CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 mai 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } Published on 23 May 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 16680/21 J&C PROPERTIES LIMITED against Malta lodged on 26 March 2021 communicated on 3 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a unilaterally imposed lease under Act XXIII of 1979 amending Chapter 158 of the Laws of Malta affecting the applicant company’s property at 18 St. Joseph High street, Ħamrun, as of June 2007. At that time the annual rent payable was 390 euro (EUR) which increased to EUR   450 in 2013 and to EUR 459 in 2016 and was to have further increases every three years according to the cost-of-living index. The applicant company lodged constitutional redress proceeding complaining that the application of Article   12 of the Ordinance was in breach of its property rights. It limited the time frame of the claim to the end of December 2017. According to the court-appointed expert, the market rental value of the property in 2007 was EUR 4,590 annually, that in 2012 EUR   6,300 annually and that in   2017 EUR   9,800 annually, for a property whose sale value was estimated at EUR   320,000. The estimated market rent until 2018 was around EUR   87,000. The State’s expert estimated the rental values as being half those just mentioned. By a judgment of 9 July 2019 the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 and awarded EUR   15,000 in compensation and held that the tenant could no longer rely on the impugned law to maintain title to the property. The court noted the huge discrepancy between the two experts reports and considered that the real value was more likely to be a mean between them. On appeal by the State, by a judgment of 6 June 2020, the Constitutional Court confirmed the first-instance judgment. The tenants left the property shortly thereafter. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention alone and in conjunction with Article 13 the applicant company complains that it is still a victim of the violation given the low amount of compensation awarded. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is the applicant company still a victim of the violation upheld by the domestic court? In particular, accepting the domestic court’s findings in relation to the expert reports, has adequate compensation been awarded?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention?   3.     Did the applicant company have an effective remedy for the purposes of Article 13 in conjunction with its complaint under Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1?