The owners of a Valletta property were awarded almost €600,000 in damages after successfully challenging a requisition order that, for many years, caused them “serious hardship” breaching their fundamental rights. 

The case concerned a building in Merchants Street, originally acquired by the present-day owners’ predecessor in title in 1943. 

Up to 1975, the premises were used to house the offices of the director of social security.

However, in May 1975, the housing secretary notified the owners that the property was to be rented for residential use and that the tenant was to pay the Lm80 fixed as rent directly to the landlord. 

But the then-owner refused to accept that and filed court proceedings seeking authorisation not to acknowledge the tenant. 

The owner won the case and the decision was confirmed on appeal in 1990, but subsequently, the premises were allocated by Housing to another lessee.

Eventually, third parties were allowed to occupy the place and substantial parts of the premises were even converted for commercial use, without the necessary licences or permits in place. 

The sizeable building was partitioned into separate units consisting of flats as well as an industrial workshop. 

Up to 2013, the director of social accommodation paid the rent which was increased to Lm204 per annum by means of a court decision in 1991. 

But after 2013 rent payments ceased.

Housing wanted to pay that annual sum to the owners’ lawyer to avoid the hassle of having to apportion the amount among some dozen landlords.

But, when Housing received no reply, it simply stopped paying the rent. 

The requisition order was never reversed because no agreement could be reached between the owners and the tenants to ensure that the latter would not end up without a place to live in. 

The owners filed a case in 2019, challenging that requisition order and suing both the Housing Authority and the tenants who had a direct interest in the dispute. 

When delivering judgment, the First Hall, Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, presided over by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, observed that the legality of the requisition order was not being challenged.

Such a measure was intended to ensure that everyone, irrespective of means and financial and social status, had a home. 

However, interfering with owners’ rights had to be necessary within a democratic society and a fair balance had to be reached between the public interest and the individual’s property rights. 

Although authorities had wide discretion on the interpretation of public or general interest, that discretion was not unlimited and was always to be exercised with respect to the minimal exigencies laid down by the European Convention of Human Rights. 

Turning to the case in hand, although the court expert and the parties’ architect had come up with different valuations, there was clearly a sharp disproportion between the rental value on the open market and the rent due to the applicants as owners of the requisitioned property. 

Although Housing argued that the applicants had accepted the state of affairs and were happy with the rent generated, there was evidence totally contradicting that argument. 

In fact, their predecessor in title had taken the matter to court and the current owners had not received any rent since 2013. 

Pending a reply about whether they could hand the money to the owners’ lawyer, Housing could have at least deposited the sum in court, remarked the judge. 

The court also threw out the respondent’s argument that rent was to be calculated at residential rates, pointing out that Housing had decided to convert the place from commercial to residential and the applicants were not to suffer because of that decision. 

Considering various factors, including the location of the property at a site where office space was highly in demand, the years through which the owners were unjustly deprived, the low rent, as well as the irregularities taking place at the premises, the court concluded that the applicants’ rights were breached in terms of Article 1 Protocol 1 of the Convention. 

The court also ordered the revocation of the requisition order, adding that there was no reason for it since the last tenant had handed over the keys to housing last year. 

The applicants were finally awarded €568, 507 in pecuniary damages and a further €8,500 in non-pecuniary damages.

Lawyers Stefano Filletti and Nicole Galea represented the applicants.