A case before the European Court of Human Rights was struck off the list after the government offered the owners of a Valletta property almost six times what they were granted after seeking constitutional redress in Malta.
Nine people, hailing from Sliema, Pembroke, Msida, St Julian’s, Naxxar, Gżira, San Ġwann, Valletta and Mosta, had inherited a house in Old Mint Street.
The original owner had, in 1962, granted the premises on temporary emphyteusis to a third party who eventually transferred the utile dominium (right of use) of use to a couple. The emphyteutical grant ended in late 1979 but the couple continued to retain the property, which, in April 1974, had been requisitioned by the State and allocated to the couple.
The owners tried unsuccessfully to evict the couple and initiated court proceedings on various grounds. In 2012, they were awarded €77,133.60 by way of damages for the repairs needed to the property, based on the valuation of the court-appointed architect, and a further €16,217.09 as compensation for the occupation of the premises.
A year later, the owners filed a constitutional case claiming their fundamental right for protection of property was violated.
During the proceedings, a court-appointed technical expert estimated the rental value of the Valletta house for the residential purposes it was used for between 2008 – when they had sought compensation – and 2013 – when they sought constitutional redress – at €18,297. However, architects also appointed by the court put the total rental value for the period under review at €55,251.
The Maltese government has still a lot of ground to cover
The Civil Court, First Hall, in its constitutional competence, rejected their claims in 2015 and ordered them to pay the costs of the proceedings. They appealed and, in February 2016, the Constitutional Court found their property rights were violated and liquidated compensation.
It noted that, in 2012, they had been awarded €16,217.09 to cover a period of 34 years, yielding an average of €477 per annum.
Applying this to the five-year period between 2008 and 2013 would work out to compensation amounting to €2,385, the Constitutional Court noted, adding that the court-appointed architects had computed the total rental value of the property for the years 2008 to 2013 – taking the property as existing in its present state – to amount to €55,251.
Since the violation of the owners’ rights was manifest, the compensation ought to be higher than €2,385, it commented, However, it noted there had been social reasons why they had been deprived of their property and, therefore, the compensation due did not necessarily correspond to the value determined by the court architects. The Constitutional Court felt a sum of €3,500, covering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, was appropriate.
The owners felt aggrieved. They complained that the sum awarded was 1/15 of the real rental value of the property on the market and was based on the poor condition of the place. Moreover, they insisted the tenant had not required social protection. In July 2016, they took their case to the European Court of Human Rights, complaining about the compensation, but, this summer, the government asked for the case to be struck off the list.
It informed the Strasbourg Court it had sought to reach an amicable settlement with the owners but did not succeed. It subsequently offered them €20,000 as just satisfaction but the owners disagreed.
In what is known as a unilateral declaration, the government acknowledged that the owners’ right to the protection of their property had been violated.
The three European judges – including Chief Justice Emeritus Vincent De Gaetano – considering the unilateral declaration, concluded that, in view of the nature of the government’s admissions and the amount of compensation proposed, which was deemed consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases, it was no longer justified to continue the examination of the owners’ application.
European Court of Human Rights observers noted that unilateral declarations were becoming more popular with some governments because striking a case off the list would technically mean a government was statistically not found guilty of a violation.
“The Maltese government has still a lot of ground to cover to catch up in this respect,” a keen observer noted.