise that the costs of social housing should be shared rather than shifted onto individual landlords. Doctrinally and empirically, a pattern emerges: violations tend to arise where landlords are required to shoulder most of the burden. Rent levels set markedly below market, approximately under 40%, are those that frequently trigger findings of disproportionality, whereas frameworks that realign future rent to around one-half of market levels are generally accepted. The Court&s;s damages practice reflects the same calibration (notably the Cauchi guidance, which starts from market rent and then halves it to account for legitimate policy aims and income uncertainty). Put simply, there is no Convention right to full market rent absent unlawfulness. Although the Court&s;s reasoning often sounds market-oriented, its outcomes preserve meaningful space for social policy. Eviction is not required to end a violation; what matters is proportionality, targeting and rents reasonably calibrated against market values to secure an adequate return. The chapter concludes by urging close attention to the ECtHR&s;s decisions rather than its rhetoric: rent control can advance Convention values when burdens are fairly distributed and risks a breach primarily when they are concentrated on landlords.