Published on 4 July 2022

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 36318/21 Vincent John RIZZO and Others against Malta lodged on 15 July 2021 communicated on 13 June 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns a unilaterally imposed lease under Act XXIII of 1979 amending Chapter 158 of the Laws of Malta (hereinafter ‘the Ordinance’) affecting the applicants’ property (held under title of perpetual utile dominium ) no. 17, Topaz, Gort Street, St. Julians, as of January 1993. At the time the rent payable was 303 euro (EUR) annually, it increased to EUR 454 in 2009, EUR 502 in 2013 and EUR 519 as of 2016.

In 2020 the applicants lodged constitutional redress proceeding complaining that the application of Article 12 of the Ordinance was in breach of their property rights. They limited their claims to 2018.

According to the court-appointed expert, bearing in mind the development potential of the premises (namely, a further three floors and a penthouse, with two apartments on each level), its sale value in 2019 would be of EUR 850,000, while its actual value as it stood (excluding development potential) was EUR 320,000. Thus, the annual market rental value in 1993 was EUR 1,980 annually, in 1998 EUR 3,120 in 2003 EUR 4,080, in 2008 EUR 6,360, in 2013 EUR 6,240 and that in 2018 EUR 10,560.

By a judgment of 25 January 2021 the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded EUR 30,000 in compensation. No costs were to be paid by the applicants. None of the parties appealed.

Invoking Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 alone and in conjunction with Article 13, the applicants complain that they are still victims of the violation found by the domestic court, given the low amount of compensation awarded.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, following the judgments in, for example, Portanier v. Malta , no. 55747/16, 27 August 2019, and Marshall and Others v. Malta , no. 79177/16, 11 February 2020, and any developments in the case-law of the Constitutional Court, particularly in 2020 and thereafter, can it be said that in 2021 an appeal to the Constitutional Court was an effective remedy in circumstances such as those of the present case?

2. Have the applicants exhausted domestic remedies in respect of their complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

3. If so, have the applicants suffered a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?

APPENDIX

List of applicants:

Application no. Case name Introduction date

Applicant’s name Year of birth Place of residence Nationality

Representative’s name Location

36318/21 Rizzo and Others v. Malta 15/07/2021

Vincent John RIZZO 1950 Sliema Maltese Philip RIZZO 1951 Trecastagni Maltese Anne FARRUGIA 1954 Sliema Maltese

Karl MICALLEF Valletta