Amendments introduced by the government in 2018 to protect tenants from eviction before the lapse of a five-year term are tantamount to interference and in breach of landlords’ fundamental rights to the enjoyment of their property, a European court has ruled.

In its judgment, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg had strong words for the state’s reluctance to address the issued resulting from old rent laws and the equal reluctance of the domestic courts from putting an end to violations.

The ECHR was ruling on a case filed by the owner of a decontrolled house in Għaxaq which had been leased in 1967 at an annual rent of €58 and then sub-leased once again to a couple.

Following the introduction of the 1979 Housing (Decontrol) Ordinance, the couple retained the property under title of lease as it had become their habitual place of residence, at an annual rent of €116 annually.

In 2017, the owner instituted proceedings arguing that the 1979 law that gives tenants the right to retain possession of the premises under a lease, was imposed on her without a fair and adequate rent, in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights.

The landlord, who claimed that the house had a rental value of almost €400 a month, won the case and was granted €20,000 in compensation. The court had disagreed with the landlord’s argument that it would be impossible to ever recover her property.

However, it considered that the tenants had been occupying the property for 34 years and that the difference between the market rental value and the rent received, despite the various increases, remained “enormous if not shocking”.

It had ruled that the rent applicable by law was not compatible with the reality of current Maltese society or the applicable rents on the free open market and that the landlord was not receiving fair and adequate compensation in exchange for the burden imposed by law.

While the legislator had a right to address social issues and protect a category of citizens such as tenants, it could not disproportionally prejudice another group of citizens (the owners).

The court, however, refused to order the eviction of the tenant, because it was not the appropriate court to take such action. The Rent Regulation Board orders evictions.

When the case was taken to the Strasbourg court, the government, through the state advocate, argued that the applicant had lost her victim status when the court had expressly acknowledged the violation and awarded appropriate redress.

But the ECHR found that this redress did not offer sufficient relief to the applicant, who remained a victim especially since the domestic court failed to bring the violation to an end by failing to order the eviction of the tenants or alternatively award a higher future rent.

As a result, the landlord was obliged to undertake new procedures before proceeding to evict the tenant.

“The court has previously expressed its reservations about the fact that the constitutional jurisdictions abdicate the responsibility assigned to them by the Constitution of Malta and refer applicants to yet another remedy despite having the power and authority to grant such redress,” the ECHR noted in its decision.

It added: “Such a procedure allows for the violation of an individual’s property rights to continue for another five years despite the absence of any legitimate aim behind the interference… It follows that the declaration of the domestic court in the present case cannot be considered to have had any effect in bringing the violation to an end, so much so that more than two years after the domestic court’s judgment, the applicant continues to suffer the same violation of her property rights.”

The European Court noted that the 2018 amendments allowing tenants five years before vacating the property continued to show the state’s reluctance to address the problem.

“The court cannot accept that, following a favourable judgment of the constitutional jurisdictions, an aggrieved applicant must remain the victim of an interference… for at least five more years…

“The court cannot accept that [the amendments] were designed to deal effectively and meaningfully with the issue of the disproportionate interference arising from the applicable rent laws,” it ruled.

“The court is mindful that in this situation the applicants have to suffer both the piecemeal approach by the state – that has to date not resolved issues which the court found to be in breach of the convention more than a decade ago – and the apparent reluctance of some of the domestic courts to apply the convention standards and safeguard human rights, particularly in the context of rent laws, permitting such violations to persist for years on end,” it added.

The ECHR, therefore, ruled in favour of the landlord, declaring that her right to property and her right to an effective remedy had been violated by the state and awarded €20,000 in pecuniary damages, €10,000 non-pecuniary damages plus €1,440 to cover costs and expenses in domestic proceedings.

Lawyers Edward Debono and Michael Camilleri appeared for the landlord.