Malta has been ordered by the European Court of Human Rights to pay Anthony Aquilina a total of €21,500 within three months for infringement of property rights.
Mr Aquilina filed his case with the court in December 2011 alleging that his property rights were being infringed as a result of legislative amendments in 1979 which imposed on him a continued lease relationship for an indeterminate time without providing him with a fair and adequate rent.
Mr Aquilina, who lives in Canada, inherited a maisonette in Gozo from his parents after his mother passed away in 1984.
The property was registered as a decontrolled dwelling house and in 1970, the applicant’s mother leased the property to a couple for Lm35 (€81.50) every six months, which later decreased to the equivalent of €75.70 every six months.
At the time, the law permitted the woman to increase the rent, refuse to renew the lease or to change its terms on renewal.
The law was amended in 1979 providing for rent restrictions where tenants were Maltese and occupied houses as ordinary residences.
It further provided that landlords could not refuse to renew leases, raise their rent, or impose new conditions on renewal, except as provided for by law.
The applicant submitted that the contractual freedom of parties was greatly restricted as a result of the new provisions, in that his family could not charge a fair rent or recover possession of their property, despite the fact that his tenants owned substantial immovable property.
By a decision of the Rent Regulation Board in 1998, the rent was further reduced to €65.22 per year. The applicant did not appeal.
New laws were enacted in 1995 in respect of new leases which could again be free from rent control. They did not apply to the applicant’s case.
In 2009 and 2010 new concepts and provisions were introduced, aimed at gradually eliminating the restrictive regimes applicable to leases entered into before 1995.
While a rent of €65.22 per year had been paid to the applicant since September 1998, a rent of €185 had been paid from September 2010 onwards. However, the applicant refused to accept any rent as from 2007 and it was duly deposited in court by the tenants by means of a schedule of deposit.
According to a court-appointed architect’s evaluation made in the context of constitutional proceedings instituted in 2005, the property at that time had a rental value of €2,912 per year. According to an architect’s report commissioned by the government, the rental market value in 2013 was €2,900 per year, and the sale value €58,000.
The applicant instituted two sets of constitutional redress proceedings in Malta but these were rejected and the applicant’s subsequent appeals dismissed.
In the European Court, the applicant claimed pecuniary damage amounting to €2,900 yearly from 2008 to the end of the current state of affairs, from which must be deducted the sums deposited by the tenants with the domestic courts.
He further claimed €1,500 yearly for the period 1987 to 2008 and €35,000 in non-pecuniary damage.
The government submitted that a finding of a violation sufficed as just satisfaction and held that an award calculated on the basis of an open market value was not justified. As to non-pecuniary damage, it considered that €5,000 would suffice.
The applicant also claimed €9,629.22 as per submitted bills of costs for proceedings before the domestic courts.
The European Court ruled that the state is to pay the applicant €11,550 from which must be deducted the sums already deposited in court by the tenants since 2008, in respect of pecuniary damage; €2,500 plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; and €7,500, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses.