The owners of three properties housing the Senglea PL club for the past 70 years have been awarded close to €156,000 in damages suffered on account that the premises' protected lease breached their fundamental rights. 

The case revolved around two properties on Victory Street and another property on St Julian’s Street which the owners’ predecessors had rented to the Labour Party.

The annual rent was €109.15 for the properties on Victory Street and €37 for the third tenement on St Julian’s Street. 

Not only was the rent minimal, but moreover, the lessees had carried out structural alterations without the consent of the landlords and had even interconnected the properties in such a manner that it was now difficult to distinguish one from the other, the owners argued.

The rent was last paid in 2015. 

In 2021, the owners filed proceedings before the First Hall, Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction arguing that the legal regime whereby they were forced to renew the lease, breached their fundamental right to the peaceful enjoyment of property in terms of article one, protocol one of the European Convention of Human Rights. 

Throughout the proceedings, the applicants produced evidence to show that they held a valid title of ownership, having acquired the property through succession. 

Their lawyer also requested the court to appoint a technical expert to inspect the premises and prepare a valuation for each tenement, irrespective of the fact that all three were now interconnected. 

The court-appointed architect produced three separate valuations indicating that rent on the property at St Julian’s Street had increased from €30 in 1985 to €1,875 in 2021.

Rent on 201, Victory Street had increased from €280 to €4,400, while that on 202, Victory Street had increased from €935 to €16,250. 

When delivering judgment on Tuesday, the court, presided by Madam Justice Joanne Vella Cuschieri, observed that although the state had the right and duty to enact laws regulating property use in the public interest, it could not create a situation of lack of proportionality to the detriment of owners’ rights. 

This was so, particularly in such cases where the legislator drew a distinction between residential property and other properties used as clubs.

The State Advocate, as a respondent in the suit alongside the Labour Party, argued that the lease was protected in terms of Chapter 69, Reletting of Urban Property Act. 

But the court threw out that argument, listing facts to indicate that the situation lacked proportionality. It was practically impossible for the owners to take back their property.

Moreover, the law granted the lessees the right to carry out alterations without the owners’ consent and irrespective of what the lease agreement stipulated. 

The owners’ only chance of taking back the property was in case of non-payment of rent. 

In terms of law, that rent could not exceed 1% of the value of the property and the Rent Regulation Board could only revise the rent by assessing the property in its current state rather than take into consideration its potential use as a commercial establishment. 

The resulting situation meant that there was no fair balance between the public interest and owners’ rights.

The Labour Party pleaded that it was non-suited, but the court, citing caselaw, observed that although the party was not legally answerable for the effects of the anti-constitutional law, the club was the lessee. 

And as such, it had a juridical interest in the proceedings which affected it directly. 

The court also rejected the plea that the owners had not exhausted ordinary remedies and also confirmed that they had proved a valid legal title. 

When all was considered the court declared that the applicants’ fundamental right to the enjoyment of their property had been breached and awarded them pecuniary damages totalling €155,920.57 payable by the State Advocate. 

The court also declared that the owners were not bound to renew the lease on the property, which was still being used as a PL club, but rejected their request to order an eviction, observing that this was not the competent court to do so. 

Finally, the court ordered that the judgment was to be notified to the Speaker of Parliament. 

Lawyers Edward and Nicholas De Bono assisted the owners.