Published on 11 March 2024
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 25915/23
Louise SCIORTINO and Mary Josephine VELLA
against Malta
lodged on 20 June 2023
communicated on 22 February 2024
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the expropriation of the applicants’ property in 2012 and the relevant compensation for that taking.
The applicants’ property (consisting of four apartments of which they own a part share), had been taken over by the State under title of public tenure in 1964 against a recognition rent of approximately 189 euros (EUR) annually. By means of a presidential declaration of 23 January 2012 the applicants were informed that the property was to be taken over by absolute purchase. The Commissioner of Land offered EUR 13,510 in compensation for the expropriation according to law (the recognition rent capitalised by 1.4 %).
The applicants lodged constitutional redress proceedings complaining under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 6 of the Convention that they had no access to court to challenge the compensation established by law, that they had not been awarded compensation for the taking within a reasonable time, and that both the recognition rent, and the compensation offered had been inadequate (the latter remaining unpaid).
By a judgment of 4 October 2022, the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence found a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in so far as the applicants had been paid an extremely low amount of recognition rent over the years and that, despite the further taking in 2012, they had not been paid compensation for the taking under title of absolute purchase. It also found a violation of Article 6 in so far as they had had no access to court to challenge the compensation. It ordered that the applicants be paid compensation for the expropriation on the basis of the value of the property in 2012 (amounting to EUR 258,333 corresponding to their share of the property which it believed to be 2/6) plus interest at 8% from the date of the judgment until payment; EUR 65,436 to cover pecuniary losses related to the low recognition rent received from 1987 to 2012 (based on their share), and EUR 10,000 in non-pecuniary damage for the violations suffered.
In so far as relevant, on appeal by the Lands authority (about the amount of compensation awarded for the expropriation in 2012), and a cross appeal by the applicants (related to their share in the property), by a judgment of 29 March 2023 the Constitutional Court considered that, in the absence of an appeal about the merits it was limited in its findings. It thus confirmed the first court’s findings in relation to the violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 as well as the awards of EUR 65,436 and EUR 10,000 but revoked the award of EUR 258,333. In its view, any breach would have occurred in 1964 and therefore would be inadmissible ratione temporis, and not in 2012, as in 2012 the applicants had been adequately offered EUR 13,510 in exchange for their residual right to obtain EUR 189 annually. Thus, while the Constitutional Court could not quash the finding of a breach of rights, it could nonetheless determine when this took place and it considered that it took place in 1964 and thus it was in relation to that date that compensation had to be calculated. According to the Constitutional Court in 1964 the entire property’s value was EUR 168,516. Confirming that the applicants share was 2/6 it considered that the applicants were due compensation of EUR 56,172, plus interest until date of payment. No costs were to be paid by the applicants.
The applicants complained that the breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in relation to their expropriation had occurred in 2012 and it was therefore that year which was relevant for the purposes of compensation.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Are the applicants still victims of the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention upheld by the domestic courts? In particular, were the applicants awarded adequate compensation in line with the Court’s case-law in such cases (see, for example, Mifsud and Others v. Malta, no. 38770/17, §§ 114-116, 13 October 2020, and Carmelina Micallef v. Malta, no. 23264/18, §§ 61-63, 28 October 2021)?
2. Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see, for example, Carmelina Micallef v. Malta, no. 23264/18, §§ 48-49 and 52-55, 28 October 2021)? The parties should inform the Court about whether the compensation has been paid and the deed of transfer finalised, as well as about any relevant details in this respect.