The European Court of Human Rights has decided not to continue considering a violation claim by six property owners after the government filed a declaration and offered them €22,000 in compensation.

The property, a ground-floor tenement in a zone of urban conservation area of terraced houses in Żejtun, had been requisitioned by the housing secretary in June 1974 and assigned to a family as social housing. The matter eventually ended up in court and also before the Rent Regulation Board.

Years later, in early 2016, the Constitutional Court found that the property owners had suffered a violation of their fundamental right to protection of property. They were awarded €5,000 in pecuniary and moral damages. A request for the eviction of the tenant was, however, rejected.

Requisitioned by the housing secretary in June 1974

An architect last year put the current market value of the property at €200,000 and its rental value since 2014 at €7,800 annually.

In the circumstances, the owners still felt their right to protection of their property had not been protected for various reasons. They complained that the compensation of €5,000 was too low, the rent they received was inadequate and once the tenant had not been evicted they practically had no possibility of ever recovering their property. They, therefore, sought recourse to the Court in Strasbourg.

Attempts were made to reach an out-of-court settlement but they were unsuccessful and, last November, the government informed the Human Rights Court it was willing to declare there had been a violation of the owners’ rights and pay them €22,000.

However, the property owners did not accept, deeming the compensation too low and insisting they still suffered the consequences of the law in force.

The committee of three judges handling the case, including Chief Justice Emeritus Vincent De Gaetano, felt that in view of the government’s declaration and the amount of compensation proposed, which, it noted, was consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases, there was no need to continue examining the case.