Court rejects property owners' expropriation claim

A constitutional case filed by two property owners against the government has been dismissed by the First Hall of the Civil Court presided over by Mr Justice Noel Cuschieri.

Anna Fleri Soler and Herbert Camilleri filed their application against the Director of Social Accommodation and the Attorney General.

They claimed they held premises in Valletta under title of perpetual emphyteusis. The premises in M. A. Vassalli Street had been taken over by the government as a temporary measure in 1941 and was retained by the government in terms of the Housing Act. The premises had been utilised by a number of different government departments and was currently occupied by the ministry responsible for food, agricultural and fisheries.

The Housing Act was supposed to be a temporary measure and was no longer in force. However, the government was refusing to return the premises to applicants, nor had it replied to their offer to sell the premises.

The owners submitted that, as a result, they were being deprived of their right to enjoyment of their own property and that this was equivalent to an expropriation of the property. Furthermore, the government was a perpetual tenant and, therefore, the owners would never be able to resume possession of their property. They requested the court to provide them with a remedy.

The First Hall of the Civil Court noted that the European Convention considered that there was deprivation of property only where all the legal rights of the owner were extinguished by operation of law or by the exercise of a legal power to the same effect. The requisition order issued on the property in question could not be considered to be a deprivation of property as applicants had not been divested of their rights of ownership. Applicants were receiving Lm345.43 by way of yearly rent for the premises and were still the owners of the property.

The state was also entitled to enact laws that controlled the use of property in the general interest. The European Court of Human Rights had limited the state's wide discretion by stipulating that a fair balance had to be maintained, in that the burden on the individual could not be excessive.

The European Commission had also recognised that state intervention in socio-economic matters, such as housing, was often necessary in securing social justice and the public benefit and that therefore the state's discretion was necessarily wide in this regard.

In this particular case the premises had been requisitioned by the government in 1941 for a public purpose and therefore the element of the general interest had been amply satisfied. The government department currently occupying the premises was paying rent which had been accepted by applicants. There was therefore no violation of applicants' human rights.

The court thus dismissed applicants' claim.