Published on 30 May 2022
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 3158/21
Joseph ZAMMIT
against Malta
lodged on 7 January 2021
communicated on 9 May 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns a unilaterally imposed lease under Act XXIII of 1979 amending Chapter 158 of the Laws of Malta (‘the Ordinance’) affecting the applicants’ property ‘Erica’, in Valletta Road, Paola, as of March 2004. At that time the annual rent payable was approximately 362 euros (EUR), in 2013 it increased to EUR 447 annually, which would increase every three years thereafter according to the cost-of-living index, and in 2018 it was approximately EUR 453.
The applicant lodged constitutional redress proceeding complaining that the application of Article 12 of the Ordinance was in breach of his property rights. According to the court-appointed expert, the property’s market annual rental value in the years 2004-2009 was EUR 3,150, in 2010-2015 EUR 5,250 and in 2016-2018 EUR 7,700, totalling around EUR 70,000 over the relevant period, based on its estimated sale value of EUR 220,000 in 2018. He limited his claims to December 2018 after which he started receiving a rent in line with the 2018 amendments to the Ordinance.
By a judgment of 21 July 2020 the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR 15,000 in pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 in non-pecuniary damage. It bore in mind the evaluation submitted but considered that the boom in property prices had only occurred recently and that the rents in earlier years had been much lower. 1/5 of costs were to be paid by the applicant. None of the parties appealed.
Invoking Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention alone and in conjunction with Article 13, the applicant complains that he is still a victim of the violation found by the domestic court, the constitutional jurisdiction having failed to award appropriate redress.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. 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 complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?