CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 septembre 2006

.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. 89 September 2006 Fleri Soler and Camilleri v. Malta - 35349/05 Judgment 26.9.2006 [Section IV] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 Control of the use of property Requisition of building for Government use and imposition of quasi-lease agreement having lasted 65 years: violation   Facts : In 1941 a property owned by the applicants’ father in Valetta was requisitioned for Government use and a forced lease of indefinite duration was imposed. The applicants have been receiving approximately EUR 817 per year in rent. In 1997 the applicants applied to the Civil Court, arguing that the continuous requisition of their building amounted to a de facto expropriation. The court rejected their claim. The Constitutional Court rejected their appeal, finding that since the applicants retained their right of ownership and were still receiving rent, the measure complained of could not be considered an expropriation, but was aimed at controlling the use of property in accordance with the general interest. Law : Having regard to the low amount of rent paid to the applicants, the minimal profit that the applicants could obtain from their building, the fact that their premises had been requisitioned for almost 65 years, the restrictions on their rights as landlords and the absence of sufficient procedural safeguards, the Court held that a disproportionate and excessive burden had been imposed on the applicants. Furthermore, they had been required to bear most of the financial costs of providing a working environment for government departments and/or for public offices which were performing their duties for the benefit of the community as a whole. In sum, the respondent State had failed to strike the requisite fair balance between the general interests of the community and the protection of the applicants’ fundamental rights. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41 – The Court awarded the applicants costs and expenses but reserved the question of pecuniary or non-pecuniary damages.   © 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