Strasbourg court rules again against Malta over old rent laws
The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has again ruled against Malta’s old rent laws and ordered the state to pay compensation amounting to nearly €140,000 in three separate cases.
In all cases, the court observed that while finding a breach of law and awarding compensation, the Maltese Constitutional Court had failed to offer sufficient redress to the owners.
The cases concerned properties in St Julian’s, Sliema and Żebbug where landlords were forced into a unilateral indefinite tenancy relationship without reflecting fair and adequate rent, resulting from the Rents Acts 1979.
Malta has been repeatedly reprimanded for breaching the European Convention on Human Rights through its old rent laws.
The European Court of Human Rights has issued several judgments on this issue, finding that “a disproportionate and excessive burden” had been imposed on the applicants and that the Maltese State had “failed to strike the required fair balance between the general interests of the community and the protection of the claimant’s right to property”.
In the first case brought by the Pace family concerning their property on Wilga Street, Paceville, which had suffered a violation of their rights since 1980, the court found that they had been made to bear “a disproportionate burden”.
She upheld their arguments against the meager €20,000 awarded by the national courts as well as the fact that there had been no eviction order for the tenants.
The court also noted the discrepancy between the expertise of the officially appointed architect, who had declared that the property had a sale value of €590,000 in 2018, and that of the technical experts mandated by the Commission for the Regulation of rents in 2020, which valued the same property at €335,000.
The court ruled that the compensation awarded for a violation persisting for decades was “not adequate” and that the reparation awarded by the domestic court “did not offer sufficient relief to the applicant who retained the status of victim”.
She therefore increased the compensation to €75,000 and €1,100 to cover costs.
In its second case, the Strasbourg court considered a claim made by the Grima family for a property in Church Street, Żebbug, for which they received only €212 a year, based on a 1914 market value.
The Maltese court had awarded the owners €35,000 in compensation, but this was reduced to €15,000 on appeal.
Evicted tenants
The Rent Regulation Commission subsequently ordered the tenant’s eviction and the property was returned to its owners.
Although he judged that the compensation awarded by the Maltese court was insufficient, he proceeded to confirm it, adding €2,400 in non-pecuniary damage and €900 to cover legal costs.
Also in this case, the European Court ruled that the compensation awarded by the Maltese Constitutional Court did not provide sufficient redress to the applicants, who retained the status of victim until they recovered their property.
In the third and final case, brought by the Attard family concerning a property in Ġuże Ellul Mercer Street, Sliema, the European Court upheld arguments that the provisions of the Rent Acts 1979 granted tenants the right to retain possession of the premises under a lease and imposed on them a unilateral lease relationship for an indefinite period without reflecting fair and adequate rent.
The European Court found that the reparation did not effectively remedy the breach and doubled the initial compensation to €40,000 for material damage and €5,000 for moral damage.
Attorneys Michael Camilleri, Edward Debono and Karl Micallef represented all three petitioners while State Attorney Chris Soler appeared for the state.
Independent journalism costs money. Support Times of Malta for the price of a coffee.
Support us