CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 décembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 10 January 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 24535/20 Greta BARTOLO PARNIS against Malta lodged on 12 June 2020 communicated on 16 December 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the same legal situation as in Bartolo Parnis and Others v.   Malta ((dec.), nos. 49378/18 and 3 others, § 38, 24 March 2020). By a judgment of 29 November 2019, the Constitutional Court, finding a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, in part, awarded the applicant 38,000 euros (EUR) in compensation. The applicant complains under Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article   13 of the Convention that the violation of her property rights was not brought to an end and that she was not adequately compensated for the breach, in view of the value of the property. She specifies that she is not complaining about the application of Section 12B of the Housing (Decontrol) Ordinance introduced in 2018. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In the present cases has the applicant 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 applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her 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 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)?