Published on 30 May 2022
FIRST SECTION
Applications nos. 788/21 and 22976/21
Lilian MARTINELLI and Others against Malta
and Raymond MILLER and Others against Malta
lodged on 22 December 2020 and 30 April 2021 respectively
communicated on 9 May 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern imposed-leases on the applicants’ property, in Naxxar and Marsa respectively, under Chapter 69 of the Laws of Malta whereby the tenants were paying low rents compared to the market rents during the relevant period. The applicants instituted constitutional redress proceedings complaining of a breach of their property rights. By final judgments of 23 November 2020 and 3 December 2020, the Constitutional Court and the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence, respectively, found violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as the applicants had suffered a disproportionate burden and awarded compensation. In respect of application no. 788/21, where the applicants’ property was being used as a band club, the domestic court awarded 250,000 euros (EUR) in pecuniary damage and EUR 6,000 in non-pecuniary damage. In respect of application no. 22976/21, where the property consisted of two warehouses and an office, the domestic court awarded EUR 161,000 in pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 in non‑pecuniary damage, plus eight per cent interest from the date of judgment. In both cases the courts ordered that the tenant may no longer rely on the impugned law to maintain title to the property. Thereafter, the applicants regained possession of their property on 31 January 2022 and 3 June 2021 respectively.
The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention that they are still victims of the violation found, the constitutional jurisdictions having failed to award appropriate redress and evict the tenants.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Are the applicants still victims of the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention found by the domestic courts? In particular, have the applicants been afforded adequate redress? Bearing in mind i) the ‘current’ estimated rental values, as established by the court-appointed experts, which were used to calculate the rental values dating back to 1987; ii) the rental yield on the sale value applied; and iii) the considerations made by the experts that the properties were in need of works/refurbishment; were the estimates, submitted by the experts, a real reflection of the market rental values which the properties could have obtained, in the state they were in, over the relevant period?
2. In the present cases have the applicants suffered a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?
3. 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?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
1.
788/21
Martinelli and Others v. Malta
Lilian MARTINELLI
1932
Sliema
Maltese
Bernadette GRECH
1949
Naxxar
Maltese
Margaret SANTUCCI
1965
Mosta
Maltese
Marie Louise GRECH SANTUCCI
1952
Gżira
Maltese
Anthony PISANI
1959
Naxxar
Maltese
Catherine AXIAQ
1952
Swatar
Maltese
James Andrew PISANI
1980
Santa Venera
Maltese
Denise VELLA
1976
Santa Venera
Maltese
Lisa Kate FENECH
1972
Swieqi
Maltese
Michael SANTUCCI
1960
Sliema
Maltese
Karl MICALLEF
2.
22976/21
Miller and Others v. Malta
Raymond MILLER
1945
Sliema
Maltese
Gerald MILLER
1947
St. Julians
Maltese
Christine CASSOLA
1948
Sliema
Maltese
David DEMAJO ALBANESE
1954
Sliema
Maltese
Paul DEMAJO ALBANESE
1958
Attard
Maltese
Mary Antoinette PORTELLI
1931
Burlington (Canada)
Maltese
Dolores RIPARD
1932
St. Julians
Maltese
Antoinette MICALLEF
1934
St. Julians
Maltese
Anthony ALBANESE
1941
St. Julians
Maltese
Theresa ALBANESE
1945
St. Julians
Maltese
Karl MICALLEF