Last Updated on February 6, 2024 by LawEuro
The case concerns an imposed lease as a result of the application of Chapter 69 of the Laws of Malta whereby the applicants, who co-own the property at different shares, are receiving 203 euros (EUR) per annum (based on the 1914 market value) since 2013, increased every three years according to the index of inflation as of 2009. Prior to 2009 the rent payable was approximately EUR 82 annually, and as of 2009 EUR 185 annually. The lease may be renewed indefinitely and inherited; in fact the original tenants passed away and their son inherited the tenancy.
European Court of Human Rights
SECOND SECTION
CASE OF MICALLEF AND OTHERS v. MALTA
(Application no. 50693/20)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 February 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Micallef and Others v. Malta,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Jovan Ilievski, President,
Lorraine Schembri Orland,
Diana Sârcu, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 50693/20) against the Republic of Malta lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 16 November 2020 by 10 Maltese nationals, relevant details listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), who were represented by Dr M. Camilleri, a lawyer practising in Valletta;
the decision to give notice of the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention to the Maltese Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agents, Dr C. Soler, State Advocate, and Dr J. Vella, Advocate at the Office of the State Advocate, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 16 January 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns an imposed lease as a result of the application of Chapter 69 of the Laws of Malta whereby the applicants, who co-own the property at different shares, are receiving 203 euros (EUR) per annum (based on the 1914 market value) since 2013, increased every three years according to the index of inflation as of 2009. Prior to 2009 the rent payable was approximately EUR 82 annually, and as of 2009 EUR 185 annually. The lease may be renewed indefinitely and inherited; in fact the original tenants passed away and their son inherited the tenancy.
2. The applicants (except for the applicant Mr Brian Meli) instituted constitutional redress proceedings complaining, inter alia, of a breach of their property rights in so far as the law allowed the son of the original tenants (who died in 2007 and 2018 respectively) to continue the lease indefinitely at a low amount of rent. According to the court-appointed expert the rental value in 1987 was EUR 1,710, annually, and that in 2018 was EUR 14,625. The income potential over the relevant period was estimated at EUR 160,000.
3. By a judgment of 1 July 2020, the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and awarded the applicants, who owned the property in different shares, as heirs or heirs of heirs of the original owners, EUR 20,000 in compensation. It refused to evict the tenant but declared that the tenant may no longer rely on the impugned law to maintain title to the property. Half of the costs of the proceedings were to be paid by the applicants. None of the parties appealed.
4. Thereafter the applicants instituted proceedings before the Rent Regulation Board (‘RRB’) to evict the tenant on the basis of the above‑mentioned declaration. By means of a judgment of the RRB of 2 February 2021 the tenant was ordered to vacate the property within a period of thirty days. The decision was confirmed on appeal on 7 July 2021 and the applicants regained possession of their property.
5. At the time of lodging the application, the applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention alone and in conjunction with Article 13 that they remained victims of the upheld violation due to the low amount of compensation awarded and the failure to evict the tenants.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained that they remained victims of the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention upheld by the domestic court.
7. The Court observes, firstly, that the applicant Mr Brian Meli had not been a claimant during the domestic proceedings but rather, and oddly, a defendant. It follows that no violation has been upheld in his respect nor has any compensation been awarded to him. In these circumstances he cannot be considered a victim of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as brought before this Court. The complaint in his respect is therefore incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
8. In respect of the remaining applicants, the Court refers to its general principles concerning victim status and its established case‑law in cases similar to the present one (see, among many other authorities, Apap Bologna v. Malta, no. 46931/12, §§ 41, 43, 48 and 82, 30 August 2016). The Court observes that the domestic court has acknowledged the violation and awarded EUR 20,000 in compensation for both pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage.
9. The Court notes that, from the material available to it, at the domestic level the remaining applicants’ complaint appears to be related to the period following the inheritance of the tenancy by the current tenant (see paragraph 2 above), that is, 2018 onwards, on the death of the last original tenant. However, the domestic court appears to have examined the case in relation to the entire period following 1987 and the State did not appeal against that finding (compare and contrast Grima v. Malta [Committee], no. 38660/20, § 2, 22 September 2022). Since it is for the domestic courts to verify the limits of the applicants’ requests thereby avoiding acting ultra petita and the Government raised no objection in this respect, the Court will likewise consider the entire period (see Vassallo v. Malta [Committee], no. 52795/20, § 9, 12 September 2023).
