CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 septembre 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 } Published on 17 October 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 825/21 Anthony ABELA against Malta lodged on 22 December 2020 communicated on 30 September 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a unilaterally imposed lease under Act XXIII of 1979 amending Chapter 158 of the Laws of Malta (the Ordinance), on the applicant’s property, no. 1 Cordina Lane, St. Paul’s area, Cospicua, which he acquired following inheritance and a contract of division dated 14 June 2010. The rent being paid in 2018 was EUR 188 annually. In 2018 the applicant instituted constitutional redress proceedings complaining about a violation of his property rights and requesting compensation as of 14 June 2010 as well as the eviction of the tenant. According to the applicant’s expert, having considered its development potential, the property was valued at EUR 350,000 and had a rental value of EUR   14,000 annually (based on a rental yield of 4 %). According to the State’s expert, it had a sale value of EUR 241,000 and a rental value of EUR   6,600 annually, based on a yield of 2.75% (given that improvements and furniture had been provided by the tenants). By a judgment of 30 June 2020, the court found a violation of the applicant’s property rights. Bearing in mind the mean between both expert reports, that is, an annual market rent of EUR 10,300, and the EUR   188 annual rent he was actually perceiving, it found that the applicant had been suffering a disproportionate burden. It awarded EUR 10,000 in compensation for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage (running as of 2010) but refused to evict the tenant in view of the procedure available, following the 2018 amendments, under the new Article 12 B of the Ordinance. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention that he is still the victim of the violation found by the constitutional jurisdiction, which failed to award appropriate redress and evict the tenants. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.       Has the applicant suffered a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?