5.  Mr Peter Azzopardi, was born in 1950 and lives in Naxxar. The registered address of Canadian Brothers Limited is also Naxxar. 6.  Canadian Brothers Limited was the holder of the utile dominium (by way of sub-emphyteusis) of land in Msida, Malta, measuring approximately 772 sq.m., which it intended to develop for commercial purposes. The applicant, that is, Mr Peter Azzopardi, as director for and on behalf of Canadian Brothers Limited had lodged a development application but no development permit had been issued. 7.  By a declaration published in the Government Gazette on 11 October 1974 the President of Malta declared that 901 sq.m. (including a rural room) and 240 sq.m. of land – which included the land held by the Canadian Brothers Limited – were to be expropriated (acquired by a title of absolute purchase). The taking of possession of the land was undertaken following a request by the Director of Public Works in connection with the construction of a reservoir. 8.  On 19 June 1992 the applicant was served with a Notice to Treat offering the sum of approximately 18,050 euros (EUR) for the acquisition. Other parties who had an interest in the property (including heirs, as a result of the demise of some individuals) were also served with a Notice to Treat. Of those interested parties, some accepted the sum offered while others objected to the amount by means of a judicial letter dated 15 September 1992. The applicant contested the amount offered and – by means of a judicial letter filed on 25 September 1992 – made a counter-claim for approximately EUR 559,050. 9.  The law at the relevant time did not provide for any procedure allowing the applicant to initiate proceedings for compensation. The initiation of compensation proceedings was an action which could be undertaken only by the authorities, and to which no time-limit applied. However, in the 1990s it was confirmed, through case-law, that if a request was made by anyone in a position similar to the applicant’s the courts of civil jurisdiction had the competence to set a time-limit within which the authorities – namely the Commissioner of Land (“CoL”) – was obliged to initiate such proceedings, and this by application of Article 1078 of the Civil Code. 10.  According to his affidavit, the applicant repeatedly solicited the authorities to process his case, but to no avail. By the year 2000 the competent authority had still not instituted proceedings before the Land Arbitration Board (“LAB”) to determine the relevant compensation and the applicant therefore instituted constitutional redress proceedings (see below). 11.  In the meantime, in December 2002, the CoL filed an application informing the domestic courts that the Notice to Treat was missing from the court archives and requesting the appointment of new curators to replace those who were deceased. 12.  Pending those proceedings, on 12 January 2004 the public authorities instituted proceedings before the LAB to determine the compensation due. To date those proceedings, to which the applicant is a party, are still pending. 13.  In 2006 the law governing the determination of compensation was amended. In particular, interest was no longer calculated at 5% per annum on the value of the land as determined by the LAB but rather on the mean value between the value on the date of the taking and the value on the date of the determination itself. Secondly, following an amendment in 2004, the compensation awarded could not exceed the amount of compensation demanded by the party in its counter-claim to the Notice to Treat. 14.  The applicant submitted that such changes were to the detriment of the person whose land had been expropriated and who had been suffering delays in proceedings. Moreover, the applicant argued that in any event the LAB was not in a position to determine adequate compensation as it could not take inflation into consideration. 15.  The applicant continued to pay a ground rent (in his capacity of sub- empyhteuta) equivalent to EUR 183.51 per year throughout the relevant period. 16.  Before the constitutional jurisdictions, the applicant (Mr Peter Azzopardi on behalf of Canadian Brothers Ltd.) claimed that he had suffered a breach of his rights under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. He submitted that as a result of the inaction of the authorities he had been deprived of the property without receiving the compensation to which he was entitled and that such compensation had not been determined within a reasonable time. 17.  By a judgment of 12 November 2010 the Civil Court (First Hall), in its constitutional competence, rejected the Government’s objection of non- exhaustion of ordinary remedies (in respect of Article 1078 of the Civil Code) and found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. It noted that compensation proceedings had not been instituted by the authorities three decades after the taking of the land and that, forty years after such taking, the applicant had still not received any compensation, the value of which, moreover, appeared not yet to have been determined. It awarded EUR 25,000 in non-pecuniary damage resulting from the said violations, but considered that compensation for the property was to be determined by the competent Board. 18.  Both the CoL and the applicant appealed. By a judgment of 11 November 2011, the Constitutional Court confirmed the first-instance judgment. It again rejected the Government’s objection as to non-exhaustion of ordinary remedies. As regards the merits, it noted that the dispute between the parties had started in 1974 and that thirty-seven years later the applicant was still awaiting compensation for the taking of the land. While it was true that under Maltese law there was no right of action based on the Convention rights before 1987 and the court therefore had no jurisdiction to decide on facts which occurred before that date, the court nevertheless had to have regard to the stage reached in the proceedings up to that date. It noted that there was a delay of thirteen years before and sixteen years after 1987, during which time compensation proceedings had not been initiated. This undoubtedly amounted to an unreasonable delay under Article 6 of the Convention. Moreover, there was no valid reason justifying the delay in paying compensation for the expropriation. This therefore also constituted a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as a result of which the applicant was entitled to compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Constitutional Court confirmed the amount awarded by the first-instance court but refused to issue any instructions to the LAB in relation to the method of calculation of the compensation, as requested by the applicant, noting that it was for the Board to make such an award and that the applicant could take the appropriate steps if he was not satisfied with the sum eventually awarded. 19.  The compensation awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damage was paid on 5 January 2012. 20.  On 12 January 2004 the public authorities instituted proceedings before the LAB to determine the compensation due. Those proceedings were still pending in February 2014, after more than forty hearings and adjournments, in part due to the applicant, the Board and the architects. Up to that time the technical members of the LAB had estimated the value of the land (utile dominium) in 1990 to be EUR 272,623.20. The applicant contested this estimate, which he considered was of no relevance in the context, since according to the law it was the 1992 value which had to be taken into consideration. According to the applicant, land values had increased further by 1992, and he would thus suffer a disadvantage if a land valuation from an earlier date were taken. Moreover, that value was not comparable to the price of other similar plots of land in the area sold at the time. On 26 November 2012, following acceptance of the applicant’s request, the applicant filed before the LAB a set of questions addressed to the architects. In January 2014 the architects in question had still not replied and the case continues to be adjourned for that reason. In October 2014 the case was still pending.