CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 novembre 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 } Published on 24 November 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 15237/25 Sean BRADSHAW against Malta lodged on 20 May 2025 communicated on 4 November 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the Maltese requisition and rent laws. The applicant is a part owner (4.3%) of a property in Merchant Street, Valletta. The property was requisitioned in 1955 and until the early 1970s served as an administrative Government building, thereafter it was divided into seven separate units (a store and six flatlets) which were allocated to several people in exchange for a controlled rent. The property was de ‑ requisitioned in 2003. However, the tenants remained in place and continued to pay rent until they either died or until they vacated the property against an agreement, dated 2018, for the payment of 200,000 euros (EUR) by the owners to them. The different units of the property were vacated on different dates between 2015 and 31 December 2018. The applicant claimed to have received (together with the other owners) no rent until 1972 and for the subsequent period until 2020 he (together with the other owners) received EUR 20,396.53 in toto in rent for the seven dwellings. In August 2020 the owners (including the applicant) lodged constitutional redress proceedings claiming a breach of their property rights. By a judgment of 18 January 2024, the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in relation to the period 1955-2003 (bearing in mind that the circumstances constituted a continuous violation which continued after 1987, thus they fell within the competence of the domestic court) and awarded EUR 250,000 in pecuniary damage and EUR 10,000 in non-pecuniary damage. It, however, rejected their complaint for the subsequent period considering that there was no unilaterally imposed lease, and the owners could have proceeded to evict the tenants. On appeal by both parties, by a judgment of 20 January 2025, the Constitutional Court considered that it only had jurisdiction to assess the facts of the case as of 1987 (date of the introduction of the right to individual petition in domestic law). It however, upheld the owners’ argument that the violation only came to an end when the unilaterally imposed lease regulated by Chapter 69 of the Laws of Malta ended following the departure of the tenants. For the violation from 1987 to 2018 it thus awarded EUR 369,550 in pecuniary damage (on the basis of the formula applied in Cauchi v. Malta , no. 14013/19, §§ 102-07, 25 March 2021, but bearing in mind that the court ‑ appointed expert report had been based on the property’s commercial value not its actual residential use, thus it had to be reduced by 50%, and applying a further reduction of EUR 50,000 which would be required to refurbish the property) and EUR 10,000 in non-pecuniary damage. Part (1/3) costs of the appeal were to be paid by the owners. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention alone and in conjunction with Article 13, that he is still a victim of the violation upheld by the domestic court, particularly because there was no acknowledgment or compensation for the period 1967-1987. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of the period 1967-1987, particularly bearing in mind that the applicant (together with the other owners) appears to have received no rent whatsoever for the period 1967-1972, and a relatively low rent for the subsequent period until 1987?   2.     Did the applicant have an effective remedy under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in relation to the period 1967-1987? The parties are requested to submit relevant case-law in support of their submissions.