CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 septembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sD443BBE2 { width:95%; border-collapse:collapse } .s75B6FE49 { width:7.92%; 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 } .sCED8F19D { width:32.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA8A0BADF { width:14.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s41EA106C { width:15.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFFAC43F8 { width:29.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC3E2F90B { width:7.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3D300913 { width:32.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE9584EF8 { width:14.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8DD8284A { width:15.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC70FE122 { width:29.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 4 October 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 19853/20 George Olof ATTARD and Others against Malta lodged on 11 May 2020 communicated on 15 September 2021 STATEMENT OF FACTS A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They were represented before the Court by Dr M. Camilleri and Dr K. Micallef, lawyers practising in Valletta as well as Dr F. Cassar a lawyer practising in Gżira. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. Background The case concerns a unilaterally imposed lease under Act XXIII of   1979 amending Chapter   158 of the Laws of Malta (hereinafter “the Ordinance”) affecting the applicants’ property in Sliema (which they inherited in 2017) as of 8 September 1999. At that time the rent payable was EUR 382, which as of 2013 increased to EUR 529 and as of 2016 to EUR 540. Its annual market rental value in 1999 according to the court-appointed expert was EUR   5,217, in 2004 EUR 5,943, in 2009 EUR 6,744, in 2014 EUR   7,384 and in 2018 EUR 8,400. In 2014 the applicants and/or their predecessor in title, lodged proceedings before the Rent Regulation Board (hereinafter “the RRB”) requesting it to declare that the tenant breached the obligations imposed by the lease and that he was not using the premises as his ordinary residence. They asked the RRB to order that the property be returned to them. By a judgment of 12 December 2017, the RRB rejected their request. It considered that the damage to the property had not been due to the tenant and that the property had not been abandoned by him, despite evidence that there had been no water and electricity services as a result of unpaid bills. The judgment was appealed but the appeal was withdrawn after the below-mentioned judgment became final. Constitutional redress proceedings On 12 April 2018 the applicants lodged constitutional redress proceedings claiming that the provisions of the Ordinance, as amended by Act XXIII of 1979 which granted tenants the right to retain possession of the premises under a lease, imposed on them as owners a unilateral lease relationship for an indeterminate time without reflecting a fair and adequate rent, in breach of, inter alia , Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. They asked the court to award compensation for the damage suffered and an appropriate remedy including the eviction of the tenant. By a judgment of 21 November 2019, the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, as of 8 September 1999, bearing in mind that the applicants were receiving around 5% of the market rent according to the valuations of the court ‑ appointed expert which were accepted by the court. It awarded EUR   20,000 in pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage combined. Noting that the evidence had shown that the property was in dilapidated state and clearly not being used as a residence by the tenant, the court ordered his eviction within six months and that he pay a rent of EUR 700 per month until he vacates the property. No costs were to be paid by the applicants. In these proceedings, the tenant who had been duly notified did not appear and did not make any submissions in his defence. None of the parties appealed. Relevant domestic law The relevant domestic law is set out in Amato Gauci v.   Malta (no.   47045/06, § 19-22, 15 September 2009 ). COMPLAINTS The applicants complain that they were still victims of the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention found by the domestic court as a result of the low amount of compensation awarded. For the same reason they considered that they had no effective remedy under Article   13 in connection with their complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Amato Gauci v. Malta , no. 47045/06, 15   September 2009)?   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?   APPENDIX     No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. George Olof ATTARD 1952 Maltese Sliema 2. Martin Fredereck ATTARD 1954 Maltese Sliema 3. Wilhelmina SOTTILE ATTARD 1949 Maltese Sliema