The owners of Paola premises housing a Labour Party club have been awarded €75,000 by way of compensation when unjustly deprived of the property that was requisitioned in 1973.
This was the outcome of a constitutional case filed by a number of landlords owning more than half undivided shares in the premises at number 5, Paola Square which they had inherited from their uncle in 1971.
The flat, forming part of a block of six apartments, had served as a post office branch in 1973 when the housing authorities ordered the owners to relinquish possession and hand over the keys, under a requisition order.
The keys were consigned by the postmaster general to the housing secretary who, in turn, passed them on to the Labour Party, which entered into a lease agreement in November 1973.
The annual rent on the property was Lm147 (€343).
The landlords refused payment of rent and turned to the courts, seeking review of that administrative decision which they claimed to be abusive since the housing decision was “purely partisan and not in the public interest.”
But the court of first instance turned down their claim, stating that it was a matter of public interest to have political parties.
In 1980 that decision was confirmed on appeal.
In 1992, the property was damaged when an explosion occurred in another apartment within the block.
It was never reconstructed but the area covered by the landlords’ property is now used as an open space or yard, adjacent to other property used by the Labour Party next door.
The landlords instituted proceedings in 2016, claiming that the requisition order and refusal by the authorities to issue a reversal of that order, breached the fundamental right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property.
Their arguments were twofold.
'Rent that was far below market value'
They questioned the public interest behind the allocation of such property to a political party and also the lack of proportionality, in view of the rent that was far below market value.
A court-appointed expert reported that the rental value back in 1973 was €295.
That value had increased to €2100 in 2018, the court was told.
When delivering judgment the First Hall, Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, presided over by Mr Justice Joseph R Micallef, held that the Constitutional Court had moved away from the reasoning of the court as expressed in the 1980 judgment.
In light of legislative changes as well as European case law, deprivation of personal property in the public interest can only be justified if there is a “concrete use” rather than simply a hypothetical need or wish.
And such public interest must persist all throughout the deprivation.
The State has wide discretionary powers but must always prove the public interest and a just balance between the rights of the individual and those of society.
Such discretion must be exercised in a proportional manner by safeguarding the rights of the private citizen through adequate compensation, observed the court.
In this case, the requisition order and refusal by the authorities to de-requisition the property, coupled with the fact that compensation was inadequate, amounted to a breach of rights in terms of the first article of Protocol One of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The court declared that the requisition order was null and ordered the Housing Authority to pay the applicants €75,000 by way of compensation for liquidated pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, taking into account the “very low” compensation expected after the premises were destroyed.
While rejecting the request to order the tenants to hand back possession of the premises, the court declared that the Labour Party could no longer claim protection under the challenged requisition order.