CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s489FE0 { width:8.6%; 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 } .sDF32269C { width:21%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4CB25C8E { width:30.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s70EE3172 { width:20.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD53C5358 { width:19.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCFE21E2D { width:8.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7843577C { width:21%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFC48EECD { width:30.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9337260A { width:20.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB6558D35 { width:19.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 30 June 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 27880/21 Doreen GRIMA against Malta lodged on 25 May 2021 communicated on 13 June 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a requisition and unilaterally imposed lease affecting the applicant’s property no. 40, Wied il-Għajn street, Zabbar. The second applicant always owned half of the property (which belonged to the community of acquests she had with her husband), and the rest she acquired by inheritance together with her two children, the remaining applicants (as heirs at law under intestate succession), in 2016. The property was requisitioned (in accordance with the Housing Act) in 1990 and on 24 January 1992 assigned to N at a rent of approximately 75 euros (EUR) annually. At the time and until 2012 the applicants and/or their predecessor in title challenged the requisition order and imposed lease, by ordinary means, to no avail. They never acknowledged the tenant or received any rent from her, it being paid to the housing authority. The owners having refused to undertake works to the ceilings, in 1995 they agreed for the tenant to undertake such works. The tenants obtained the relevant permits and changed the ceilings at their own expense. According to N’s testimony they further changed the bathrooms, added a washroom, replaced the flooring and the apertures, and replaced a staircase which was dangerous. In 2019 the applicants lodged constitutional redress proceedings complaining that the requisition order, imposing a unilateral lease at such a low rent, was in breach of their property rights. They requested compensation, the annulment of the requisition order and consequent lease, as well as the eviction of the tenant. By a judgment of 3 December 2020, the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence found a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and awarded EUR 17,000 in pecuniary damage and EUR   3,000 in non-pecuniary damage, plus legal interest. While it considered that the tenants may no longer rely on the requisition order to claim title to the property, it refused to evict them, considering that it was not the appropriate forum for such an action. In awarding compensation, the court took note of the fact that the tenants had made substantial alterations to the property including structural ones (which had not been objected to by the owners) at their own expense, even though such changes (consisting of extraordinary expenses) should have been made by the owners according to law. The applicants instituted proceedings before the Rent Regulation Board ( see Cauchi v. Malta , no.   14013/19, § 22, 25 March 2021). By a judgment of 13 March 2025, the Court of Appeal ordered the eviction of the tenants. Invoking Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention, at the time of lodging their application in 2021, the applicants complained that they remained victims of the violation upheld by the domestic court, particularly, due to the low amount of compensation and the failure to evict the tenants. 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, and Apap Bologna v. Malta , no. 46931/12, § 57, 30 August 2016)?   2.     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 (see Portanier v.   Malta , no.   55747/16, 27   August 2019)?       APPENDIX Application no. 27880/21 No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Doreen GRIMA 1965 Maltese Marsascala 2. Georgina GRIMA 1938 Maltese Valletta 3. Joseph GRIMA 1962 Maltese Pembroke