Communicated on 31 August 2018

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 61981/16 Raimond CASSAR TORREGGIANI and Geraldine CASSAR TORREGGIANI against Malta lodged on 19 October 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Mr Raimond Cassar Torreggiani and Ms Geraldine Cassar Torreggiani , are Maltese nationals, who were born in 1934 and 1938 respectively and live in Lija . They are represented before the Court by Dr M. Camilleri and Dr E. DeBono , lawyers practising in Valletta.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

1. Background to the case

The applicants are owners of apartment No. 1 San Michel Flats, St. George ’ s Street, St. Julians , which they acquired, from CEL (a company of which they were shareholders and which was in liquidation), on 25 January 1986.

On 7 March 1978 CEL had rented the property to a third party, for five years, starting from 1 September 1979 at 48 Maltese lira (MTL) (approximately 112 euros (EUR)), and for the first seventeen months at MTL 10 (approximately EUR 23).

In 1984, on the expiry of the lease the third party relied on Act XXIII of 1979 amending Chapter 158 of the Laws of Malta, the Housing (Decontrol) Ordinance, (hereinafter “the Ordinance”) to retain the property under title of lease, at the rent applicable according to law.

2. Constitutional redress proceedings

The applicants instituted constitutional redress proceedings claiming that the provisions of the Ordinance as amended by Act XXIII of 1979 ‑ which granted tenants the right to retain possession of the premises under a lease ‑ imposed on them as owners a unilateral lease relationship for an indeterminate time without reflecting a fair and adequate rent, in breach of, inter alia , Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. They noted that they had been unable to take back possession of the property despite their need for it and that they were being paid only 7% of its rental market value.

By a judgment of 11 February 2015 the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence upheld the above ‑ mentioned claim. The court noted that the according to the court-appointed expert, bearing in mind all the limitations of the apartment, in the early eighties the rental value was equivalent to EUR 1,470 annually, while that in 2016 was EUR 5,850 annually. However, in 1984 the highest rent which the applicants could demand according to law was equivalent to EUR 621.38 annually, while that in 2014 was EUR 845.54. It followed that while in 1984 the applicants were receiving around 42% of the property ’ s rental value, they were in 2014 only receiving 15% of its rental value. Thus despite the public interest pursued the applicants were suffering a disproportionate burden.

The court, bearing in mind that damage to be awarded in such proceedings was not to reflect the actual damage suffered, awarded the applicants EUR 50,000 in non ‑ pecuniary damage. The court considered that it was not necessary to evict the tenants, but held that the tenants could not rely on Section 5 of the Ordinance as amended to claim title to the property.

On appeal by all the parties, by a judgment of 29 April 2016 the Constitutional Court upheld the finding of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as well as the order that the tenants could no longer rely on the relevant law to retain the property. It however reformed the amount of compensation and awarded the applicants EUR 5,000 covering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. One third of the costs of the appeal proceedings were to be paid by the applicants.

B. Relevant domestic law

The relevant domestic law in relation to the present case is set out in Amato Gauci v. Malta , (no. 47045/06, §§ 19-25, 15 September 2009).

C OMPLAINT

The applicants complained that they were still victims of the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 upheld by the Constitutional Court given the low amount of compensation awarded.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Amato Gauci v. Malta , no. 47045/06, 15 September 2009)?