SECOND SECTION
CASE OF ZAMMIT AND BUSUTTIL v. MALTA
(Application no. 55102/20)
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
12 September 2023
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Zammit and Busuttil v. Malta,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Pauliine Koskelo, President,
 Lorraine Schembri Orland,
 Davor Derenčinović, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 55102/20) 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 11 December 2020 by two Maltese nationals, Mr Joseph Zammit and Ms Anna Busuttil, born in 1944 and 1956 respectively and both living in Paola (“the applicants”), who were represented by Dr M. Camilleri and Dr K. Micallef, lawyers practising in Valletta;
the decision to give notice of the complaints under 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 11 July 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns a unilaterally imposed lease under Act XXIII of 1979 amending Chapter 158 of the Laws of Malta (hereinafter ‘the Ordinance’) affecting the applicants’ property in Paola as of 17 December 2007. At that time the annual rent payable was EUR 291 and in 2013 it increased to EUR 335; it would increase every three years thereafter. 2. On 27 September 2019 the applicants lodged constitutional redress proceedings complaining that the application of Article 12 (2) of the Ordinance breached their property rights. They specified that their claims referred to the period until 31 December 2018, without prejudice to any further action they might undertake to challenge the 2018 amendments to the law introducing the new Article 12B. The property’s annual market rental value, according to the court-appointed expert, was EUR 2,100 for the years 2007-2012 and EUR 5,800 for the years 2013-2018. 3. By a judgment of 17 June 2020, the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as a result of the application of the law until 2018 and awarded EUR 15,000 in compensation. It noted that in their application the applicants had limited their claims to December 2018. It further considered that the applicants had a new remedy to pursue in the light of the 2018 amendments for the future. No costs were to be paid by the applicants. 4. None of the parties appealed. 5. In the meantime, on 3 July 2019 an agreement was reached by the parties whereby the tenants are paying EUR 2,400 annually, in the light of the 2018 amendments. The agreement will come to an end when the tenants die. 6. 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 remained victims of the violation upheld by the domestic court due to the low amount of compensation awarded.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 1
Outcome: violation