CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 mai 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDAD2B73A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s76334B44 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } Communicated on 27 May 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 165/17 Ian Peter ELLIS and Elizabeth SCILIO against Malta lodged on 20 December 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants, Mr Ian Peter Ellis and Ms Elizabeth Scilio, are Maltese nationals, who were born in 1950 and 1947 and live in Sliema, Malta, and Catania, Italy, respectively. They are represented before the Court by Dr   I.   Refalo, Dr M. Refalo and Dr S. Grech, lawyers practising in Valletta, Malta. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. Background to the case The applicants own property No. 49, Old College Street, Sliema (“the property”) which they inherited from their predecessors. In 1957 the property had been requisitioned in favour of a third party. Upon agreement between the parties, the third party paid the applicants’ father 61 British Pounds (GBP) annually under a lease agreement covered by the special laws concerning protected leases. A year later the property was derequisitioned. In 1980, upon agreement between the parties, the rent was fixed at 100   Maltese liras (MLT) (approximately 233 euros (EUR)) annually. The same rent continues to be deposited in the court’s registry until today by the heirs of the third party who inherited the lease in 1998. Between 2004 and 2010 the rent had been accepted during negotiations between the parties in relation to the vacation of the property. Constitutional redress proceedings The applicants instituted constitutional redress proceedings claiming, inter alia , that the provisions of the Reletting Urban Property Ordinance, Chapter   69 of the Laws of Malta ‑ which imposed on them the obligation to renew the lease on a yearly basis without a possibility of increasing the rent was in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. They asked the court to award compensation for the damage suffered and to evict the tenants. By a judgment of 30 November 2015 the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence, inter alia , found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, refused the request to evict the tenants but awarded the applicants EUR 20,000 in compensation. The court noted that according to the court-appointed expert in 2012 the property had a sale value of EUR 560,000 and a rental value of EUR   16,800 annually (EUR 1,400 monthly) while in 1987 it had a rental value of EUR   2,703 annually. Thus, the rent payable to the applicants was substantially inferior to its market value consequently a fair balance between the interests involved had not been reached. Bearing in mind the court ‑ appointed expert’s valuations and that the applicants’ complaint concerned the period after 1987 as well as the legitimate aim pursued by the measure and the fact that the applicant only complained in 2010, it awarded EUR   20,000 arbitrio bon viri . On appeal by both parties, by a judgment of 24 June 2016 the Constitutional Court, inter alia , upheld the finding of a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, reduced the compensation to EUR   10,000 and ordered that the tenants could no longer rely on the relevant law to retain the property. Part costs of the appeal were to be paid by the applicants. Relevant domestic law The relevant domestic law in relation to the present case is set out in Zammit and Attard Cassar v. Malta (no. 1046/12, §§ 26-27, 30 July 2015). COMPLAINTS The applicants complain that they are still victims of the violation of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 upheld by the Constitutional Court given the low amount of compensation awarded. They further consider that constitutional redress proceedings were not an effective remedy as required by Article   13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Zammit and Attard Cassar v.   Malta , no.   1046/12, 30 July 2015 and Apap Bologna v. Malta , no.   46931/12, 30   August 2016)?   2.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article   13 of the Convention (see Apap Bologna , cited above)?