CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 octobre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { 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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCDD55F3 { margin-left:14.17pt; padding-left:3.68pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sE58FF9D5 { margin-left:15.01pt; padding-left:2.84pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Published on 25 October 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 49102/19 Patricia ANASTASI against Malta and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 8 October 2021   STATEMENT OF FACTS A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The facts of these cases are substantially the same as those described in Bartolo Parnis and Others v.   Malta ((dec.), nos. 49378/18 and 3 others, 24   March 2020), in relation to the application of Act XVIII of 2007 introducing Article 12A into the Housing Ordinance (Chapter   158 of the Laws of Malta). The present cases concern other apartments owned individually by each of the applicant sisters, consequent to a deed of division of 7 October 2015. By several appeal judgments of the Constitutional Court, the latter confirmed a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the period 2007 onwards and awarded compensation, in pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage combined, in the following terms: Application no. 49102/19 By two judgments of 12 July 2019 the Constitutional Court, confirming the first instance judgment, awarded in respect of apartments 45D and 28C EUR   20,000 for each apartment. The applicant was to pay her own appeal costs and 1/3 of those at first instance since some claims had been rejected. In respect of apartment 45D it was considered that eviction was not possible in view of the 2018 amendments, nor would a declaration to the effect that the tenant could no longer rely on the relevant law be called for, now that the applicant had an ordinary remedy to pursue under the 2018 amendments. In respect of apartment 28C, the applicant had regained possession of the apartment in 2017. By a judgment of 29 March 2019, the Constitutional Court awarded EUR   5,000 in respect of apartment 10B. The applicant was to pay her own appeal costs and 2/3 of those of the Attorney General, as well as 1/3 of those at first instance since some claims had been rejected. The applicant’s appeal concerning the eviction of the tenant became redundant ( ġie sorvolat ) as an agreement had been reached between the applicant and the tenant. Application no. 49105/19 By a judgment of 12 July 2019, the Constitutional Court confirmed the first-instance judgment on the merits and the award of compensation in respect of apartment 25C of EUR 20,000 but revoked the order for eviction. It further considered that a declaration to the effect that the tenant could no longer rely on the relevant law was not called for, now that the applicant had an ordinary remedy to pursue under the 2018 amendments. The applicant was to pay her own appeal costs and 1/3 of those at first instance. Application no. 49108/19 By two judgments of 29 March 2019 and 12 July 2019, respectively, the Constitutional Court, confirmed the first-instance judgments findings on the merits and awarded respectively, EUR 5,000 in respect of apartment   35C and EUR 20,000 in respect of apartment 31C. In respect of proceedings concerning apartment 35C the applicant was to pay 1/3 of the costs of the first instance proceedings and part costs of the appeal (all her costs and 1/3 those of the State) and in respect of those concerning apartment 31C she was to pay 1/4 of the costs of the first instance proceedings and part costs in respect of the appeal ( 1/2 of her own costs and 1/3 of those of the State). In respect of apartment 35C the applicant’s appeal concerning the eviction of the tenant became redundant ( ġie sorvolat ) as an agreement had been reached between the applicant and the tenant. In respect of apartment   31C it was considered that eviction was not possible in view of the 2018 amendments, nor would a declaration to the effect that the tenant could no longer rely on the relevant law be called for, now that the applicant had an ordinary remedy to pursue under the 2018 amendments. Relevant domestic law The relevant domestic law is set out in Bartolo Parnis and Others v.   Malta ((dec.), nos. 49378/18 and 3 others, § 38, 24 March 2020) and Cauchi v. Malta (no. 14013/19, § 22, 25 March 2021). COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article   13 of the Convention that the violation of their property rights was not brought to an end and that they were not adequately compensated for the breach, in view of the value of the properties. The applicants specify that they are not complaining about the application of Section 12B of the Ordinance to their cases, without prejudice to any future complaints they may lodge had this provision to be applied to their situation.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In the present cases have the applicants suffered a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention from 2007 onwards, following the enactment of Act XVIII?   2.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, having regard to the amount of compensation awarded by the Constitutional Court and/or the absence of an order for the eviction of the tenants, or a higher future rent, can those proceedings be considered effective (see, mutatis   mutandis , Apap   Bologna v.   Malta , no.   46931/12, 30   August 2016)?   APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by     49102/19 Anastasi v.   Malta 16/09/2019 Patricia ANASTASI 1963 Swieqi Maltese Philip Mario MAGRI   49105/19 Bartolo Parnis v.   Malta 16/09/2019 Greta BARTOLO PARNIS 1965 Pembroke Maltese Philip Mario MAGRI   49108/19 Azzopardi v.   Malta 16/09/2019 Josephine AZZOPARDI 1958 St. Julian’s Maltese Philip Mario MAGRI