CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 2 octobre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s3225EC85 { width:33.12pt; display:inline-block } .s56EAFD9F { width:153.43pt; display:inline-block } .sAFF36EC2 { width:18.78pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sC1A41636 { width:103.12%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s321E263B { height:27.6pt } .sDB62503A { width:8.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s374003A0 { width:33.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4D686973 { width:17.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE56A8EFE { width:18.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD7008EB6 { width:21.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAC906416 { width:8.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s74DC3D21 { margin-left:33.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s40138558 { width:33.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEA39543F { width:17.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF615212F { width:18.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA5F87864 { width:21.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 40435/16 Carmel GALEA and others against Malta   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 2   October 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda, President,   Vincent A. De Gaetano,   Alena Poláčková, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 July 2016, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 15 June 2018 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to that declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They were represented before the Court by Dr S. Grech and Dr I. Refalo, lawyers practising in Valletta, Malta. 2.     The Maltese Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Dr. P. Grech, Attorney General. 3.     The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the compensation awarded by the Constitutional Court for the breach of their property rights as a result of which they were still victims of the violation. 4.     The application had been communicated to the Government . THE LAW 5.     The applicants complained about a breach of their property rights as a result of different legal regimes concerning rent regulation, and the low amount of compensation awarded by the Constitutional Court as a result of which they remained victims of the upheld violation. They relied on Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 6.     After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 15 June 2018 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article   37 of the Convention. 7.     The declaration provided as follows: “The friendly settlement not having been achieved, the Government hereby wishes to express – by way of a unilateral declaration – its acknowledgement of the violation of Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 of the Convention. Consequently the Government is prepared to pay the applicant the sum of EUR   20,000 as just satisfaction which it considers to be reasonable in the light of the Court’s case law, as in Amato Gauci v. Malta (no. 47045/06, 15 September 2009) and Apap   Bologna v.   Malta (no. 46931/12, 30 August 2016). The Government would suggest that the above information might be accepted by the Court as any other reason justifying the striking out of the case from the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be payable within the three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 §   1 of the Convention. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three month period, the Government undertakes to pay simple interest on it from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.” 8.     By a letter of 11 July 2018, the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that the Government’s offer was insufficient. They noted mainly that a group of court ‑ appointed experts had estimated the rent due at 55,251 euros (EUR), and that the Government’s offer had ignored the fact that the domestic courts had allocated all judicial costs to the applicants. 9.     In this connection the Court notes that a court ‑ appointed technical expert had estimated the rental value of the property for the residential purposes it was used for, over the relevant period, as being EUR   18,297. Moreover, the Court reiterates that legitimate objectives in the “public interest”, such as those pursued in measures of economic reform or measures designed to achieve greater social justice, may call for less than reimbursement of the full market value (see, inter alia , Apap Bologna , v.   Malta , no.   46931/12, § 99, 30 August 2016). Furthermore, in the final judgment of 12 February 2016 the Constitutional Court ordered that the costs of the proceedings at both instances be paid by the defendants not the applicants. 10.     The Court reiterates that Article   37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article   37   §   1   (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if: “for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”. 11.     It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article   37   §   1   (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued. 12.     To this end, the Court has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case ‑ law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections)   [GC], no.   26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. z o.o. v.   Poland   (dec.), no.   11602/02, 26   June   2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no.   28953/03, 18   September   2007). 13.     The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Malta, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention as a result of different legal regimes concerning rent regulation (see, for example, Amato   Gauci v.   Malta , no.   47045/06, 15 September 2009 and Apap   Bologna , cited above). 14.     The Court notes that the sum awarded by the last-instance court in a final judgment at the domestic level, in the present case the Constitutional Court, remains payable to the applicants (see, for example, mutatis   mutandis , Gera de Petri Testaferrata Bonici Ghaxaq v.   Malta (just satisfaction), no.   26771/07, § 26, 3 September 2013). 15.     Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed ‑ which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases ‑ the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article   37   §   1   (c)). 16.     Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case ‑ law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application   (Article   37 §   1 in fine ). 17.     Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article   37 §   2 of the Convention   ( Josipović v.   Serbia   (dec.), no.   18369/07, 4   March 2008). 18.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37   §   1   (c) of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 25 October 2018.   Fatoş Aracı   Branko Lubarda   Deputy Registrar   President Appendix   No. Firstname LASTNAME Birth year Nationality Place of residence   Carmel GALEA 1948 Maltese Sliema   Marie Louise BUGEJA 1956 Maltese Pembroke   Isabella GALEA 1962 Maltese Msida   Margaret GALEA 1933 Maltese San Ġiljan   Paul GALEA 1936 Maltese Naxxar   Rose GALEA 1938 Maltese Gżira   Saviour GALEA 1940 Maltese San Ġwann   Paul MUSU’ 1960 Maltese Valletta   Wilfred MUSU’ 1958 Maltese Mosta