5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Msida, Malta. 6.  The applicant is the owner of a maisonette in Sliema, Malta. He inherited one undivided half-share of the premises from his father, who died in 1995 and the other undivided half-share from his mother, who died in 1997. 7.  On 21 November 1975 the applicant’s father had entered into a temporary emphyteusis contract (a contract granting a tenement [house, flat or other type of real property] for a stated yearly rent or ground rent to be paid in money or in kind) with Mr P. The parties had agreed that Mr P. was to pay a yearly amount of 90 Maltese liras (MTL – approximately 210 euros (EUR)) and was to return the premises with vacant possession to the owner after twenty-five years. They further agreed that in respect of maintenance, the grantor was responsible only for “extraordinary expenses in connection with the roofs and ceiling ... unless caused by the negligence of the acquirer”. 8.  In accordance with the Civil Code, the premises reverted ipso iure to the applicant on 20 November 2000. 9.  In 1979 under Act XXIII (see paragraph 24 below) amending Chapter 158 of the Laws of Malta, Mr and Mrs P., as holders of the utile dominium at the time and as Maltese citizens occupying the premises as their ordinary residence, were granted the right to retain possession of the premises under a lease, without the consent of the owner. The law did not apply to temporary emphyteusis contracts entered into after 1 June 1995. 10.  By a letter of 6 April 2000, the year in which the temporary emphyteusis contract lapsed, the applicant informed Mr and Mrs P. that he would not renew the contract of emphyteusis and that they should vacate the premises. 11.  By a letter dated 13 April 2000, Mr and Mrs P. informed the applicant that they were not seeking renewal of the contract but that they were availing themselves of the right granted to them under Act XXIII of 1979 whereby they could retain the property under a lease. 12.  After 20 November 2000, Mr and Mrs P. remained in possession of the premises under a lease, bringing about a completely new legal relationship between them and the applicant. As a result the applicant claimed that he had been unilaterally deprived of his property without being able to have recourse to a court for a determination as to whether it was necessary for Mr and Mrs P. to retain the property or to establish just and fair lease conditions. The applicant also submitted that Mr and Mrs P. also owned other property, whilst he could not make use of his property for the benefit of his daughter, who was getting married. 13.  On 26 September 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Rent Regulation Board (the “RRB”) in order to have a fair amount of rent fixed. On 17 January 2002 these proceedings were adjourned sine die in view of the constitutional proceedings instituted by the applicant, and they have not been resumed since. According to the applicant the proceedings were awaiting the outcome of the constitutional proceedings and would be resumed according to law, as stated in the minutes of the last hearing before the Board. According to the Government, the applicant abandoned these proceedings, which were then declared to have been vacated on 28 July 2004. The maximum compensation the applicant could be offered by the RRB in accordance with the law (see paragraph 21 below) was MTL 180 (approximately EUR 420) per year. 14.  According to an architect’s report dated March 2002, the market value of the vacant premises amounted to MTL 39,000 (approximately EUR 90,700), while the rental value was MTL 120 (approximately EUR 280) per month. 15.  On an unspecified date the applicant instituted constitutional redress proceedings before the Civil Court (First Hall). He complained that the lease imposed on him, as owner of the premises, which had been granted in emphyteusis at the time of the introduction of the new law, subject to inadequate compensation, infringed his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and was discriminatory and contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, since other premises, particularly those rented after 1995, were not subject to the same conditions. 16.  By a judgment of 16 November 2004 the Civil Court rejected the applicant’s claims. It held that the case was not one of deprivation of property but rather of control of use. Although it had been claimed that the rent received by the applicant was minimal, the legislator had put in place provisions to deal with this; in particular, the rent could be adjusted every fifteen years in line with the inflation index, subject to capping at double the original amount. Consequently, there had been no breach of the applicant’s property rights. In respect of Article 14, it noted that the applicant had not invoked any basis for the discrimination and that the applicant and persons who rented out premises after 1995 were not persons in a similar situation and that consequently, no discrimination could have arisen. 17.  On 26 November 2004 the applicant appealed. 18.  By a judgment of 26 May 2006 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s claims. It held that the law at issue restricted the use of property; thus, the interference suffered by the applicant constituted control of the use of property, which had been legitimate and in the general interest, falling within the State’s wide margin of appreciation. In view of the housing situation in Malta, the new law was meant to protect persons occupying premises as their ordinary residence for a certain period of time from being evicted. The law also allowed for the rent to be reviewed as mentioned by the first-instance court. The Constitutional Court found that the sum of MTL 180 (approximately EUR 420) per year was certainly low and that it would be preferable for the executive to revise the laws determining such compensation, a task which fell outside the competence of the courts. However, the sum was higher than that payable under other rent laws in force in the country. Hence, having considered all the circumstances, it held that, although the amount of rent was close to the demarcation line below which it would qualify as unjust compensation, it did not result in a violation of the applicant’s property rights. In respect of Article 14, the Constitutional Court upheld the first-instance judgment, ruling that no comparison could be made in the absence of an analogous situation.