CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 septembre 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sC2E73220 { width:87.22%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s54F1E238 { width:8.26%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s3FAB130A { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#f8f8f8 } .sCC037FAC { width:22.94%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .sF61BF5EC { width:22.94%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s2F0B4A65 { width:8.26%; border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s12C0A550 { width:22.94%; border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB268EDDE { width:8.26%; border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } .s816B3540 { width:22.94%; border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Communicated on 4 September 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 49684/18 Josephine AZZOPARDI and others against Malta lodged on 17 October 2018 STATEMENT OF FACTS A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They were represented before the Court by Dr P.M. Magri, a lawyer practising in Valletta. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. Background to the case In 1957 the applicants’ ancestors had leased seven flats to third parties for forty-five years. The leases expired in 2002. The tenants remained in occupation of the flats despite not having any legal title to them. In 2005 and again in 2006 the applicants (as successors in title) unsuccessfully requested the tenants to vacate the premises, and then instituted eviction proceedings. While the eviction proceedings were pending, in 2007 the Government introduced a law (Act no. XVIII of 2007 announcing Section 12A to the Housing De ‑ Control Ordinance, Chapter 158 of the Laws of Malta – see relevant domestic law below) allowing for any such tenants - who had not been evicted - to remain in occupation of the premises under specific conditions (including a low rent). Constitutional redress proceedings The applicants instituted constitutional redress proceedings complaining mainly under Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1. Pending proceedings, on different dates between 2008 and 2013, the properties either reverted back to the applicants or were sold to third parties. By a first-instance judgment of 28 September 2017 the first-instance constitutional jurisdiction found a violation of the applicants’ property rights in relation to a series of properties namely, apartments 6 B, 7 B, 8 B, 14B and 27 C, as well as 42 and 43 D, given that by the enactment of the “2007 law” a forced lease had been imposed on the applicants, as owners, who were receiving a very low rent. Bearing in mind the time taken for the applicants to institute proceedings, and the fact that four of the apartments had already been returned to them (6B, 7B, 14B and 43 D) and that three other apartments were sold to third parties (8B, 27C, 42 D), it awarded EUR 5,000 in toto in compensation. All the costs were to be paid by the defendant. The applicants appealed solely against the award of compensation considering it to be too low. By a judgment of 25 April 2018 the Constitutional Court confirmed the first-instance judgment and increased the compensation. It bore in mind that (i) had the applicants evicted the tenants in 2002 (as they could have done when the latter lost legal title), they would not have suffered the violation; (ii) the duration, namely from 2007, until the relevant dates for each apartment until it had been released or sold; (iii) the rental value, as well as the fact that they might not have been rented out throughout the whole period; (iv) the public interest involved; (v) the fact that compensation had to be complete; (vi) the uncertainty suffered by the applicants and the costs they incurred to undertake judicial proceedings. In that light it awarded the applicants EUR 15,000 in non-pecuniary damage and EUR 23,000 in pecuniary damage, covering the following: EUR 1,000 for each of the apartments 6B, 7B and 43 D (since the violation had only persisted for one or two years) and EUR 10,000 each for apartments 8B and 42 B ( recte D). Costs of the appeal proceedings were to be paid 1/6 by the applicants and 1/5 by the defendant. Relevant domestic law The relevant domestic law pertaining to the case, is set out in Edward and Cynthia Zammit Maempel v. Malta (no. 3356/15, § 27, 15 January 2019). COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that they had not been adequately compensated for the breach upheld by the domestic courts. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of apartments 14 B and 27 C?   APPENDIX No. Applicant’s Name Birth date Nationality Place of residence 1 Josephine AZZOPARDI 15/03/1958 Maltese St. Julian’s 2 Patricia ANASTASI 10/02/1963 Maltese Swieqi 3 Greta BARTOLO PARNIS 06/06/1965 Maltese Pembroke 4 Anna Maria SADDEMI 02/05/1960 Maltese St. Julian’s