4.  Details concerning the applicants can be found in the appendix. 5.  The applicants are part-owners of the property named “Assunta” in Nazzarenu Street, Paola, Malta, which is a twentieth century corner town house with three floors and a total area of approximately 135 square metres. The first applicant owns one seventh undivided share thereof. The second and third applicants each own one of twenty‑eight undivided shares thereof and the fourth applicant owns one of twenty‑one undivided shares thereof. 6.  The applicants’ ancestor, L.M., as owner of the property, had granted it on temporary emphyteusis to J.S. on 31 March 1962 for a period of seventeen years at a yearly ground rent of 45 Maltese liras (MTL), approximately 105 euro (EUR). In 1971 a certain C.C. had obtained the sub‑utile dominium (by way of sub-emphyteusis) of the property from J.S. 7.  In March 1979 when the temporary emphyteusis came to an end C.C. continued to live in the property as a result of Chapter 158 of the Laws of Malta which provided for the conversion of temporary emphyteusis contracts into lease contracts. The rent under the new lease regime was MTL 86.54, approximately EUR 200 annually. 8.  On 9 April 1986 the property was requisitioned by the State and C.C. was given other accommodation. He handed in the keys to the Housing Department on 29 September 1986. 9.  On 30 October 1986 the Housing Department allocated the property to D.L. for residential use, at the annual rent of MTL 86. To the applicants’ knowledge, at the time when the property was allocated to D.L., there was no pressing social need for such an allocation. D.L. and her husband (thereinafter “the occupants”) had come to Malta from the United Kingdom three months before, and had been living in a house in Senglea. The husband had a job and the house they were previously residing in was not in danger of being requisitioned, nor had it been granted to them on account of old age. The Government noted that the applicants had not submitted any proof in this respect. The applicants also noted that the Government, in whose possession all the relevant documentation was, had failed to submit any evidence concerning D.L.’s need for the premises in question. Nevertheless, from the order itself it transpired that this was a normal case, and not one founded on homelessness, old age, or a risk of danger. 10.  The owners refused the rent and did not recognise the occupants as tenants. 11.  The occupants thus started paying rent directly to the Housing Department. 12.  Eventually the owners became aware that the occupants were also occupying a portion of an adjacent property (a room previously used as an office), also owned by the applicants in the above‑mentioned shares, and which was not covered by the requisition order. 13.  The owners informed the authorities of this but no action was taken. 14.  On an unspecified date, following the death of D.L. (in whose name the requisition order had been issued) the owners asked for the property to be returned to them. They offered the occupants a smaller property in the vicinity as part of a settlement proposal. The deal did not go through. 15.  In 2001 D.L.’s husband also died and on 30 January 2002 their son L.L. requested to be recognised as tenant of the requisitioned premises. On 16 September 2003 the authorities recognised L.L. as tenant despite the owners’ objections of 27 March 2002. 16.  Rent continued to be paid on the terms mentioned above. 17.  The owners complained to the ombudsman who, on 29 October 2003, considered that the authorities had not given sufficient attention to the owners’ complaints. 18.  On an unspecified date, L.L. applied for a grant to make alterations to the premises, including to the commercial room the occupants had been occupying without legal title. 19.  When the owners became aware that this application had been lodged, they filed, on 21 February 2007, an objection to the proposed development. 20.  The relevant permit to make structural alterations was issued by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA) on 16 April 2007. In the applicants’ view these structural changes affected the character of the property as well as its value. 21.  On 28 May 2007 the owners (including the applicants or their predecessors in title) instituted constitutional redress proceedings. They complained of a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and requested that the requisition order be annulled, that the property be returned to them and that compensation be awarded for any damage suffered as a result of the occupation of the premises and the breach of their right to property. 22.  Pending proceedings, on 11 February 2010, the property was derequisitioned; however the Government admitted that although the property had been abandoned by the occupants the Government had not recovered the keys. On 8 April 2010 the Government offered the owners EUR 4,507.30 as rent for the occupation of the premises from 9 April 1986 until 11 February 2010. The owners refused the offer which they considered was too low compared to the rental value of the property and the long number of years during which it had been occupied by third parties. 