CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 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 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s2571CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 30 May 2022   FIRST SECTION Applications nos. 788/21 and 22976/21 Lilian MARTINELLI and Others against Malta and Raymond MILLER and Others against Malta lodged on 22 December 2020 and 30 April 2021 respectively communicated on 9 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern imposed-leases on the applicants’ property, in Naxxar and Marsa respectively, under Chapter 69 of the Laws of Malta whereby the tenants were paying low rents compared to the market rents during the relevant period. The applicants instituted constitutional redress proceedings complaining of a breach of their property rights. By final judgments of 23   November 2020 and 3 December 2020, the Constitutional Court and the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence, respectively, found violations of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention as the applicants had suffered a disproportionate burden and awarded compensation. In respect of application no. 788/21, where the applicants’ property was being used as a band club, the domestic court awarded 250,000   euros (EUR) in pecuniary damage and EUR 6,000 in non-pecuniary damage. In respect of application no. 22976/21, where the property consisted of two warehouses and an office, the domestic court awarded EUR   161,000 in pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 in non ‑ pecuniary damage, plus eight per cent interest from the date of judgment. In both cases the courts ordered that the tenant may no longer rely on the impugned law to maintain title to the property. Thereafter, the applicants regained possession of their property on 31   January 2022 and 3 June 2021 respectively. The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention that they are still victims of the violation found, the constitutional jurisdictions having failed to award appropriate redress and evict the tenants.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Are the applicants still victims of the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention found by the domestic courts? In particular, have the applicants been afforded adequate redress? Bearing in mind i) the ‘current’ estimated rental values, as established by the court-appointed experts, which were used to calculate the rental values dating back to 1987; ii) the rental yield on the sale value applied; and iii) the considerations made by the experts that the properties were in need of works/refurbishment; were the estimates, submitted by the experts, a real reflection of the market rental values which the properties could have obtained, in the state they were in, over the relevant period?   2.     In the present cases have the applicants suffered a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?   3.     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?       APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 788/21 Martinelli and Others v. Malta Lilian MARTINELLI 1932 Sliema Maltese Bernadette GRECH 1949 Naxxar Maltese Margaret SANTUCCI 1965 Mosta Maltese Marie Louise GRECH SANTUCCI 1952 Gżira Maltese Anthony PISANI 1959 Naxxar Maltese Catherine AXIAQ 1952 Swatar Maltese James Andrew PISANI 1980 Santa Venera Maltese Denise VELLA 1976 Santa Venera Maltese Lisa Kate FENECH 1972 Swieqi Maltese Michael SANTUCCI 1960 Sliema Maltese Karl MICALLEF 2. 22976/21 Miller and Others v. Malta Raymond MILLER 1945 Sliema Maltese Gerald MILLER 1947 St. Julians Maltese Christine CASSOLA 1948 Sliema Maltese David DEMAJO ALBANESE 1954 Sliema Maltese Paul DEMAJO ALBANESE 1958 Attard Maltese Mary Antoinette PORTELLI 1931 Burlington (Canada) Maltese Dolores RIPARD 1932 St. Julians Maltese Antoinette MICALLEF 1934 St. Julians Maltese Anthony ALBANESE 1941 St. Julians Maltese Theresa ALBANESE 1945 St. Julians Maltese Karl MICALLEF