Matthew Xuereb
Owner wins €20,000 compensation for violation of property rights
Philip Amato Gauci
A 70-year-old man won €20,000 in compensation from the government after the European Court ruled that the old Maltese rent laws allowing a tenant to continue occupying property without paying a fair rent violated human rights.
The court ruled that Philip Amato Gauci's property rights were infringed as a result of the rent law which forced him to keep a tenant despite the fact that the contract had expired and he was being paid a puny amount for rent.
One of Mr Amato Gauci's lawyers, Therese Comodini Cachia, said it was a landmark case given there were several other property owners who were facing the same situation. Moreover, the request had been thrown out by several Maltese courts before reaching the European Court.
Dr Comodini Cachia said the extent of the protection of tenants given at law had been queried by lawyers and property owners for a number of years. This judgment, she added, provided the answer of the European Court of Human Rights and the guidelines on which a human rights review of the national rent laws ought to take place.
Mr Amato Gauci's parents owned the maisonette in Sliema which is at the centre of the case. In 1975, they rented it on a temporary emphyteusis for 25 years against a ground rent of €210 a year. As a result of a change in the rent 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. Eventually, in 1995, the law was changed but the amendments were not retroactive.
Mr Amato Gauci inherited the maisonette in St Ignatius Junction when his parents died in 1995 and 1997 but, when he informed the tenants that he did not intend extending their lease, contract once it expired in 2001, they insisted that they would remain there, invoking the rights given to them by the 1979 law.
Initially, he challenged the case in Malta but eventually referred the case to the European Court of Human Rights.
In Malta, the Attorney General contested the claim that there was a breach of property rights. He argued that the applicant's father should have known that at the time of the emphyteusis 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.
Three courts, the civil court, an appeals court and a constitutional court, all accepted the AG's argument and ruled against Mr Amato Gauci.
The European Court, which included Judge Giovanni Bonello, however, ruled that Mr Amato Gauci had suffered an infringement of his property rights when the new law imposed on him a unilateral lease relationship for an indeterminate period of time without providing him with fair and adequate rent.
According to the architect's valuation report dated 2002, the property was estimated at about €91,000 for outright sale and its rental value was €279.52 a month. Based on this valuation, the court ordered the Maltese government to pay Mr Amato Gauci €15,025 as pecuniary damage, €1,500 as non-pecuniary damage and €3,500 in respect of costs and expenses incurred.
When contacted, Mr Amato Gauci expressed his satisfaction that years of sweating it out in court finally bore fruit and somebody actually acknowledged that his human rights had been being breached.
He said the issue had been in court for a total of nine year - six in Malta and three at the European Court.
However, he admitted that he suspected he still had a long way to go before he could get his property back. He explained that he had eight children, six of whom lived in Canada, one in the UK and another in Malta. The property would be ideal for his children to come to Malta and spend some time here.
Mr Amato Gauci was represented by lawyer Ian Refalo and Dr 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...
11 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Felicity Vella
Sep 19th 2009, 11:19
Well done.....HURRAY finally some justice to Landlords who have been subsidising government and tenants for the past 40 years, whilst abusing and providing housing at ridiculous low rents because of a great injustice in the Maltese rent laws!!!
Government wake up and revise useless , recent rent reform laws.
Douglas Mathias
Sep 18th 2009, 17:09
If there are so many similar cases (as one of your corespondents claims), would it not make sense to combine these claims in a class action or similar suit, if that is indeed recognized under Maltese jurisprudence? Someone please enlighten me.
c. camilleri
Sep 18th 2009, 16:32
In my opinion this is a pyrrhic victory since the landlord did not get his property back. I am sure that the compensation by the European court does not cover the expenses he incurred during the nine years of litigation. The law involved is one of the legacies left by labour which shows little respect for any legal agreement.
Steve Sant
Sep 18th 2009, 16:13
Justice delayed justice denied. The Gov't in the 70's took away our dignity, made an ass of the law, stole businesses, banks and property at its own discretion. But noone really cared, they all took it with laissez faire attitude. The present Gov't finally realised that too much pressure was going to burst the bubble, so they had no choice really. The worst thing about it is that people don't really care when its not theirs, but when it suddenly does becomes theirs, then its a different story. There are today ten of thousands of these cases, and they will keep geting worse, so enjoy.
George Caruana
Sep 18th 2009, 15:58
@James Montebello:
This case has nothing to do with the EU, but the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights based in Strasbourg. Its judgements become effective in Malta, since we are signatory of the covenant and also declared in Maltese statuary law.
However the EU can override Maltese laws if a judgment by the Euro Court of Justice based in Genève determine they violate the EU Treaty, which Malta is also a signatory.
r pace bonello
Sep 18th 2009, 14:19
Well done.
Perhaps we are getting closer to the day when justice will be done with the long suffering landlords who have been subsidising tenants for over 60 years, We have a property in the best part of Sliema, worth in excess of LM 80,000, with a well-to-do tenant, who has paid the grand sum of LM 1040 over the past 40 years!!!
Adrian Borg Cardona
Sep 18th 2009, 12:47
So there we have it! Most of the leases in Malta are an infringement of the human rights of the owners. Will Govt now revise the useless rent reform it has only just recently launched in view of this judgment? Perhaps it is time that all owners got together and sued the Govt for infiringement of their human rights. That should make the Govt see sense and stop playing with the property rights of others. Too many owners have suffered for too long in silence.
James Montebello
Sep 18th 2009, 12:19
Does the EU have any right wahtsoever on the laws legislated in Malta?
if the EU will be Ruling against maltese laws it shall create a precedent for much more serious affairs in the future
DVella
Sep 18th 2009, 12:02
Eur 20,000 does not even come close ! ! ! The poor man still has a property he can not touch or use and tenants that he can't get rid of . . . . He should have been awarded the full market value of the property with interest . . . let the tenants continue to rent the building from Government if they want to . . . especially if Government and its Attorney General thinks it is OK for tenants to rent a property for a pittance indefinitely ! ! !
C Vella
Sep 18th 2009, 11:08
Being a member of the EU makes sense!!
E Gatt
Sep 18th 2009, 10:42
Good for Mr Amato Gauci! May he soon recover the property that is rightfully his.
These socialist property laws are outdated and grossly unfair – they are also the reason for the exaggerated amount of new buildings and the sad state of disrepair of many buildings.
The European Court of Human Rights’ decision will hopefully act as a catalyst for more rent reform. The principle should be that the tenant should pay the full market rent. If the tenant does not have the means to pay the rent, he/she should move out and rent cheaper alternative property or apply for compensation from the government on a strict means test basis.