5.  The applicants were both born in 1968 and live in Marsalforn and Naxxar, respectively. 6.  The applicants are owners (each own a half undivided share) of the property at number 85, St. Francis Square, Alley No. 3, Qormi, Malta. 7.  On 18 November 1986 the applicants granted the property on emphyteusis for twenty‑one years to Mr and Ms E. at a rent of approximately 230 euros (EUR). 8.  On 31 December 1992, the property was requisitioned by the Director of Social Housing by virtue of requisition order no. RO53704 (hereinafter referred to as “the requisition order”). No reason for the requisition was set out in the order. The property was allocated to Mr and Ms A. At the request of the Housing Authority, on 26 March 1997, the emphyteutical grant in favour of Mr and Ms E. was transferred to Mr and Ms A. 9.  The contract of emphyteusis expired in 2007. However, given Article 12A, of the Housing (Decontrol) Ordinance, Chapter 158 of the Laws of Malta (see Relevant domestic law), which provided for the automatic conversion of the emphyteusis into a lease, Mr and Ms A. continued to occupy the property by title of lease. 10.  Mr and Ms A. paid the applicants EUR 279.52 annually by way of rent pursuant to the rent control legislation. However, the applicants did not accept this rental amount on the ground that it was insignificant when compared to the rental value which the property would have fetched on the open market. Due to this refusal the rent was to be deposited with the court registry. The rental amount was never revised in the subsequent years, the 2010 amendments (see Relevant domestic law) not being applicable as the rent exceeded the EUR 185 stipulated by law. 11.  On 9 March 2009 the applicants filed proceedings before the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence. The applicants claimed that their rights, as protected under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, were being violated because they had not received adequate compensation for the forced occupation of their property and because the authorities had failed to properly look after the property after taking possession of it. 12.  On 26 March 2013 the court decided in favour of the applicants. The court found a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. It confirmed that the applicants were the legitimate owners of the property, it declared the requisition order null and void, and ordered the release of the premises with vacant possession in favour of the applicants, as well as the eviction of Mr and Ms A. from the property within one month. It awarded EUR 50,000 in compensation (kumpens dovut) to the applicants to be paid by the Housing Authority. The costs of the proceedings were to be paid by the Housing Authority and Mr and Mrs A. 13.  The court held that keeping the requisition order in place was unjustifiable since Mr and Ms A. had left the property in an abandoned state and left it to deteriorate without carrying out any acts of ordinary maintenance. Thus, the very scope of requisitioning a property for the purpose of “supplying housing accommodation” was not met in the present case given that Mr and Ms A. had abandoned the property. Furthermore, a disproportionate and excessive burden was being imposed on the applicants, since they had been required to bear most of the social and financial costs of supplying housing accommodation. A balance had not been struck between the interests of the applicants (as owners of the property) and the interests of the public especially since the property lay abandoned. 14.  The court‑appointed architect estimated that it would require 25,000 Maltese liri (MTL) (equivalent to EUR 58,234) to make the property habitable again and he estimated the property’s sale value on the market (in 2010) to be EUR 139,800 and its rental value (for the same year) to be EUR 4,893 annually. Against that background, the court considered that the discrepancy between that amount and the rental sum offered by Mr and Ms A. rendered the situation devoid of any proportionality as required under the Convention. 15.  Mr and Ms A. did not file an appeal but the Attorney General and the Housing Authority both appealed against the decision of the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence. The applicants made submissions in reply to the appeal lodged by the defendants, and asked the Constitutional Court to confirm the first‑instance judgment. 16.  On 18 July 2014 the Constitutional Court upheld the first‑instance judgment in part. It confirmed that the requisition order constituted an interference with the applicants’ property and amounted to a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. However, the Constitutional Court revoked the first‑intance court’s order to evict Mr and Ms A. from the premises, and revoked the annulment of the requisition order. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court reduced the compensation due as non‑pecuniary damages from EUR 50,000 to EUR 12,000. One‑fifth of the costs of the appeal were to be borne by the applicants. 17.  The Constitutional Court confirmed that the applicants had proved ownership of the property and noted that as a result of the requisition order the applicants’ father lost possession of the property and had no means of regaining possession as long as the requisition order remained in force. It further noted that the court‑appointed architect had described the property as having been neglected for a long time and left without ordinary maintenance; it was (at the time of the judgment) uninhabitable. It followed that the first‑instance court’s conclusion, to the effect that the property was not being lived in, was correct. The deterioration of the property also caused damage to the owners as substantial costs would have to be incurred in order to carry out repairs. 18.  In the light of these circumstances, the Constitutional Court considered that the requisition order was putting a disproportionate and excessive burden on the applicants, who, moreover, were precluded from taking judicial action before the ordinary courts against Mr and Ms A., with the aim of protecting their interests. This was even more so given that the Housing Authority did nothing, and did not appear to have the will to do anything, to remedy the damage done to the property. Indeed it appeared that the requisition order was kept in place because the Housing Authority wanted to exclude the possibility of Mr and Ms A. being evicted from the property. Nevertheless the court considered that Mr and Ms A., could still be protected through the lease agreement. 19.  As to redress, the Constitutional Court observed that the first‑instance court had awarded compensation in the light of the court‑appointed architect’s valuations of the property and the expenses required to rehabilitate the property. However, it considered that while the applicants deserved compensation for the violation of their rights, namely non‑pecuniary damages, the quantum established by the court of first‑instance was excessive. In its view, constitutional redress proceedings should not serve as a replacement to ordinary remedies available to the applicants. Once the requisition order was annulled (by means of a judicial review procedure), the applicants had other remedies to deal with both the eviction of Mr and Ms A. and the award of material damages before the ordinary courts. The Constitutional Court also observed that the applicants took a long time before taking action to protect their fundamental rights, namely, in 2009, around seventeen years after the violation of their rights first occurred. Therefore, as a result of this delay the Constitutional Court considered that the amount of EUR 12,000 was just and equitable as compensation for non‑pecuniary damage. In relation to practical measures, the Constitutional Court considered that since the applicants still had a remedy under Article 469A, by means of which they could attack the requisition order before the ordinary courts, it was not for it to annul the requisition order. 20.  On 5 August 2014 the Housing Authority derequisitioned the property of the applicants. However, up to the date of the lodging of the application, the property still had not been returned to the applicants. No keys were returned to them and they had no means of taking possession of the property unilaterally. 21.  On 31 October 2014, the applicants wrote to the Housing Authority requesting that a declaration be made on whether the premises were vacant and requesting the Housing Authority to prepare a condition report detailing the state of the premises at the end of the requisition period. According to the applicants, the Housing Authority failed to reply. 22.  During the observations stage of proceedings before the Court the parties submitted an update of the situation. On 31 August 2015 the Housing Authority wrote to the applicants informing them that they could collect the keys of the property. The applicants refused to withdraw the keys in the absence of the drawing up of a condition report in the presence of the authorities since ‑ as had already transpired in the domestic proceedings ‑ the property had suffered huge damage while subject to the requisition order. The applicants thus wanted a condition report to be drawn up, in the presence of the authority, to enable them to obtain compensation for the damage incurred which was the responsibility of the State in line with Article 5 of the Housing Act (see Relevant domestic law below). The authorities refused to co-operate and informed the applicants that if they wished they could draw up a report at their own expense. In the Government’s view if the applicants wished to obtain compensation for damage it was for them to lodge the relevant domestic proceedings. The applicants having failed to withdraw the keys, on 7 September 2016 the Housing Authority deposited the keys in court.