CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 mai 2024

.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 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 10 June 2024   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 24338/21 and 33988/21 Joan Mary CILIA and Emanuel CILIA against Malta lodged on 7 May 2021 communicated on 21 May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE Application no. 24338/21   The case concerns a unilaterally imposed lease under Act XXIII of 1979 amending Chapter 158 of the Laws of Malta (‘the Ordinance”) affecting the first applicant’s property no.   243, Vangius, Flat 2, Triq Qrejten, Ħamrun, as of June 2003. Following her parents’ respective demise, the first applicant acquired the property in its entirety by a contract of division in September 2014, before that she owned it in part (apparently 25% as of 2003 and at an unspecified percentage as of 2013, date of her mother’s death). The second applicant is her husband. In 2019 the applicants lodged constitutional redress proceedings complaining that the application of Article 12 of the Ordinance was in breach of their property rights. They limited their claims to 2018, the applicants having instituted proceedings before the Rent Regulation Board (RRB) in 2019. On the basis of the court-appointed expert’s report the plaintiffs calculated their loss of income over the entire period at around EUR 52,000. By a judgment of 8 April 2021 the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention and awarded EUR 18,900 in pecuniary damage and EUR   2,500 in non ‑ pecuniary damage. According to the court, it was relevant that the first applicant became full owner of the property only in 2014 and thus it was only damage as of that date which was due and from January 2014 to 2019 the expert had estimated rental losses at EUR 37,800. No costs were to be paid by the applicants. None of the parties appealed. The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that they remained victims of the violation upheld by the domestic court.   Application no. 33988/21   The case concerns a unilaterally imposed lease under Act XXIII of 1979 amending Chapter 158 of the Laws of Malta affecting the first applicant’s property no. 243, Vangius, Flat 1, Triq Qrejten, Ħamrun, as of July 2008. Following her parents’ respective demise, the first applicant acquired the property in its entirety by a contract of division in September 2014, before that she owned it in part (apparently 25% as of 2003 and at an unspecified percentage as of 2013, date of her mother’s death). The second applicant is her husband. In 2019 the applicants lodged constitutional redress proceedings complaining that the application of Article 12 of the Ordinance was in breach of their property rights as well as that of their predecessors in title. They limited their claims to 2018, the applicants having instituted proceedings before the RRB subsequent to that. On the basis of the court-appointed expert’s report the plaintiffs calculated their loss of income over the entire period at around EUR 100,000. By a judgment of 24 February 2021 the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence found that the second applicant had no interest to act, him having no possession at issue, and in respect of the first applicant that she had an interest to act only from the date at which she had title over the property. It then found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in so far as she and her predecessor in title suffered an indefinite imposed lease at an inadequate rent and awarded her EUR 10,250 in pecuniary damage and EUR   2,500 in non-pecuniary damage. In establishing compensation, the court also bore in mind the time when the discrepancy arose as well as the fact that while the property was affected by the imposed lease as of 2008 the first applicant’s predecessor in title had not instituted constitutional redress proceedings and that the first applicant only had title over the property as of 2014. No costs were to be paid by the applicants. None of the parties appealed. The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that they remained victims of the violation upheld by the domestic court.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the present cases (see, inter alia, Amato Gauci v.   Malta , no.   47045/06, 15   September 2009)?   2.     In particular, are the applicants still victims of the violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention upheld by the domestic court? In particular, bearing in mind that the domestic court only awarded compensation in respect of the period subsequent to the contract of division, were they adequately redressed for the violation of property rights upheld by the domestic court? The parties are invited to make reference to any relevant domestic law or case-law in their submissions, in particular in the light of Article 946 of the Maltese Civil Code. The first applicant is also invited to indicate the exact shares she held of the property over the impugned period, and whether at any time she held the property as full owner or bare owner, as well as whether she inherited the property by title of legacy or as universal heir.   3.     Bearing in mind the reasons for the rejection of his claim, did the second applicant in application no. 33988/21 exhaust domestic remedies, namely an appeal to the Constitutional Court (see Deguara Caruana Gatto and Gera v. Malta (dec.), no. 20064/21, § 23, 23 May 2023)? If so, the parties are requested to submit details about the applicants’ matrimonial regime, able to substantiate that the second applicant can be considered as being affected by the impugned measures, for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, in the present case.