Court of Appeal upholds complaint on enjoyment of property

Proceedings before the Rent Regulation Board were in violation of a property owner’s right to a fair hearing and to enjoyment of property, a court ruled this morning.

Madam Justice Abigail Lofaro heard that Carmel Zammit and Doris Attard Cassar had called upon their tenant, Emmanuel Said Limited, to increase the rent payable for premises in Zabbar. The company had filed proceedings against the landlords before the Rent Regulation Board requesting that the increase in rent be prohibited.

The landlords’ architect estimated that the property ought to fetch Lm3,000 in rent per annum on the basis of the market price. But the architects appointed by the Board had concluded that the actual rent payable by the company, namely Lm370 per annum, was sufficient. The Board then dismissed the landlords’ request for an increase in rent.

On appeal, the landlords claimed that their human rights to enjoyment of property and to a fair hearing had been violated. They submitted that the Board had failed to remit their constitutional complaint to the First Hall of the Civil Court.

The Court of Appeal upheld the landlords’ complaint and referred the matter to the First Hall of the Civil Court presided over by Madame Justice Lofaro.

In yesterday’s judgment the court heard the landlords’ submission that the Board could not give them an effective remedy as the Board was not empowered to examine matters of a constitutional nature. This submission was upheld by the First Hall of the Civil Court.

Quoting from judgments of the European Court of Justice Madam Justice Lofaro declared that the courts had to ensure that a fair balance was struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental human rights. The individual had not to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden.

In a previous case involving Malta and the Rent Regulation Board,(Amato Gauci vs Malta) the European Court of Human Rights had found that the low rental which could be fixed by the Board, the lack of procedural safeguards in the application of the law and the rise in the standard of living in Malta over the past decades had meant that the landlord was suffering a disproportionate and excessive burden.

In effect the landlord was requested to bear most of the social and financial costs of supplying housing accommodation. The Maltese State had therefore failed to strike the requisite fair balance between the general interests of the community and the protection of the landlord’s right to property.

Madam Justice Lofaro therefore found that the constitutional reference had been justified and concluded that the landlords’ fundamental human rights had been violated.