CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 mai 2022

.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 } .s8B15FBF9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } Published on 23 May 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 17094/21 Anthony DEBONO and Simone DIMECH against Malta lodged on 26 March 2021 communicated on 3 May 2022 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants, Mr Anthony Debono and Ms Simone Dimech, are Maltese nationals, who were born in 1956 and 1954 respectively and live in Ta’ Xbiex. They are represented before the Court by Dr M. Camilleri, a lawyer practising in Valletta. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The case concerns an imposed lease on the applicants’ property in Sliema (which they inherited in 2004), as a result of the application of Chapter   69 of the Laws of Malta whereby the tenants were paying annually EUR 56 in 1987, EUR   112 in 1996, EUR 185 in 2010 and EUR   203 in 2016, according to law. The applicants lodged constitutional redress proceeding complaining inter alia of a breach their property rights in relation to the affects the law was having on them in so far as it allowed the current tenants (couple M.) to maintain a right to the property, while paying a disproportionately low amount of rent. They asked the court to liquidate damage suffered by them as a result. According to the court-appointed expert the property in 1986 had an annual rental value of EUR 1,440, in 2003 of EUR 3,675, in 2008 of EUR   5,075, in 2013 of EUR 7,800 and in 2018 of EUR 15,000, based on a sale value in 2018 of EUR 300,000. According to the report while the rental yield in 2004 was 3.5% as from 2013 it was 4% and as of 2018 it was 5 %. By a judgment of 8 May 2020 the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the applicants and awarded EUR 20,000 in compensation. It ordered that the tenants may no longer rely on the impugned law to maintain title to the property. On appeal by the State, in so far as relevant, by a judgment of 8 October 2020 the Constitutional Court confirmed the judgment and the award of compensation covering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. It noted that the applicants had suffered a violation only as of 2004. This was so not because that was the date when they had inherited the property (as argued by the State) given that they also inherited their ancestor’s property rights, but rather because that was the year when the original tenant passed away and the current tenants had inherited the lease. The tenants left the premises shortly after the Constitutional Court judgment. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK The relevant domestic law is set out in Zammit and Attard Cassar v.   Malta , (no. 1046/12, § 26, 30 July 2015). COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that they are still victims of the violation upheld by the domestic court given the low amount of rent awarded. They considered that they should have been awarded compensation as of 1987, which they quantify as being EUR   100,000, not only from the date when they became owners. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Bearing in mind the applicants’ complaint as brought before the domestic court can it be said that their complaint was limited to the period after 2004, when the premises were occupied by couple M.? a) If not, are the applicants still a victim of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, particularly in relation to the antecedent period starting in 1987 for which they have not been compensated? b) If so, and bearing in mind that the domestic courts cannot act ultra petita , was the award for the period post 2004 adequate compensation in respect of the upheld violation enabling the applicants to lose their victim status in respect of the complaint under Article   1 of Protocol No. 1?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the present case?   3.     Did the applicants have an effective remedy for the purposes of Article   13 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?