CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 juin 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s31BC87C7 { width:96.4%; border-collapse:collapse } .s9D0FDE35 { width:8.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sC358CD3A { width:27.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s43BBA721 { width:18.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s37B231 { width:20%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA98887F8 { width:26.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB56AB144 { width:8.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sED5A8D1D { width:27.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEF84E461 { width:18.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s134F8E45 { width:20%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCC02E4F4 { width:26.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 11 July 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 6335/21 Mario CACHIA and Others against Malta lodged on 18 January 2021 communicated on 24 June 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicants’ property in Sliema which has been rented out since 1976, as commercial premises, and is affected by the restrictions applicable under Chapter 69 of the Laws of Malta. The applicants hold the property by title of utile dominium which will expire in 2028. The original lease expired in October 1991 and thereafter the tenants maintained title to the property. By a judgment of 25 July 1995, the Rent Regulation Board established the rent at 15,140 euro (EUR) annually. As of 2010 the parties disagreed as to the applicable increments in rent. In 2015 the applicants instituted constitutional redress proceedings. By a judgment of 29 January 2020 the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicants EUR 100,000, in compensation. On appeal by the applicants, by a judgment of 20 July 2020 the Constitutional Court increased the compensation, including non-pecuniary damage, to EUR 250,000 plus 5% interest from the date of that judgment. A new lease agreement was reached between the parties for the period 2020 onwards at EUR 180,000 annually with further increases until 2027, date when the lease will come to an end in accordance with the law. The applicants complain that they are still victims of the violation found by the domestic courts in view of the low amount of compensation awarded.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the present case? In particular, given the award of compensation in the present case, are the applicants still victims of the violation found by the domestic courts?   APPENDIX   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Mario CACHIA 1965 Maltese L-Ibraġġ 2. Carmen BAJADA 1959 Maltese Sliema 3. Godwin BORG 1947 Maltese San Gwann 4. Inez BORG 1919 Maltese Attard 5. Margaret BORG 1945 Maltese Sliema 6. Doreen BUSUTTIL 1946 Maltese Sliema 7. Marie Louise BUSUTTIL 1950 Maltese Swieqi 8. Stephen CACHIA 1964 Maltese Sliema 9. Alfred GRECH 1953 Maltese Mosta 10. Joseph GRECH 1950 Maltese Santa Venera 11. Natalie GRECH 1949 Maltese Sliema 12. Carmen WAREING 1969 Maltese St Andrews