Published on 25 October 2021
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 49102/19
Patricia ANASTASI against Malta
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 8 October 2021
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.
The circumstances of the caseThe facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
The facts of these cases are substantially the same as those described in Bartolo Parnis and Others v. Malta ((dec.), nos. 49378/19 and 3 others, 24 March 2020), in relation to the application of Act XVIII of 2007 introducing Article 12A into the Housing Ordinance (Chapter 158 of the Laws of Malta). The present cases concern other apartments owned individually by each of the applicant sisters, consequent to a deed of division of 7 October 2015.
By several appeal judgments of the Constitutional Court, the latter confirmed a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the period 2007 onwards and awarded compensation, in pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage combined, in the following terms:
Application no. 49102/19By two judgments of 12 July 2019 the Constitutional Court, confirming the first instance judgment, awarded in respect of apartments 45D and 28C EUR 20,000 for each apartment. The applicant was to pay her own appeal costs and 1/3 of those at first instance since some claims had been rejected.
In respect of apartment 45D it was considered that eviction was not possible in view of the 2018 amendments, nor would a declaration to the effect that the tenant could no longer rely on the relevant law be called for, now that the applicant had an ordinary remedy to pursue under the 2018 amendments. In respect of apartment 28C, the applicant had regained possession of the apartment in 2017.
By a judgment of 29 March 2019, the Constitutional Court awarded EUR 5,000 in respect of apartment 10B. The applicant was to pay her own appeal costs and 2/3 of those of the Attorney General, as well as 1/3 of those at first instance since some claims had been rejected. The applicant’s appeal concerning the eviction of the tenant became redundant (ġie sorvolat) as an agreement had been reached between the applicant and the tenant.
Application no. 49105/19By a judgment of 12 July 2019, the Constitutional Court confirmed the first-instance judgment on the merits and the award of compensation in respect of apartment 25C of EUR 20,000 but revoked the order for eviction. It further considered that a declaration to the effect that the tenant could no longer rely on the relevant law was not called for, now that the applicant had an ordinary remedy to pursue under the 2018 amendments. The applicant was to pay her own appeal costs and 1/3 of those at first instance.
Application no. 49108/19By two judgments of 29 March 2019 and 12 July 2019, respectively, the Constitutional Court, confirmed the first-instance judgments findings on the merits and awarded respectively, EUR 5,000 in respect of apartment 35C and EUR 20,000 in respect of apartment 31C.
In respect of proceedings concerning apartment 35C the applicant was to pay 1/3 of the costs of the first instance proceedings and part costs of the appeal (all her costs and 1/3 those of the State) and in respect of those concerning apartment 31C she was to pay 1/4 of the costs of the first instance proceedings and part costs in respect of the appeal ( 1/2 of her own costs and 1/3 of those of the State).
In respect of apartment 35C the applicant’s appeal concerning the eviction of the tenant became redundant (ġie sorvolat) as an agreement had been reached between the applicant and the tenant. In respect of apartment 31C it was considered that eviction was not possible in view of the 2018 amendments, nor would a declaration to the effect that the tenant could no longer rely on the relevant law be called for, now that the applicant had an ordinary remedy to pursue under the 2018 amendments.
Relevant domestic lawThe relevant domestic law is set out in Bartolo Parnis and Others v. Malta ((dec.), nos. 49378/19 and 3 others, § 38, 24 March 2020) and Cauchi v. Malta (no. 14013/19, § 22, 25 March 2021).
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention that the violation of their property rights was not brought to an end and that they were not adequately compensated for the breach, in view of the value of the properties. The applicants specify that they are not complaining about the application of Section 12B of the Ordinance to their cases, without prejudice to any future complaints they may lodge had this provision to be applied to their situation.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. In the present cases have the applicants suffered a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention from 2007 onwards, following the enactment of Act XVIII?
2. 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, having regard to the amount of compensation awarded by the Constitutional Court and/or the absence of an order for the eviction of the tenants, or a higher future rent, can those proceedings be considered effective (see, mutatis mutandis, Apap Bologna v. Malta, no. 46931/12, 30 August 2016)?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
49102/19
Anastasi v. Malta
16/09/2019
Patricia ANASTASI
1963
Swieqi
Maltese
Philip Mario MAGRI
49105/19
Bartolo Parnis v. Malta
16/09/2019
Greta BARTOLO PARNIS
1965
Pembroke
Maltese
Philip Mario MAGRI
49108/19
Azzopardi v. Malta
16/09/2019
Josephine AZZOPARDI
1958
St. Julian’s
Maltese
Philip Mario MAGRI