A landmark judgement that on Wednesday protected two Qrendi farmers from eviction has been lauded by farmers for underscoring the importance of safeguarding farmers’ interests and ensuring affordable leases.

The judgment, delivered by the Constitutional Court, declared that the law protecting agricultural leases – which has since been amended  – had breached a landowner’s rights, in a decision partially overturning a 2021 judgment.

However, it also confirmed the farmers’ protection from eviction, pointing to the need for agricultural land valuations to take their financial means into consideration.

It is “unrealistic” for a farmer to be expected to pay the quoted amount to lease the land- Court

In 2021, Judge Lawrence Mintoff, presiding over the First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, had dismissed a case for the dissolution of qbiela (agricultural lease) filed by the Qrendi field owner.

The judgment protected Annalisa and Liberata Schembri, who paid €24 in rent every two years, from being evicted. 

Landowner Vincenza Magro had argued the law protecting qbiela breached her rights as landowner. The law, she argued, did not provide a mechanism for the revision of the lease, resulting in a large discrepancy between the rent paid and the free market value.

Magro appealed the 2021 decision.

This week, a Constitutional Court, presided by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti and judges Giannino Caruana Demajo and Anthony Ellul, declared that the landowner’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of property had been breached and ordered the Attorney General to pay her a total of €8,000.

The government then published subsidiary legislation detailing how agricultural land should be valued

Landowners challenging agricultural lease law

The Schembris were among dozens of farmers who have ended up in court since a court in 2020 declared that the rural leases law was unconstitutional and private landowners started challenging the so-called qbiela law.

In those cases, the court would ask an architect to value the agricultural land in question. Architects would use a comparative method: check the price of nearby land and take into account whether the land has non-agricultural characteristics that would push up the price, such as a sea view and vehicular access.

With this value in hand, the court would then calculate the equivalent of 1 to 1.5% of this value and compare it with what the farmer was actually paying.

If the farmer was not paying the same price, then the law was considered unconstitutional and it would not protect the farmer, paving the way for their eviction.

But last year the government stepped in, suggesting that arable land lease should be based on the land’s agricultural value.

The government then published subsidiary legislation detailing how agricultural land should be valued. This formula is made up of the base value (updated every five years) and the agronomical characteristics of that specific arable land.

The base value is based on the national average of farmers’ income from each tumolo.

The characteristics of the field include soil depth and access to water and electricity.

Malcolm Borg of the Għaqda Bdiewa Attivi. Photo: Chris Sant Fournier

Base price set at €2,570 per tumolo

Last month, the government announced that the base price was now set at €2,570 per tumolo. This means that by using the 1.5% rent rate established by law, the rent will vary between €35 and €107 per tumolo per year. Lease agreements shall be for a minimum of eight and a maximum of 16 years.

When the government announced the base price, the Chamber of Architects asked its members to stop carrying out valuations, claiming the legal notice was directing architects to produce fictitious values for agricultural land that had no underpinning in the market.

Għaqda Bdiewa Attivi rebutted, saying it was no longer up to architects to value agricultural land.

Malcolm Borg, who leads the association, told Times of Malta on Wednesday that in this latest judgment, the Constitutional Court had expressed concern that the architect’s valuation, in the case of the Schembris, had not taken into consideration their financial means.

In the judgment, the court argues it is “unrealistic” for a farmer to be expected to pay the quoted amount to lease the land. The court did not have peace of mind that the technical architect had truly taken into consideration how much the farmer was willing to pay to lease the land.

The amount that a farmer was willing to pay would determine the actual demand for agricultural land, the court said.