The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has once again ruled against Malta’s old rent laws and has ordered the state to pay compensation amounting to almost €140,000 in three separate cases.

In all the cases, the court observed that while finding a breach of right and awarding compensation, the Maltese constitutional court did not offer sufficient relief to the property owners.

The cases concerned properties in St Julian’s, Sliema and Żebbug where the owners were forced into a unilateral lease relationship for an indeterminate time without reflecting a fair and adequate rent, resulting from the 1979 rent laws.

Malta has repeatedly been reprimanded for breaching the European Convention of Human Rights through its old rent laws.

The European Court of Human Rights has handed down multiple decisions on this issue, saying that “a disproportionate and excessive burden” was imposed on the applicants and that the Maltese state “failed to strike the requisite fair balance between the general interests of the community and the protection of the applicant’s right of property”.

In the first case instituted by the Pace family over their property in Wilga Street, Paceville, who have been suffering a violation of their rights since 1980, the court found that they had been made to bear “a disproportionate burden”.

It upheld their arguments against the measly €20,000 awarded by the domestic courts as well as the fact that there had been no order to evict the tenants.

The court also noted the discrepancy between the valuation of the court-appointed architect, who had declared that the property had a sale value of €590,000 in 2018, and that of the technical experts appointed by the Rent Regulation Board in 2020, who valued the same property at €335,000.

The court ruled that the compensation awarded for a violation persisting over decades was “not adequate” and that the redress provided by the domestic court “did not offer sufficient relief to the applicant who retained victim status.”

It, therefore, raised the compensation to €75,000 and €1,100 to cover costs.

In its second case, the Strasbourg court considered an application filed by the Grima family over a property in Church Street, Żebbug, for which they were receiving just €212 a year, based on a 1914 market value.

The Maltese court had awarded the owners €35,000 in compensation but this was reduced to €15,000 on appeal.

Tenants evicted

The Rent Regulation Board subsequently ordered the eviction of the tenant and the property was returned to its owners.

Despite ruling that the compensation awarded by the Maltese court was insufficient, it proceeded to confirm it, adding €2,400 in non-pecuniary damage and €900 to cover court expenses.

In this case, too, the European court ruled the redress provided by the Maltese constitutional court provided insufficient relief to the applicants, who retained victim status until they regained their property.

In the third and final case, filed by the Attard family over a property in Ġuże Ellul Mercer Street, Sliema, the European Court upheld arguments that the provisions of the 1979 rent laws granted tenants the right to retain possession of the premises under a lease and imposed on them a unilateral lease relationship for an indeterminate time without reflecting a fair and adequate rent.

The European court found that the redress did not effectively address the breach and doubled the original compensation to €40,000 in pecuniary damage and €5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

Lawyers Michael Camilleri, Edward Debono and Karl Micallef represented the three applicants while State Advocate Chris Soler appeared for the state.