CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 15 septembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sBD129C31 { margin:0pt 23.95pt 0pt 27pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s76279A14 { margin:0pt 23.95pt 0pt 27pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sBA1DA037 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s75E06927 { margin:0pt 23.95pt 0pt 27pt; text-align:center } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s29429078 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#008080 } .s777B7D40 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#008080 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5A18AC4 { margin:0pt 23.95pt 0pt 27pt; font-size:11pt } .sEE06BAC5 { margin:0pt 23.95pt 0pt 27pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s5A69A5F3 { margin:0pt 23.95pt 0pt 27pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sD03608 { margin:0pt 23.95pt 0pt 27pt; font-size:8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } 654 15.09.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] AMATO GAUCI V. MALTA (application no . 47045/06 )   OWNER   FORCED TO LET PROPERTY FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD   OF TIME WITHOUT ADEQUATE RENT   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 15,025   euros   (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Principal facts   The applicant, Philip Amato Gauci, is a Maltese national who was born in 1939 and lives in Msida (Malta).   The case concerned the applicant’s inability to repossess a house – despite expiry of the tenants’ lease – or to obtain fair and adequate rent.   In the 1990s Mr Gauci inherited a maisonette in Sliema (Malta) from his parents. Since 1975 Mr Gauchi’s father had been renting the maisonette to Mr and Mrs P for 90 Maltese liras (MTL) (approximately EUR   210); the contract stipulated that the premises were to be returned to the owner after 25 years.   In April 2000 the applicant informed Mr and Mrs P. that he did not wish to renew the contract and that they should vacate the premises. Mr and Mrs P. replied that they were availing themselves of the right, under a new law enacted in 1979, to retain possession of the premises under a lease, without the consent of the owner.   The applicant’s claims before the Maltese courts with regard to the fact that he had been deprived of his property without adequate compensation were ultimately rejected on appeal in May 2006. The courts found that the law at issue constituted control of the use of property, which had been legitimate and in the general interest, namely to prevent large-scale evictions. The courts further found that the maximum compensation available to the applicant by law, fixed at MTL 180 (approximately EUR 420) per year by the Rent Regulation Board, was “certainly low” but was higher than that payable under other rent laws in force in the country and did not therefore violate his property rights.   According to an architect’s report of March 2002 submitted by the applicant, the market rental value of his premises was MTL 120 (approximately EUR 280) per month.   Complaints and procedure   Relying in particular on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), Mr Gauci complained that the 1979 law imposed on him a unilateral lease relationship for an indeterminate time without fair and adequate rent.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 24 November 2006.   Decision of the Court   The Court noted that both the applicants’ parents and subsequently the applicant himself suffered interference with their property rights, however the case before the Court was confined to the applicant's rights. It was not in dispute between the parties that that interference had been lawful and pursued a legitimate aim, namely the social protection of tenants.   The Court noted that the applicant could not physically possess his house as it was occupied by tenants whose lease could not be terminated. The possibility of the tenants leaving his house voluntarily was remote, especially since the tenancy could be inherited. Nor did the applicant have available an effective remedy which would have enabled him to evict the tenants or obtain an adequate amount of rent. Consequently, the application of the law itself lacked adequate procedural safeguards aimed at achieving a balance between the interests of the tenants and those of the owners.   In sum, a disproportionate and excessive burden had been imposed on the applicant, given the state of uncertainty as to whether he would ever recover his property and the above lack of procedural safeguards, combined with the low rental value fixed by the Rent Regulation Board as well as the rise in the standard of living in Malta over the past decades. Indeed, he had been requested to bear most of the social and financial costs of housing Mr and Mrs P. It followed that Malta had failed to strike the requisite fair balance between the general interests of the community and the protection of the applicant's right of property, in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1.     ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The judgments, with the composition of the Court, are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Press contacts Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) or Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.