23.  On 28 April 2011 the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence found in favour of the owners. It found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and, being unable to annul the requisition order ‑ it having come to an end pending the proceedings ‑ it ordered the defendants to return the property, free and unencumbered, to the owners. It also awarded EUR 7,535 in compensation, with costs against the Government. 24.  The court considered that while the requisition order had been lawful and pursued a legitimate aim, it had failed to strike a fair balance for the purposes of the invoked provision. The owners had received a low amount of rent for twenty-four years which had remained unvaried. In establishing compensation, the court had regard to the rental value submitted by the owners’ expert [in a report of 2007] of MTL 250 (approximately EUR 582) a month, in other words MTL 3,000 (approximately EUR 6,988) yearly, which however included a room which was not subject to the requisition order and thus its rental value had to be deducted. This estimate was however not binding on the court. It noted that had the property not been requisitioned, according to Chapter 158 of the laws of Malta, rent would have increased every fifteen years according to the index of inflation (but never amounting to double the original rent). Thus, the owners would have been due a yearly rent of MTL 86.45 (from 9 April 1986) until 31 March 1994, of MTL 141.09 (approximately EUR 329) until March 2009, and thereafter a rent of MTL 207.39 (approximately EUR 483) until date of judgment, amounting to a rounded up sum of EUR 7,535. 25.  The Government appealed in so far as they had been forced to return the premises (over which they no longer had control) and the owners cross‑appealed in connection with the award of compensation. The latter noted that although L.L. had vacated the premises and offered to return the keys, the Government had failed to recover the keys. 26.  By a judgment of 28 April 2014 the Constitutional Court considered that the first‑instance court could not have ordered the return of the property which had already been de-requisitioned. As to the compensation it found that the amount awarded by the first-instance court had been low. Indeed the award of EUR 7,535 reflected the sums that the owners would have been entitled to as rent for the premises according to the provisions of Chapter 158 of the Laws of Malta, and thus it was not an award in compensation for the violation of their property rights, nor did it reflect an award for the occupation of the premises at undervalued rents. Bearing in mind the social aim pursued by the measure and the fact that the rent paid had been in accordance with the law, as well as the fact that the measure persisted for twenty-four years during which the owners received a low rent compared to its market value, it awarded non-pecuniary damage of EUR 5,000 to be added to the pecuniary damage already awarded. Thus, in total it awarded compensation of EUR 12,535 covering both pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage, without prejudice to any claims the owners may have for material damage caused to the property, and it ordered that the costs of the proceedings at both instances be split equally between the contending parties. 27.  Pending these proceedings, on 21 October 2013, L.M., predecessor of the second and third applicant, died. 28.  Eventually, in or around August 2014, the keys were also returned to the owners, and the property was returned to them in a poor state. The applicants claimed that the property was not habitable and the works started by L.L. were never completed. They considered that the Government’s lack of regard towards the situation had contributed to the degeneration of the property and that a considerable expense would have to be incurred and relevant permits obtained to reinstate the building for habitation. 29.  According to an architect’s valuation dated 19 August 2014, the property was abandoned halfway through a refurbishment project, leaving it in an uninhabitable and unfinished state, with visible damage, most pertinently as a result of severe water penetration. According to the same report the sale market value of the property with vacant possession, as it stood, was EUR 145,000 and the market value upon completion of works would be EUR 175,000. The estimated rental value of the property (in an unspecified state) in 2014 was EUR 665 a month (EUR 7,980 a year). On the basis of a process of interpolation, rental values for previous years were calculated to be as follows:
 
Year
Monthly rent (in EUR)
Annual rent (in EUR)
1971