Published on 10 January 2022

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 33257/20 Brian PSAILA against Malta lodged on 31 July 2020 communicated on 14 December 2021

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Brian Psaila, is a Maltese national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Naxxar. He is represented before the Court by Dr M. Camilleri and Dr E. Debono, lawyers practising in Valletta.

The circumstances of the case

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

The case concerns the application of Act XIII of 1979 that amended Article 12 of Chapter 158 of the Laws of Malta (the Ordinance), which in the present case imposed a unilateral lease on the applicant’s property in B’Kara, as of 1990, at a low amount of rent. It appears that the tenants paid annually.

According to the court-appointed expert, having considered its development potential, in 1990 the annual rental value amounted to EUR 675, in 1995 to EUR 900, in 2000 to EUR 1,125. in 2005 to EUR 1,650, in 2010 to EUR 2,800, in 2012 to EUR 3,325 and in 2015 to EUR 4,800. However, the rent being received was approximately EUR 466 in 1990, EUR 699 as of 2005, EUR 732/838 as of 2013 and EUR 748/855 as of 2016 (according to the domestic court and the applicant respectively). Thus, for the period 1990 to 2018 the applicant had received EUR 15,500 while according to the court ‑ appointed expert the rent due would have been of EUR 51,700. According to the State’s architect, in 2018 the annual rental value was EUR 3,140.

The applicant instituted constitutional redress proceedings complaining that the application of Act XIII of 1979, in particular Article 12 of the Ordinance, breached his property rights. He requested relevant remedies including the eviction of the tenant.

By a judgment of 29 November 2018 the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. It rejected the applicant’s request to evict the tenant, it however declared that the tenant may no longer rely on the impugned law to maintain title to the property. It awarded the applicant EUR 35,000 in pecuniary damage (i.e. the difference between the rent perceived and the market value) and EUR 3,000 in non-pecuniary damage, plus 8 % interest on the date of payment. It considered that nowadays there was no longer a legitimate aim justifying a reduction in the compensation payable.

On appeal, on 27 March 2020, the Constitutional Court confirmed the merits but reduced the compensation to EUR 20,000 in pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 in pecuniary damage, plus 8 % interest from the date of the first-instance judgment and specified that the declaration referred solely to Article 12 of the Ordinance and not to its newly introduced Article 12 B whose interpretation was yet to develop. It considered that while the legitimate aim diminished over the years, it was still relevant and thus compensation need not reflect the actual market value. Moreover, it had not been shown that the applicant would have found a tenant willing to pay the market rent and all relevant repairs and maintenance costs. It ordered that a quarter of the expenses of the State’s appeal be paid by the applicant. The courts considered that the 2018 amendments fell outside of the scope of these proceedings.

In the meantime, in 2018 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Rent Regulation Board under the new Article 12 B of the Ordinance. In 2021 proceedings were still pending and the tenant still occupied the premises.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention alone and in conjunction with Article 13 that he remained a victim of the violation upheld by the domestic court, given the low amount of compensation awarded and the failure to evict the tenant.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. In the present case has the applicant suffered a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?

2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, in particular, in so far as no eviction has been ordered nor a higher future rent put in place?