CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 mai 2024

.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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 10 June 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 43868/21 Joseph ZAMMIT and Anna BUSUTTIL against Malta lodged on 31 August 2021 communicated on 21 May 2024 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 (‘the Ordinance”) affecting the applicants’ property in Paola as of 17 December 1990. At that time the annual rent payable was EUR 233, in 2005 it increased to EUR 350, and in 2013 to EUR 419, and the rent would increase every three years thereafter. The property’s market rental value in 1990 according to the court-appointed expert was EUR   1,410 and EUR 9,400 in 2018, totalling around EUR   97,000 over the relevant period. On 27 September 2019 the applicants lodged constitutional redress proceedings complaining that the application of Article 12 of the Ordinance breached their property rights. They specified that their claims referred to the period until 31 December 2018, without prejudice to any further action they might undertake to challenge the 2018 amendments to the law. By a judgment of 2 March 2021, the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention and awarded EUR 30,000 in compensation. No costs were to be paid by the applicants. None of the parties appealed. The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that they remained victims of the violation upheld by the domestic court due to the low amount of compensation. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the present case (see, inter alia , Amato Gauci v.   Malta , no.   47045/06, 15   September 2009)?