A 70-year-old man won €20,000 in compensation from the government after the European Court ruled that the old Maltese rent laws allowing a tenant to continue occupying property without paying a fair rent violated human rights.
The court ruled that Philip Amato Gauci's property rights were infringed as a result of the rent law which forced him to keep a tenant despite the fact that the contract had expired and he was being paid a puny amount for rent.
One of Mr Amato Gauci's lawyers, Therese Comodini Cachia, said it was a landmark case given there were several other property owners who were facing the same situation. Moreover, the request had been thrown out by several Maltese courts before reaching the European Court.
Dr Comodini Cachia said the extent of the protection of tenants given at law had been queried by lawyers and property owners for a number of years. This judgment, she added, provided the answer of the European Court of Human Rights and the guidelines on which a human rights review of the national rent laws ought to take place.
Mr Amato Gauci's parents owned the maisonette in Sliema which is at the centre of the case. In 1975, they rented it on a temporary emphyteusis for 25 years against a ground rent of €210 a year. As a result of a change in the rent law in 1979, once the term of the emphyteusis expired, tenants were granted the right to retain possession of the premises under a lease without the consent of the owner. Eventually, in 1995, the law was changed but the amendments were not retroactive.
Mr Amato Gauci inherited the maisonette in St Ignatius Junction when his parents died in 1995 and 1997 but, when he informed the tenants that he did not intend extending their lease, contract once it expired in 2001, they insisted that they would remain there, invoking the rights given to them by the 1979 law.
Initially, he challenged the case in Malta but eventually referred the case to the European Court of Human Rights.
In Malta, the Attorney General contested the claim that there was a breach of property rights. He argued that the applicant's father should have known that at the time of the emphyteusis the Civil Code and the applicable case-law had already determined that owners had to respect lease contracts entered into even beyond the period of temporary emphyteusis. In fact, the law only limited the already existent protection of tenants to Maltese citizens occupying the premises as their ordinary residence.
Three courts, the civil court, an appeals court and a constitutional court, all accepted the AG's argument and ruled against Mr Amato Gauci.
The European Court, which included Judge Giovanni Bonello, however, ruled that Mr Amato Gauci had suffered an infringement of his property rights when the new law imposed on him a unilateral lease relationship for an indeterminate period of time without providing him with fair and adequate rent.
According to the architect's valuation report dated 2002, the property was estimated at about €91,000 for outright sale and its rental value was €279.52 a month. Based on this valuation, the court ordered the Maltese government to pay Mr Amato Gauci €15,025 as pecuniary damage, €1,500 as non-pecuniary damage and €3,500 in respect of costs and expenses incurred.
When contacted, Mr Amato Gauci expressed his satisfaction that years of sweating it out in court finally bore fruit and somebody actually acknowledged that his human rights had been being breached.
He said the issue had been in court for a total of nine year - six in Malta and three at the European Court.
However, he admitted that he suspected he still had a long way to go before he could get his property back. He explained that he had eight children, six of whom lived in Canada, one in the UK and another in Malta. The property would be ideal for his children to come to Malta and spend some time here.
Mr Amato Gauci was represented by lawyer Ian Refalo and Dr Comodini Cachia.