Published on 10 January 2022

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 23107/20 Catherine TABONE and Carmela TABONE against Malta lodged on 11 June 2020 communicated on 14 December 2021

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Ms Catherine Tabone and Ms Carmela Tabone are Maltese nationals, who were born in 1982 and 1917 respectively and live in Zejtun. They are represented before the Court by Dr D. Camilleri and Dr J. Gatt, lawyers practising in Valletta. The first applicant acts on her own behalf and as a curator of the second applicant who is interdicted.

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

The case concerns the rent laws under Chapter 69 of the Laws of Malta in relation to a house in Żejtun. The property was rented in 1995 to third parties for ten years. On the expiry of the lease, in 2005 the tenants relied on the law to maintain title to the property at 286 euro (EUR) per year. The tenants paid a total of EUR 3,603 from March 2005-2019. They have made substantial works to the property including the bathroom, water services to the kitchen, renewal of electricity and roofs.

As of June 2011 the first applicant has had the bare ownership of a quarter of the property at issue (the usufruct of which is in her mother’s name – the latter is not an applicant in these proceedings, nor was she one at the domestic level). The sale value of this quarter as declared on the causa mortis in 2013 was EUR 8,736. The second applicant has full ownership of the remaining three quarters of the property.

In 2018 the applicants instituted constitutional redress proceedings complaining, inter alia , under Article 1 of Protocol No.1.

According to the Government’s expert the property had a rental value of EUR 1,300 annually in 2005, and EUR 3,355 annually in 2018 (in those years the sale value was EUR 60,000 and EUR 155,000 respectively). According to the applicants’ expert the property had an annual rental value of EUR 4,000 in 2005 and EUR 6,270 in 2018, and a sale value of EUR 228,000 in 2018.

By a judgment of 28 May 2019, the Civil Court (First Hall), found in favour of the applicants given the low amount of rent being received and upheld a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. It awarded EUR 10,000 in compensation and ordered that the tenants could no longer rely on the relevant law. It rejected the applicants’ complaint under Article 14 of the Convention. No costs were to be paid by the applicants.

All the parties appealed, the applicants only in relation to compensation.

By a judgment of 27 March 2020 the Constitutional Court confirmed the violation but varied the compensation order. It considered that no compensation was due to the first applicant who only had the bare ownership of a quarter of the property and thus did not perceive any rent. In relation to the second applicant, it increased the compensation to EUR 12,500, plus 5% interest as of date of judgment. Having examined in detail the expert reports submitted by both parties, it considered that the applicants’ expert’s evaluations were not realistic, and that the property could not have been rented out at those values. Bearing in mind the legitimate aim at issue, it considered that for the fourteen years at issue compensation (including non-pecuniary damage) for the entirety of the property at issue should be EUR 17,000 (3/4 of which representing the second applicant’s share).

It varied the costs, ordering the applicants to pay a quarter of the costs of the first-instance in view of the rejection of the applicants’ Article 14 claim, and, as to the costs of appeal, it considered that a quarter of the appeal costs of the State, 1/10 of the appeal costs of the tenants and a quarter of the applicants’ costs, were to be paid by the applicants.

The relevant domestic law is set out in Zammit and Attard Cassar v. Malta (no. 1046/12, §§ 26-27, 30 July 2015 ).

COMPLAINT

Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention the first applicant complains that no compensation was granted to her as bare owner, and the second applicant that too little compensation was granted to her. Thus, given the compensation awarded and the fact that the tenants had not been evicted, they consider that they continue to suffer the upheld violation.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Have the applicants suffered a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?