CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 juin 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 1 July 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 3176/21 Margaret FARRUGIA against Malta lodged on 6 January 2021 communicated on 10 June 2024 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’) affecting the applicant’s property in Birkirkara (which she inherited in part in 2010 and the rest in 2013 as sole heir) as of 25 September 1998. At that time the annual rent payable was 164 euros (EUR) and in 2013 it was increased to EUR 455. The tenant continued to pay such rent in the years thereafter despite the increases allowed by law. The property’s annual market rental value in 1998 according to the court-appointed expert was EUR 3,077 and in 2009 it was EUR 6,000. According to the applicant the potential rental income over the relevant period was around EUR 90,000. The applicant lodged constitutional redress proceeding complaining that the law (in particular Article 12 (2) of the Ordinance), imposing a unilateral lease relationship at such a low rent, breached her property rights, as well as those of her predecessors in title. She specified that her claims referred to the period until 31 December 2018, without prejudice to any further action she might undertake to challenge the 2018 amendments to the law. By a judgment of 4 November 2020 the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as of 1998, and awarded EUR 26,000 in compensation. No costs were to be paid by the applicant. None of the parties appealed.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the present case (see, inter alia , Amato Gauci v.   Malta , no.   47045/06, 15   September 2009)?   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 (see Portanier v.   Malta , no.   55747/16, 27   August 2019)?