The Constitutional Court has awarded the owners of a requisitioned property €14,000 in compensation after concluding that they had been deprived of their property and had carried a disproportionate burden.

However, it revoked the part of the first court's judgment which had ordered the return of the property to the owners.

Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri, Mr Justice Geoffrey Valenzia and Mr Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo delivered this judgment following a constitutional application filed by the Montanaro Gauci family against the director of social accommodation.

The Housing Authority and the tenant of the property, Carmelo Caruana, were later called into the suit.

In their constitutional application before the First Hall of the Civil Court, the owners said that they had inherited a house in Wagon Street, Rabat from their father. The house had been requisitioned in 1987, just before the elections, and allocated to a certain Carmelo Caruana.

The original requisition order was revoked but another order was issued in respect of this house in June 1988.

The rent payable to the owners was fixed at €35 per annum, though this was increased to €185 per annum following the recent amendments to the rent laws.

This, said the owners, constituted a violation of their right to peaceful enjoyment of property and they requested the court to grant them a remedy.

The First Hall of the Civil Court had upheld the application and had awarded the owners €8,000 by way of compensation. The first court had also terminated the lease of the house and ordered that it be restored to the Montanaro Gauci family.

On appeal, the Constitutional Court declared that a requisition order was not tantamount to an expropriation of property.

The individual was entitled to peaceful possession of his/her property but the state was also entitled to take measures including the taking of property in the public interest.

A requisition of property was in the public interest in this case because it had been carried out to provide social housing.

However, the Constitutional Court declared that the compensation of an annual rent of €35 to the owners since 1988 was inadequate and meant that the owners were bearing a disproportionate burden.

The court consequently confirmed that the owners' rights had been violated.

The owners claimed that the property was valued at over €200,000 and that they ought to be compensated accordingly.

But the Constitutional Court said that this valuation had been presented by them only in the stage of appeal and was, therefore, not admissible.

It further resulted that the architect who prepared the valuation had not entered the house and had based his report on what the owners told him.