CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 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 } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Published on 4 October 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 53545/19 Mark PACE against Malta lodged on 10 October 2019 communicated on 13 September 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a unilaterally imposed lease under Act   XXIII of   1979 amending Chapter   158 of the Laws of Malta. By a judgment of 29   May 2019, the Civil Court First Hall in its constitutional competence found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in relation to the applicant’s property which had been affected by those laws since 1980. It awarded EUR   20,000 in compensation and declared that the tenant may no longer rely on the impugned law to maintain title to the property. In awarding compensation, it noted, inter alia , that the applicant had waited thirty-eight years to initiate proceedings. The court refused to order the eviction of the tenants and ordered the applicant to pay 1/5 of the costs of the proceedings. The parties did not appeal. In the meantime, in 2018 the applicant lodged proceedings before the Rent Regulation Board, under the new Article 12B of Chapter 158 which are still pending. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 alone and in conjunction with Article   13 of the Convention that he is still a victim of the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 upheld by the domestic court given the low amount of compensation awarded as well as the fact that there had been no order to evict the tenants. He also considers that constitutional redress proceedings are not an effective remedy for the purposes of Article 13.     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 applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article   13 of the Convention (see Cauchi v. Malta , no. 14013/19, 25 March 2021)?