4.  The applicant was born in 1919 and lives in London. 5.  The applicant claimed to be the owner of four tenements in Malta. Before the Court he produced a statement made on 19 July 2006 by a notary public, which reads as follows:
“I the undersigned Dr. Paul Pullicino, Notary Public, do hereby certify that in virtue of a secret will made on the 4th day of October, 1966, by Charles Edwards, and published by me on the 9th November, 1996, Major Joseph John Edwards [the applicant] was nominated and appointed by his father, the late Mr Charles Edwards as his sole universal heir and Testamentary Executor of his estate to whom he bequeathed 21/25ths undivided parts of tenements situated at numbers 96 to 100 Tonna Street, Sliema, - of which 2/25ths had been inherited by his wife from her late brother Sir Augustus Bartolo and the further 16/25ths purchased by him from her brother's family in the mid 1950's – all of which were owned in common with the remaining 4/25ths undivided and equal parts owned by four further members of the Bartolo family residing somewhere in South America, the administration of which had been passed on to him by their eldest brother Captain Albert Borg Falzon who had been their family administrator until he emigrated from Malta on the 4th June, 1956.” 6.  In March 1941 the four tenements were requisitioned for the purpose of providing housing for homeless people. The requisition order was served on the applicant's ancestor, Mr Charles Edwards. Further correspondence about the premises was addressed to Mr Charles Edwards, as trustee of the estate of the late Sir Augustus Bartolo. 7.  On 2 June 1949 a judicial letter was sent to Mr Charles Edwards “as owner” of the premises, demanding recognition of the tenants. He replied that he was only the trustee of the estate and could not therefore recognise the tenants. This position was confirmed in a court application of 14 July 1949. 8. The top floor of one of the tenements was allocated to Mr P. and his family, while family S. had been allotted the ground floor. The requisition of this tenement, composed of two floors, was contested on the ground that the ground floor provided the only access to a field, which belonged to the same owner and which had not been requisitioned. After these tenants had been recognised, on 16 December 1949 the premises were derequisitioned. 9. The premises were again requisitioned on 18 July 1957 from Mr Charles Edwards. They were derequisitioned on 5 March 1963. 10.  On 10 September 1975 a fresh requisition order concerning the same tenement was issued to Mr. Charles Edwards. The authorities instructed that family P. be allotted both floors. The housekeeper, who was in correspondence about the matter with the applicant (Mr Joseph John Edwards), handed over all the keys of the tenement. 11.  On 14 November 1975 the applicant wrote to the Housing Department asking for reconsideration of the order of 10 September 1975. He reiterated the argument concerning access to the field. The Department acknowledged receipt of this letter but did not reply to it. On an unspecified date in 1976, an amended requisition order, including the field adjacent to the applicant's tenement, was issued. 12.  The applicant alleged that he had sought the assistance of the Minister of Housing and of the Attorney General in order to restore the situation and that on further meetings with the authorities he had been made to believe that the situation would be remedied. However, this had not been the case and he did not obtain any satisfaction. 13.  On 28 March 1996 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Civil Court (First Hall) against the Director of Social Accommodation. He alleged that the requisition order of 10 September 1975 had been issued as a result of an abuse of power and was therefore null and void. He also claimed an infringement of his right to the enjoyment of his property as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 by reason that the requisition order had not been made in accordance with the public interest and that he had not received adequate and appropriate compensation. 14.  In a judgment of 3 October 2003, the Civil Court dismissed the applicant's claim. It declared that the tenement should be considered 'quid unum' and therefore as a single entity, including the field. It also found that the applicant's submission that the requisition order had been made in excess of power was unsubstantiated. 15.  The Civil Court held that the existence of a public interest should be assessed in the light of the particular features of each individual case. In the applicant's case, the requisition was aimed at ensuring a fair distribution of homes. The benefit enjoyed by the son of Mr P. and his family, who were still using the tenement as a place of habitation, was far superior to that of the applicant. In fact, the latter made sporadic use of the garden or field, which, according to certain witnesses, was used as a rubbish dump. 16.  The Civil Court furthermore observed that the applicant had brought his complaints twenty years after the issuing of the requisition order and that during this period he had apparently accepted the rent that he was being paid. This rent had been established by the Land Valuation Officer and had the applicant wanted to review the amount of the rent he could have applied to the Rent Regulation Board. 17.  The Civil Court found that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 since the requisition order had been issued in 1975. According to Article 4 of Chapter 319 of the Laws of Malta, the Convention could not be applied retroactively and thus only breaches which occurred after 30 April 1987 fell within the jurisdiction of the domestic courts. 18.  The applicant appealed to the Constitutional Court. 19.  He observed that had the tenement been a single entity, this should have been the case from the original requisition order made in 1941. However, the field only became accessory to the tenement according to the 1975 requisition order. The applicant moreover claimed that the tenant was making use of the land to further his gardening hobby, which could not be considered an essential part of his accommodation needs. The applicant recalled that he had been deprived of his property for almost thirty years and complained about the amount of rent (28 Maltese Liras (MTL) per year – approximately 67 euros (EUR)), which he considered to be ridiculous in comparison with the market value of the property. 20.  In a judgment of 25 February 2005, the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's appeal. 21.  It held that the applicant's tenement should be considered one whole property, especially since the only access to the field was through the ground floor. Furthermore, the applicant had never made any serious attempt to question this and had kept unreservedly receiving the rent due. In any case, if he had not been satisfied with the amount of the rent, the applicant should have applied to the Rent Regulation Board, thus using the ordinary remedy available in such circumstances. 22.  The Constitutional Court found that the applicant's claim regarding a violation of his right to the enjoyment of property was inadmissible ratione temporis as the requisition order had been issued and executed before 1987. However, since the complaint concerning the absence of adequate compensation referred to a continuing situation, the Constitutional Court went on to consider its merits. 23.  It recalled that the applicant had always accepted rent from the tenants, which meant that there was a regular lease between the two. The Constitutional Court held that the Government enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in assessing what was in the public interest and which measures were proportionate to the aims sought to be achieved. It quoted van Dijk's and van Hoof's book Theory and Practice of the European Convention stating that social and economic policy in the field of housing constituted an aim in the general interest. 24.  Finally, the requisition and the amount of rent were in accordance with the Strasbourg case-law. The Constitutional Court referred, on these points, to the cases of Pine Valley Developments and Others v. Ireland (judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222), Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden (judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52), The Holy Monasteries v. Greece (judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-A) and James and Others v. United Kingdom (judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98).