LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
CACHIA AND OTHERS v. MALTA
Doc ref: 6335/21 • ECHR ID: 001-218534
Document date: June 24, 2022
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
CACHIA AND OTHERS v. MALTA
Doc ref: 6335/21 • ECHR ID: 001-218534
Document date: June 24, 2022
Cited paragraphs only
Published on 11 July 2022
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 6335/21 Mario CACHIA and Others against Malta lodged on 18 January 2021 communicated on 24 June 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicants’ property in Sliema which has been rented out since 1976, as commercial premises, and is affected by the restrictions applicable under Chapter 69 of the Laws of Malta. The applicants hold the property by title of utile dominium which will expire in 2028.
The original lease expired in October 1991 and thereafter the tenants maintained title to the property. By a judgment of 25 July 1995, the Rent Regulation Board established the rent at 15,140 euro (EUR) annually. As of 2010 the parties disagreed as to the applicable increments in rent. In 2015 the applicants instituted constitutional redress proceedings.
By a judgment of 29 January 2020 the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicants EUR 100,000, in compensation.
On appeal by the applicants, by a judgment of 20 July 2020 the Constitutional Court increased the compensation, including non-pecuniary damage, to EUR 250,000 plus 5% interest from the date of that judgment.
A new lease agreement was reached between the parties for the period 2020 onwards at EUR 180,000 annually with further increases until 2027, date when the lease will come to an end in accordance with the law.
The applicants complain that they are still victims of the violation found by the domestic courts in view of the low amount of compensation awarded.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the present case? In particular, given the award of compensation in the present case, are the applicants still victims of the violation found by the domestic courts?
APPENDIX
No.
Applicant’s Name
Year of birth
Nationality
Place of residence
1.Mario CACHIA
1965Maltese
L-Ibraġġ
2.Carmen BAJADA
1959Maltese
Sliema
3.Godwin BORG
1947Maltese
San Gwann
4.Inez BORG
1919Maltese
Attard
5.Margaret BORG
1945Maltese
Sliema
6.Doreen BUSUTTIL
1946Maltese
Sliema
7.Marie Louise BUSUTTIL
1950Maltese
Swieqi
8.Stephen CACHIA
1964Maltese
Sliema
9.Alfred GRECH
1953Maltese
Mosta
10.Joseph GRECH
1950Maltese
Santa Venera
11.Natalie GRECH
1949Maltese
Sliema
12.Carmen WAREING
1969Maltese
St Andrews
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2025
