Maltese property owner wins landmark European Court case over imposed lease
The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
The European Court of Human Rights has ordered the Maltese government to pay compensation to a Maltese landlord who filed a complaint after Maltese law was changed, thus allowing his tenant to continue to live in his property even after a temporary emphyteusis expired.
Mr Philip Amato Gauci said his property rights were infringed as a result of the new law, which imposed on him a unilateral lease relationship for an indeterminate time without providing him with a fair and adequate rent.
He explained to the court that he owned a maisonette in Sliema which in 1975 was granted on temporary emphyteusis for 25 years for a ground rent of €210 per year.
But as a result to a change in the law in 1979, once the term of the emphyteusis expired, tenants were granted the right to retain possession of the premises under a lease, without the consent of the owner. The law did not apply for post 1995 emphyteusis.
Mr Amato-Gauci said he had been unilaterally deprived of his property without being able to have recourse to a court for a determination as to whether it was necessary for the tenants to retain the property or to establish just and fair lease conditions.
He also submitted that the tenant also owned other property, whilst he could not make use of his own property for his daughter, who was getting married.
The case was referred to the European Court of Human Rights after Mr Amato Gauci lost cases before the local courts, although the government submitted that not all local remedies had been exhausted.
The Attorney General also contested the assertion that there had been interference with the applicant's property rights. He submitted that the applicant's father (from whom Mr Amato Gauci inherited the property) should have known that at the time of the emphyteusis that the Civil Code and the applicable case-law had already determined that owners had to respect lease contracts entered into even beyond the period of temporary emphyteusis. In fact, the law only limited the already existent protection of tenants to Maltese citizens occupying the premises as their ordinary residence.
Moreover, the applicant had inherited an undivided half-share of the premises from his late father in December 1995 and the rest in 1997. Thus, at the time the applicant had acquired possession, the property was already governed by the new law.
Even assuming that there had been interference with the applicant's property rights, it had consisted of control of the use of property in the general interest, namely that of protecting the interests of tenants, the AG argued.
The European Court, however, found that Mr Amato Gauci had indeed suffered an infringement of his property rights when the new law imposed on him a unilateral lease relationship for an indeterminate time without providing him with a fair and adequate rent.
It therefore ordered the Maltese government to pay him €15,025 as pecuniary damage,€1,500 as non-pecuniary damage, and €3,500 in respect of costs and expenses.
Mr Amato Gauci was represented by Prof. Ian Refalo and Dr T. Comodini Cachia.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
12 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Edward Pullicino
Sep 19th 2009, 16:36
Another case where the taxpayers money will be spent just because the government keeps dragging its feet! In Malta there tens of thousands of such property owners and probably most of them will institute similar proceedings against the government and the tax payer will have to pay, pay and pay – then the government will just have to continue increasing the taxes instead of truly changing the law.
David Buttigieg
Sep 19th 2009, 15:10
@D Vella,
Yes, but a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step!
Nigel Lawrence
Sep 18th 2009, 12:47
The success of this case should open up a can of worms of a similar nature- to the detriment (again) of the taxpayer
m Biffert Camilleri
Sep 18th 2009, 02:16
How backwards Malta is despite joining the EU!!!!!!!
this a great injustice for the landlord and only in Malta would such a thing like this be allowed. People whom have been affected by this in anyway should make plans to meet up and descide to hold the government responsible for all the damages caused by this anceint law; or are the people in power enjoying this Law?
c. camilleri
Sep 17th 2009, 20:39
20,000 Euros are peanuts. The fact remains that the owner of the house did not get his property back. This is what Philip Amato Gauci was after. Even the European court give out silly judgements. This law is an other example (besides the requisitions orders)of how labour used to steal people's properties.
DVella
Sep 17th 2009, 19:38
@ David Buttigieg . . .
Not really, after all the compensation is hardly a staggering amount and the unfortunate owner is still landed with a property he can't really touch and enjoy the just and proper benefits from not to mention a tenant he can't get rid of ! ! ! ! If would have made far more sense if he was given the compensation AND allowed to increase the rent/lease to a realistic level based on the present market situation, with the proviso for a periodic review every five years ! ! !
Joseph P Borg
Sep 17th 2009, 19:24
Hats off for Mr Amato Gauci who had the guts to bring this injustice before the European Court of Human Rights.
The infamous law was piloted throgh parliament by Dr Joseph Brincat during the Labour administration in 1979. The amended law had aslo a retroactive effect. I remember that at the time I had bought premises on the Sliema front a few weeks before the expire of a 17year lease.
With the retroactive effect of the law the tenant refused to vacate the premises and I had to buy him out at his asking price of Lm15,000, an amount that far exceeded the total sum of rent he had paid during his 17 year spell.
Paul Barrett
Sep 17th 2009, 11:48
Great, so he gets some compensation (which we as taxpayers have to fork out) but as far as I can see, nothing has changed, he still has not got his property back for his daughter to live in - has he?
David Buttigieg
Sep 17th 2009, 10:49
Finally, a glimmer of hope for property owners being robbed blind by their tenants!
Sandro Agius
Sep 17th 2009, 10:23
Who changed the law must pay and not the Maltese Goverment which are the Maltese people....I don't think that who changed the law is poor that cannot pay such fines....justice must be made also with the tax payers....who is guilty must pay and not the citizens of Malta.
And than we say that this is Justice.
Adrian Cardona
Sep 17th 2009, 09:58
What good news! It's embarassing that it had to be the European Court to finally start things moving in what must be one of the most unfair pieces of legislation ever to be imposed in Malta. And how shameful that the AG actually contested the decision!
Peter Korsten
Sep 17th 2009, 08:32
This must be the best outcome the government could hope for. If there ever was an opportunity to get rid of these unfair rent laws, this is it. And they can point the finger to Brussels. (Even though the ECHR is in Strasbourg and has nothing to do with the EU.)