Rent Regulation Board proceedings violated landlords' rights, court rules

A court yesterday ruled that proceedings before the Rent Regulation Board violated a property owner's right to a fair hearing and to enjoyment of property.

Madame Justice Abigail Lofaro heard that Carmel Zammit and Doris Attard Cassar had called upon their tenant, Emmanuel Said Ltd, to pay a higher rent for premises in Żabbar. 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 €7,000 in rent per annum on the basis of the market price. But the architects appointed by the RRB concluded that the actual rent payable by the company, namely €860 per annum, was sufficient. The RRB 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 argued that the RRB 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 her judgment, the judge noted the landlords' submission that the RRB could not give them an effective remedy because it 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, Madame 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 did not have to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden.

In a previous case involving Malta and the RRB (Amato Gauci vs Malta), the European Court of Human Rights had found that the low rental that could be fixed by the RRB, 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.

Madame Justice Lofaro found that the constitutional reference had been justified and concluded that the landlords' fundamental human rights had been violated.