10. Bearing in mind that the property had an annual rental value of, for example, EUR 14,625 in 2018, the Court considers that the compensation awarded for a violation persisting over decades (even excluding the share of the applicant Mr Brian Meli who owned less than a 1/8 undivided share which he shared with other applicants) was not adequate and that the redress provided by the domestic court did not offer sufficient relief to the applicants, who thus retain victim status for the purposes of this complaint (see, mutatis mutandis, Portanier v. Malta, no. 55747/16, § 24, 27 August 2019). The Government’s objection to this effect is therefore dismissed.
11. The Court also dismisses the Government’s objection of non‑exhaustion of domestic remedies (in so far as the applicants had not appealed to the Constitutional Court). The Court has already made relevant considerations related to the Constitutional Court’s effectiveness for the period until 2018 in Cauchi v. Malta (no. 14013/19, §§ 55 and 77, 25 March 2021) and for the period until 2019 in Pace v. Malta ([Committee], no. 53545/19, § 9, 29 September 2022) and Grima and Others v. Malta ([Committee], no. 18052/20, § 8, 7 March 2023).
12. The Court notes that the additional domestic judgments relied on by the Government in the present case, related to 2020, show that the Constitutional Court increased compensation in seven[1] of the eight appeals where this was requested. Thus, the Court considers that the case-law relied on by the Government offers a good indication that in 2020 the Constitutional Court abandoned its precedent practice of diminishing compensation awarded at first instance and, as argued by the Government, has started to examine these rent law cases on their own merits, taking into account the facts of each case.
13. However, the Court observes that the compensation terms applied by the Constitutional Court in March 2020 were nonetheless not consistently satisfactory. For example, on the same day, 27 March 2020, it upheld the plaintiff’s appeal and increased compensation in one judgment, awarding adequate compensation (see Tabone v. Malta (dec.) [Committee], no. 23107/20, §§ 10-13, 28 March 2023), while upholding the State’s appeal and therefore reducing compensation in two other judgments[2], one of which resulting in an inadequate amount of compensation (see Grima v. Malta [Committee], no. 38660/20, §§ 6 and 9, 22 September 2022) while the other amounting to an adequate amount of compensation (see Psaila v. Malta (dec.) [Committee], no. 33257/20, § 11, 11 July 2023). The next case where compensation was increased by the Constitutional Court is dated 20 July 2020[3], that is one day before the expiry of the time-limit for the applicant to appeal, but again the compensation terms in that case were not adequate (see Cachia and Others v. Malta [Committee], no. 6335/21, § 9, 24 October 2023). The next cases where compensation was increased were decided in October 2020, that is after the expiry of the time-limit for the applicants to appeal. Thus, even assuming that, by the end of 2020, the final awards made by the Constitutional Court were already in line with this Court’s awards (see, for example, Cuschieri and Others v. Malta ((dec.) [Committee], no. 36806/21, § 8, 20 September 2022, in relation to the beginning of 2021), and that it could be considered an effective remedy, given the relevant timeline in the circumstances of the present case, the applicants could not have been expected to lodge an appeal to the Constitutional Court.
14. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
15. As to the merits, the Court refers to its general principles as set out, for example, in Amato Gauci v. Malta (no. 47045/06, §§ 52-59, 15 September 2009).
16. Having regard to the findings of the domestic court relating to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court considers that it is not necessary to re‑examine in detail the merits of the complaint. It finds that, as established by the domestic court, the remaining applicants were made to bear a disproportionate burden. Moreover, as the Court has already found in the context of the objection on victim status (see paragraph 10 above), the redress provided by the domestic court did not offer sufficient relief to the remaining applicants.
