SECOND SECTION
CASE OF GRIMA AND OTHERS v. MALTA
(Application no. 18057/20)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
14 November 2023
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Grima and Others v. Malta,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Frédéric Krenc, President,
 Diana Sârcu,
 Davor Derenčinović, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 18057/20) against the Republic of Malta lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 22 April 2020 by eight Maltese nationals, relevant details listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), who were represented by Dr M. Camilleri, a lawyer practising in Valletta;
the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention alone, and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention, in relation to the effects of Act XXIII of 1979, to the Maltese Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agents, Dr C. Soler, State Advocate, and Dr J. Vella, Advocate at the Office of the State Advocate, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 17 October 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The applicants (who are members of the Grima and Parnis England families) co-own the property at no. 35 Dingli street, Sliema. By means of Act XXIII of 1979 amending Chapter 158 of the Laws of Malta (hereinafter ‘the Ordinance’), the tenant maintained occupation of the property under title of lease according to Article 12 (7) of the Ordinance. In March 1979 the rent paid was approximately 466 euros (EUR) annually, which increased to EUR 685 in 1994, to EUR 741 in 2009, to EUR 803 in 2013 and to EUR 819 in 2016. 2. The predecessor in title of the applicants belonging to the Grima family acquired a half undivided share of the property in 1982, aware that it was occupied under title of temporary emphyteusis since 1960 for a period of seventeen years, renewable once. That share belonged to him and his wife (the applicant Georgina Grima), and his share was then inherited ab intestato by the three applicants of this family (namely Doreen, Georgina and Joseph Grima) in 2015, in different shares, so that today the applicant Georgina Grima owns three-eighths of the undivided share of the entire property and the siblings own jointly one-eighth of the undivided share of the entire property. The bare ownership of the other half undivided share is vested in the siblings of the Parnis England family (the applicants Nicholas, Robin and Stephen Parnis England and Johanna Petreski) as of 2004, as universal heirs of their father, while their mother, the applicant Margaret Parnis England, has the usufruct over the property as of her husband’s demise in 2004. 3. In 2019 the applicants lodged constitutional redress proceedings complaining that they had suffered a breach of their property rights and requesting compensation for the period from 1977 to 2017. According to a court‑appointed expert the annual market rental value in 1977 was EUR 1,398, in 1982 EUR 1,677, in 1987 EUR 2,516, in 1992 EUR 3,075, in 1997 EUR 4,193, in 2002 EUR 5,590, in 2007 EUR 6,150, in 2012 EUR 6,709, and in 2017 EUR 7,268. 4. By a judgment of 21 October 2019, the Civil Court (First Hall), in its constitutional competence, inter alia, found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and awarded EUR 20,000 in compensation. Despite domestic‑case law to the contrary (Ian Peter Ellis vs Maggur Cassar Reynaud, Constitutional Court judgment of 27 January 2017), in the court’s view the applicants’ ancestors had never complained about the situation and the applicants could not benefit financially of the passivity of their predecessor in title. It thus considered that compensation was due from the date when the applicants inherited the property, that is 2015 in the case of the Grima family and 2004 in the case of the Parnis England family. 5. The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention that they were still victims of the violation upheld by the domestic court as a result of the low amount of compensation awarded and the failure to evict the tenants.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 13
Outcome: violation