CASE OF ZAMMIT AND ATTARD CASSAR v. MALTA
Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano
5. The applicants were born in 1943 and 1957 and live in Zabbar and Birkirkara respectively. 6. The applicants own, in equal shares, a property built in the 1960s in Zabbar and which is known today as the Cressi-Sub Store. According to the applicants, the property is used as a storage facility for a nearby shop. At first, this was not contested by the Government, but at a later stage in the proceedings, they submitted that the property had been abandoned and was not in use. 7. The applicants inherited the property from their uncle on 7 October 2000. At the time, the property was already leased to E., a company registered in Malta, for 185 Maltese lira (MTL) (equivalent to 431 euros (EUR)) every six months, that is, EUR 862 a year on the basis of a voluntary lease agreement. Although there was no evidence of the parties’ ever having signed a lease agreement, it appears that the lease commenced in 1971. Rent is payable every six months in advance, and in accordance with the law the lease is renewed automatically every six months. 8. In such circumstances, the Reletting of Urban Property (Regulation) Ordinance (hereinafter “the Ordinance”), Chapter 69 of the Laws of Malta, (see Relevant domestic law below) provides that the eviction of a tenant or a change in the conditions of a lease requires the authorisation of the Rent Regulation Board (“the RRB”). 9. In 2002, the applicants undertook a valuation of the property with a view to making a request for an increase in the rent. The architect who carried out the valuation indicated that the current rental value of the property was EUR 7,000 a year. 10. In accordance with legal requirements (see Relevant domestic law below), on 22 April 2002, the applicants informed E. by means of a judicial letter that they intended to raise the rent to EUR 7,000 a year with effect from 1 July 2002. 11. By means of a judicial letter dated 17 May 2002, E. replied that it did not agree to the request. It failed, however, to apply to the RRB for the rejection of such an increase or for new conditions, as required by law (see Article 14 of the Ordinance). 12. As from the second term of 2002 the applicants stopped accepting rent for fear it would prejudice their claim. In consequence, company E. continued to pay the rent by means of a schedule of deposit filed with the domestic courts. 13. On 27 March 2003 the applicants brought an action before the Civil Court, requesting it to impose on E. an obligatory time-limit within which to make an application to the RRB. They considered that in default of such action by E., the increase in rent requested should be deemed to have been agreed. E. having eventually filed the said application (see below), the applicants’ action was dismissed. 14. On 31 May 2004 E. applied to the RRB, requesting it to dismiss the claim for the increase in rent. The applicants responded, arguing that the rent should reflect market values. 15. In a report dated September 2006 two court-appointed architects concluded that the rent of EUR 862 was already more than 40% over and above the rent level at which the premises were or could have been leased before 4 August 1914 (Article 4 (1) (b) of the Ordinance, see Relevant domestic law below). It followed that in the light of Article 4 (1) (b) of the Ordinance, the increase in rent could not be recommended. 16. By a note filed on 30 November 2006 the applicants submitted that an unfavourable decision would breach their rights under the Convention. 17. On 9 January 2008 the RRB dismissed the applicants’ request on the basis of the opinion of the two court-appointed architects. It noted that it had no jurisdiction to determine the human rights issue raised by the applicants, who had not made a request for a constitutional referral. 18. On 25 January 2008 the applicants appealed. They argued that the RRB’s decision had breached their rights under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. They requested the court to refer the matter to the constitutional jurisdictions. 19. By decree of 13 May 2008 the Court of Appeal referred the matter to the constitutional jurisdictions. Following the constitutional proceedings (described below) and the applicants’ lodging of an application with the Court, on 4 October 2013 the Court of Appeal adjourned the case sine die, pending the outcome of the present proceedings. 20. By a judgment of 7 July 2010 the Civil Court (First Hall), in its constitutional jurisdiction, upheld the applicants’ claim, holding that their rights under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention had been breached. Referring to the Court’s case-law, it considered that the applicants had not had an effective remedy, in so far as they had been constrained by the capping of rent levels set out in the law. In relation to their property rights, it upheld the finding of a violation, on the basis of the reasoning in the case of Amato Gauci v. Malta (no. 47045/06, § 63, 15 September 2009) – namely the low level of the rent, the applicants’ state of uncertainty as to the possibility of recovery of the property, the lack of procedural safeguards, and the rise in the standard of living in Malta over the past decades – coupled with the applicants’ argument that the interference had been disproportionate, as it had caused them to bear an excessive burden, given that the property was used for a commercial purpose. Indeed, the lessor could have used other property it had owned, but had preferred to sell that other property for EUR 350,000 and to continue to rent from the applicants at a low rate. 21. On appeal, by a judgment of 5 July 2011, the Constitutional Court reversed the first-instance judgment. It considered that although when the parties had concluded the contract they had been aware of the law as it stood (and had stood for a number of years), they had nevertheless opted to enter into that contract. Therefore, they and their legal successors could not now complain of a breach of their human rights. Indeed, the original lease agreement had neither stipulated a low level of rent nor envisaged future increases in rent. Given that the original owner had opted to lease the premises, knowing the legal consequences attached, the impact on their property rights had been neither unforeseen nor arbitrary; nor had there been a state of legal uncertainty. Moreover, recent amendments to the law had improved their position from 2010 onwards (Act X of 2009; see Article 1531D of the Civil Code below). 22. As mentioned above (see paragraph 12) as soon as they inherited the property, the applicants refused to accept the rent to avoid prejudicing their legal position. In consequence, it transpires from the documents provided to the Court that from 2002 to 2010 the tenants deposited in court by means of schedules of deposit the sum of EUR 431 every six months (EUR 862 annually). For the subsequent years those deposits amounted to EUR 496 and EUR 570 in 2011, and EUR 656 every six months until 2013. 23. In 1995 Article 46 of the Ordinance was amended to stipulate that the impugned restrictions would not apply to leases entered into after 1 June 1995. 24. While the above-mentioned constitutional proceedings were pending, a new law was enacted, stipulating that with effect from 1 January 2010 the rent applicable to commercial leases was to be increased by 15% per year, and that an increase at that level should also take place for the years 2011, 2012 and 2013 (Section 1531 D of the Civil Code). 25. Thus the amounts of rent payable to the applicants in those years were as follows: in 2010 EUR 990; in 2011 EUR 1,138; in 2012 EUR 1,309; and in 2013 EUR 1,505. For the years 2014 onwards the rent would increase by 5% a year.