17. The foregoing considerations are sufficient for the Court to find that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
II. OTHER COMPLAINTS
18. The remaining applicants also complained under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that they had not had an effective remedy capable of redressing the violation under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, including the development of the Constitutional Court’s case-law in 2020, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case and that there is no need to examine the remaining complaint (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
19. In so far as this complaint was also raised by the applicant Mr Brian Meli, as stated at paragraph 7 above, the latter has not expressed any wish at the domestic level to have an alleged violation of his rights examined, or to receive any redress. In these circumstances his complaint is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
20. The applicants claimed 88,254.58 euros (EUR) as pecuniary damage for losses from 1987 up to 2021 in accordance with their own calculations which they considered were based on the principles of Cauchi (cited above) and EUR 20,000 in non-pecuniary damage. They further claimed EUR 1,463.63 in domestic court costs, as per attached bill of costs.
21. The Government submitted that there had been no explanation as to the applicants’ calculation in respect of pecuniary damage which according to the Government was not in line with Cauchi (cited above). Moreover, no substantiation had accompanied the values for the years following the domestic judgment and it could not be assumed that the value remained the same as that in 2018. Additionally, they submitted that other relevant factors were to be taken into account (see for details, Debono and Dimech v. Malta [Committee], no. 17094/21, § 18, 18 April 2023). The Government also considered that the claim for non-pecuniary damage was excessive. In respect of the claim for costs and expenses, which had not been accompanied by the relevant receipts, the Government submitted that the domestic court had ordered the payment of such costs in respect of complaints which had been rejected in line with well-established domestic case-law.
22. The Court has made all the considerations applicable in this type of cases, as set out in Cauchi (cited above, §§ 102-07). Noting in particular that the award of the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence remains payable if not yet paid, the Court awards the applicants (excluding Mr Brian Meli), jointly, EUR 60,000 in pecuniary damage and rejects their claim for non‑pecuniary damage which can be considered covered by the domestic award. It dismisses the claim for costs incurred which were unrelated to the violation found.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Declares the application in respect of the applicant Mr Brian Meli inadmissible, and in respect of the remaining applicants it declares the complaint concerning Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of the remaining applicants;
3. Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaint;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the remaining applicants (excluding Mr Brian Meli), jointly, within three months, EUR 60,000 (sixty thousand euros) in respect of pecuniary damage;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 February 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Dorothee von Arnim Jovan Ilievski
Deputy Registrar President
___________
APPENDIX
List of applicants:
| No. | Applicant’s Name | Year of birth | Nationality | Place of residence |
| 1. | Joseph MICALLEF | 1936 | Maltese | Tarxien |
| 2. | Maria Stella BORG | 1958 | Maltese | Ibraġ |
| 3. | Neil BORG MELI | 1986 | Maltese | Gżira |
| 4. | Rose BUĠEJA | 1943 | Maltese | San Ġwann |
| 5. | Theresa CHETCUTI | 1947 | Maltese | Swieqi |
| 6. | Mary GRECH | 1938 | Maltese | Pembroke |
| 7. | Brian MELI | 1966 | Maltese | Swieqi |
| 8. | Carmel MICALLEF | 1940 | Maltese | Sliema |
| 9. | Marcelle SIRACUSA | 1949 | Maltese | Pembroke |
| 10. | Victoria VELLA | 1945 | Maltese | San Ġwann |
[1] Victoria Amato Gauci et v. L-Avukat Generali et, Rik. 85/2013, 28 February 2020;
Catherine Tabone pro et noe v. L-Avukat Generali et, Rik. 27/18, 27 March 2020;
Mario Cachia et v. Supermarkets Limited et, Rik. 82/2015, 20 July 2020;
Angela sive Gina Balzan v. L-Onorevoli Prim Ministru et, Rik. 16/2015/1, 8 October 2020;
Michael Farrugia et v. L-Avukat Generali et, Rik. 79/2016, 6 October 2020;
Giovanna Bartoli et v. Carmelo Calleja et, Rik. 46/2018/1, 6 October 2020;
Henry Deguara Caruana Gatto et v. L-Avukat tal-Istat, Rik. 36/18, 23 November 2020.
[2] Joseph Grima et v. L-Avukat Generali et, Rik. 22/19, 27 March 2020,
Brian Psaila v. L-Avukat Generali et, Rik. 12/2018, 27 March 2020.
[3] Mario Cachia et (cited above).
Leave a Reply