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. 51379/20 Carmelina BUGEJA against Malta lodged on 19 November 2020 communicated on 16 December 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an imposed lease as a result of the application of Chapter 69 of the Laws of Malta whereby the applicant was receiving EUR   200 per annum (based on the 1914 market value), in rent for her property in Luqa. The rent payable became EUR 209 as of 2009, which was to be increased every three years according to the index of inflation – however, it appears that the applicant did not ask for this increase. The lease may be renewed indefinitely and inherited. According to the court ‑ appointed expert the rental value in 1987 was EUR 1,259, annually and that in 2019 was EUR 7,800. According to the applicant, the income potential over at least thirty years was approximately EUR 96,506. On 6 June 2019 the applicant instituted constitutional redress proceedings complaining, inter alia , of a breach of her property rights. By a judgment of 9 October 2020, the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and relying on the court-appointed expert report, which it adopted, it awarded the applicant EUR 30,000 in compensation, bearing in mind inter alia , the time it took the applicant to institute these proceedings. It refused to evict the tenant but declared that the tenant may no longer rely on the impugned law to maintain title to the property. It held that 1/5 of the costs of the proceedings were to be paid by the applicant given the rejected claims. None of the parties appealed. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention alone and in conjunction with Article 13 that she remained a victim of the upheld violation due to the low amount of compensation awarded and the failure to evict the tenant. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In the present case has the applicant suffered a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?   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)?