CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 17 juillet 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 110 July 2008 Ghigo v. Malta - 31122/05 Judgment 17.7.2008 [Section IV] Article 46 Article 46-2 Execution of judgment Measures of a general character Systemic failings in domestic legal order relating to housing legislation: indication of appropriate legal or other measures   Facts : In the principal judgment delivered on 26 September 2006 (see Information Note no. 89), the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as regards a landlord-tenant relationship which had been imposed on the applicant for almost 22 years under which he received only a nominal rent and minimal profit. The question of the application of Article 41 was reserved. In its judgment on the issue of just satisfaction, the Court turned to the question of execution under Article 46 of the Convention. Law : Article 46 – The Court’s conclusion in the principal judgment was the result of shortcomings in the Maltese legal system, particularly, Maltese housing legislation, as a consequence of which, an entire category of individuals had been and were still being deprived of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property. The unfair balance detected in the applicant’s case could subsequently give rise to other numerous well-founded applications which were a threat for the future effectiveness of the system put in place by the Convention. In view of that systemic situation, general measures at the national level were undoubtedly called for in the form of legal and/or other measures to secure in its domestic legal order a mechanism maintaining a fair balance between the interests of landlords (including their entitlement to derive profit from their property) and the general interest of the community (including the availability of sufficient accommodation for the less well-off). While it was not for the Court to specify the most appropriate way of setting up such remedial procedures, the many options open to the State included measures setting out the features of a mechanism balancing the rights of landlords and tenants and criteria for what might be considered a “tenant in need”, “fair rent” and “decent profit”. Article 41 – EUR 27,720 awarded on an equitable basis in respect of pecuniary damage, which sum took into account market rental values, the fact that measures designed to achieve greater social justice could call for reimbursement of less than the full market value, and interest to compensate for the loss of value of the award over time. A claim by the applicant for future losses was rejected, subject to action being taken by the Government to put an end to the violation found by putting in place a mechanism which would allow a fair amount of rent to be paid in future years.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes