Published on 30 May 2022
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 38111/21
Edwina VASSALLO and Annunziata VINCENTI
against Malta
lodged on 22 July 2021
communicated on 9 May 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns an extended lease under Act XXIII of 1979 amending Chapter 158 of the Laws of Malta affecting the applicants’ property at Flat 19 Vincenti Buildings, Straight Street, Valletta (which they hold under title of perpetual emphyteusis), as of 1991. While the original, voluntarily entered into, emphyteutical concession expired in November 1991, the tenants could continue to reside in the property as a result of Act XXIII of 1979. In that light a new lease agreement was signed for twenty-one years at the maximum rent allowed by law, i.e. 606 euro (EUR) annually. On the same basis a further lease agreement was signed in August 2012 at the maximum rent allowed by law of EUR 843, subject to increases according to the rate of inflation every three years.
In 2017 the applicants and/or their predecessor in title lodged constitutional redress proceeding complaining that the application of Article 12 of the Ordinance was in breach of their property rights. By a judgment of 5 June 2020 the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded EUR 30,000 in pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 in non-pecuniary damage covering the period 2012 (date of the end of the last agreement) to 2017 (date of the introduction of the proceedings). In determining compensation, the court took note, inter alia, that the applicants lodged their constitutional complaints only in 2017, that the last agreement entered into by the applicants covered the period until 2027, as a result of their own choice, and that the applicants had a new remedy, which they were pursuing, enabling them to increase the rent following the 2018 amendments to the law. Furthermore, it noted that the rental yields used by the expert where rather high when compared to that established by the 2018 amendments, namely, 2 percent which would be more adequate, and thus its calculations were based on the latter. The State Attorney’s appeal was rejected by the Constitutional Court on 27 January 2021, it being found to be frivolous and vexatious. No costs were to be paid by the applicants.
Invoking Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention alone and in conjunction with Article 13, the applicants complain that they are still victims of the violation found by the domestic courts, the constitutional jurisdiction having failed to award appropriate redress and evict the tenants.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Have the applicants suffered a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?
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?