The most recent changes to the law forcing a new landlord-tenant relationship did not breach the right to enjoyment of one’s property but strikes a balance between the requirements of both parties, a constitutional court has ruled.
It said that while it was true there was still a level of uncertainty on when owners would be able to take back possession of their property, this was justified by the social necessity of the other party in the rental relationship.
The constitutional court declared as “just and satisfactory” the amendments to the Housing (Decontrol) Ordinance, enacted in 2018, where the owner can request a revision in the rental conditions if these impose a disproportionate burden on them.
The case in question involved the owner of a Sliema maisonette who, despite being awarded €10,000 in compensation for the violation of the right to the enjoyment of his property, was not given his property back.
Gerald Camilleri and his wife had purchased a property adjacent to theirs in Creche Street in 2017.
The property, valued at €283,000, was bought at a fraction of the market price – just €68,000 – because the title of lease was enjoyed by Alphonse and Maria Assunta Camilleri.
Amendments just and satisfactory
The landlords claimed that their right to property safeguarded under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated by the “forced” landlord-tenant relationship and requested the court to provide an adequate remedy.
The First Hall, Civil Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, last year ruled there was a breach but did not order the tenants’ eviction or declare that their lease was unconstitutional. Instead, it referred the owners to a provision of the new rental laws, enacted last year, through which they could establish a new tenant-landlord relationship.
This reasoning was confirmed by the Constitutional Court, presided over by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti and judges Giannino Caruana Demajo and Anthony Ellul, when deciding on two appeals filed by both the landlords and the tenants.
The court also threw out the landlords’ claims that the capping of the rent value at two per cent of the property’s market value constituted a violation of their human right to the enjoyment of property.
It said that a form of control relating to rental increases was required and that the amendments create a mechanism that permitted the owner to derive a just rental value from his property while also fulfilling its social aim.
The court noted that, in a truly free market, the rental price was not determined by fixed arithmetic values but dependant on need and availability.
It said the owners had already purchased the property at a fraction of the market value, simply because it was occupied.
The court did not vary the part of the judgment ordering the state attorney to pay the owners compensation because the state had not appealed the decision.
Lawyers Edward Debono, Adrian Camilleri and Karl Micallef appeared for the landlords.
Lawyers Matthew Cutajar and Kirk Brincau, of Mamo TCV Advocates, represented the tenants.