THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 49684/18 Josephine AZZOPARDI and O thers against Malta

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 12 May 2020 as a Committee composed of:

Georgios A. Serghides, President, Erik Wennerström , Lorraine Schembri Orland, judges, and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 October 2018,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 24 December 2019 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants ’ reply to that declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1 . A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

2 . The Maltese Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by their Agent, Dr Peter Grech , Attorney General, and subsequently by their Agent, Dr Victoria Buttigieg, State Advocate.

3 . The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that they had not been adequately compensated for the breach of their rights, as upheld by the domestic courts.

THE LAW

5 . The applicants complained about the compensation awarded by the Constitutional Court which upheld a breach of their property rights. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

6 . After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 24 December 2019 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

7 . The declaration provided as follows:

“ In the circumstances, [the] Government hereby wishes to express – by way of a unilateral declaration – its acknowledgement of the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention.

Consequently the Government is prepared to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 11,500 as just satisfaction which it considers to be reasonable in the light of the Court ’ s case law, as in Amato Gauci v. Malta , no. 47045/06, 15 September 2009 ...

The Government would suggest that the above information might be accepted by the Court as any other reason justifying the striking out of the case from the Court ’ s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention .

The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be payable within the three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three month period, the Government undertakes to pay simple interest on it from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”

8 . By a letter of 29 January 2020, the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the declaration as they considered that the compensation was too low.

9 . The Court re iterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:

“ for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

10 . It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued.

11 . To this end, the Court has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. z o.o . v. Poland ( dec. ), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland ( dec. ), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).

12 . The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Malta, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 arising from the applicable rent laws (see, for example, Amato Gauci v. Malta, no. 47045/06, 15 September 2009 , § 63 and Anthony Aquilina v. Malta , no. 3851/12 , § 67, 11 December 2014 ) .

13 . The Court notes that the complaint at issue under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention refers solely to apartments 14B and 27C, both of which have been released or sold at the latest in 2013. The Court further notes that the applicants were awarded a global sum of non-pecuniary damage by the last ‑ instance court in a final judgment at the domestic level, in the present case the Constitutional Court, which remains payable to the applicants (see, for example, mutatis mutandis , Gera de Petri Testaferrata Bonici Ghaxaq v. Malta (just satisfaction), no. 26771/07, § 26, 3 September 2013) .

14 . Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed (which the Court considers to refer to the applicants, jointly) – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

15 . Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

16 . Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention ( Josipović v. Serbia ( dec. ), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

17 . In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list .

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein of the Convention;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 11 June 2020 .

Olga Chernishova Georgios A. Serghides Deputy Registrar President

Appendix

No.

Applicant ’ s Name

Birth date

Nationality

Place of residence

1Josephine AZZOPARDI

1958Maltese

St. Julian ’ s

2Patricia ANASTASI

1963Maltese

Swieqi

3Greta BARTOLO PARNIS

1965Maltese

Pembroke

4Anna Maria SADDEMI

1960Maltese

St. Julian ’ s