CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 13 June 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 7615/21 Francis BUTTIGIEG against Malta lodged on 28 January 2021 communicated on 24 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an imposed lease as a result of the application of Chapter 69 of the Laws of Malta whereby the applicable rent in 1966 (date of the original contract) was 93 euros (EUR) annually for the applicant’s property in Għajnsielem, Gozo. The property was acquired by the applicant by legacy in November 2012. The rent payable became EUR 227 as of 2009 which was to be increased every three years according to the index of inflation. The lease may be renewed indefinitely and inherited. In 2019 the applicant instituted constitutional redress proceedings complaining , inter alia , of a breach of his property rights as a result of the application of the relevant provisions of Chapter 69 and the ensuing amendments in 2009 and 2010. He asked the court for compensation and an order to evict the tenant. According to the court-appointed expert the annual rental value in 1987 was EUR 675, that in 1993 EUR 825, that in 1999 EUR   1,200, that in 2005 EUR 1,728, that in 2011 EUR 3,640 and that in 2019 was EUR 5,280 (on a property whose sale value was EUR 220,000 in 2019). On that basis, according to the applicant, the rental income lost over the relevant period was approximately EUR 56,000. By a judgment of 29 October 2020, the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR 10,000 in compensation. In particular the court considered that property rights were personal rights, thus, the applicant could only complain from the moment he had been affected namely 2012 when he became the owner. This was even more so since the applicant was not the universal heir of his predecessor in title but only a legatee. It refused to evict the tenant considering that it was not the competent court to do so. No costs were to be paid by the applicant. None of the parties appealed. The applicant complains under 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention that he remains a victim of the violation upheld by the domestic court due to the low amount of compensation and the failure to evict the tenant. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is the applicant still a victim of the violation of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention upheld by the domestic court? In particular, were the applicant’s claims for compensation at the domestic level limited to the period since when he became the owner of the property? If not, were the domestic findings in line with the domestic law or practice concerning the institute of legacy? The parties are invited to make reference to any relevant domestic law or case-law in their submissions.   2.     In the present case has the applicant suffered a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?