The owners of a property in Zabbar have been granted compensation by the European Court of Human Rights which found that their right to seek an increase in rent to reflect market values was violated.

The court ordered the government to pay Carmel Zammit and Doris Attard Cassar €40,000 in respect of pecuniary damage and €10,000, plus any chargeable tax, in respect of costs and expenses.

It decided that the government failed to strike the requisite fair balance between the general interests of the community and the protection of the applicants’ right to the enjoyment of their property.

The applicants’ case was regarding Cressi-Sub Store, a property built in the 1960s in Zabbar. According to the applicants, the property was used as a storage facility for a nearby shop.

Initially, this was not contested by the government, but later it submitted that the property had been abandoned and was not in use.

They inherited the property from their uncle in October, 2000. Then, it was leased to a company registered in Malta, for Lm185 (€431) every six months, on the basis of a voluntary lease agreement.

In 2002, the applicants undertook a valuation of the property and the architect indicated that the current rental value of the property was €7,000 a year.

In April that year, the applicants informed the company by means of a judicial letter that they intended to raise the rent to €7,000 a year with effect from July 1.

By means of a judicial letter dated May 17, 2002, the company replied that it did not agree to the request. Although it initially failed to apply for the rejection of such an increase, as required by law, it eventually did.

The case was eventually taken to the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, which found a violation of the applicants’ property rights. But the Constitutional Court reversed the judgment on appeal.

The government submitted that there had not been an intervention on its part so there was no interference with the applicants’ enjoyment of their possession. The property had been leased by the applicants on an open market and they had imposed the terms of the agreement.

However, they had omitted to make provision for future increases in the rent, even though they could have done so. There had been no limits on the amount of rent to be fixed. The applicants’ predecessor in title had known that the lease would be extended by operation of law and that it would be difficult to increase the rent. Thus, he had been aware that any increases to provide for that eventuality had to be made during the original lease period.

The applicants were represented by Dr P. Borg Costanzi, the government by Attorney General Peter Grech.