A delay in granting compensation to six Maltese nationals who had been deprived of land in Żabbar breached their right to have the property protected, the European Court of Human Rights ruled.
The case was referred to the Strasbourg-based Court by Miriam Galea, Grace Borg, Emanuel Cassar, Joseph Cassar, Annemarie Despott and Carmen Zammit late in 2013.
They said they were the holders of the utile dominium of a portion of land, whose direct owner was the State. The land in question included a snack bar that was rented to third parties. In 1965, part of the land was declared to be required for a public purpose.
The shop was eventually demolished and a civic centre and service roads were built. It was later decided that a new shop would be built by the government. This was leased to the same third party that used to run the snack bar.
The applicants instituted constitutional redress proceedings in March 2010 complaining that their land had not been taken in the public interest. They asked the court to annul the declaration in respect of their property, order its return to them and award adequate redress.
In mid-2012, the Civil Court (First Hall), in its constitutional jurisdiction, annulled all government action affecting the property, ordered the property to be returned to the applicants and awarded them €40,000 in moral and material damages.
The government appealed and, in April 2013, the Constitutional Court ruled that when the land in question was taken it had been done in the public interest. It also found that the applicants’ property rights had been violated because they had been deprived of their property for years without any compensation.
Reduction in compensation was not in order
They were awarded €10,000 in moral damages but the court annulled the order for the property to be returned.
The European Court of Human Rights noted that the applicants had not received any compensation for the property expropriated in 1965, despite an offer of €13,000 in 2010, that is, after 45 years.
The government, it remarked, had not provided any convincing justification for such failure.
The Court, which included Chief Justice Emeritus Vincent De Gaetano, stressed the point that owners could not be expected to incur the expense and the burden of instituting proceedings to ensure the authorities fulfilled their legal obligation.
Notwithstanding the delay in granting compensation, it continued, the Constitutional Court had failed to determine the amount of material damage due and only awarded moral damages, expecting the applicants to initiate compensation proceedings 45 years after their property was taken.
Recalling that the property had originally been taken to build a road within the framework of a reconstruction project, the European Court said it ultimately served the same purpose as it had done in the past, that is, the site of a snack bar that was rented out to the same tenant who held the lease before expropriation.
Thus, the Court felt that, given the property’s use, a reduction in compensation was not in order.
The applicants were entitled to damages related to the value of the land at the time of the taking, converted to its present value to offset the effects of inflation, plus statutory interest applied to the capital progressively adjusted.
It pointed out that the applicants were not the owners but holders of the utile dominium by way of sub-emphyteusis expiring in 2047.
The six applicants were jointly granted €21,000 over and above the €13,000 and the interest deposited with the domestic courts. In view of the €10,000 awarded by the Maltese courts, the European Court did not deem it necessary to grant moral damage.