SECOND SECTION
CASE OF J&C PROPERTIES LIMITED v. MALTA
(Application no. 16680/21)
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
14 November 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of J&C Properties Limited v. Malta,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Jovan Ilievski, President,
 Lorraine Schembri Orland,
 Diana Sârcu, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 16680/21) 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 26 March 2021 by J&C Properties Limited, registered in Ħamrun, Malta (“the applicant company”) which was represented by Dr M. Camilleri and Dr E. Debono, lawyers practising in Valletta;
the decision to give notice of the application 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;
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 application concerns a unilaterally imposed lease under Act XXIII of 1979 amending Chapter 158 of the Laws of Malta (‘the Ordinance’) affecting the applicant company’s property at 18 St. Joseph High street, Ħamrun, as of June 2007. At that time the annual rent payable was 390 euros (EUR) which increased to EUR 450 in 2013 and to EUR 459 in 2016 and was to have further increases every three years according to the cost-of-living index. The applicant company lodged constitutional redress proceedings complaining that the application of Article 12 of the Ordinance was in breach of its property rights. It limited the time frame of the claim to the end of December 2017. 2. According to the court-appointed expert, the annual market rental value of the property in 2007 was EUR 4,590, that in 2012 EUR 6,300 and that in 2017 EUR 9,800, for a property whose sale value was estimated at EUR 320,000. The estimated market rent over the relevant period was thus around EUR 87,000. The applicant companies’ own expert estimated the values as being half those just mentioned. 3. By a judgment of 9 July 2019, the Civil Court (First Hall), in its constitutional competence, found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and awarded EUR 15,000 in compensation and held that the tenant could no longer rely on the impugned law to maintain title to the property. The court noted the huge discrepancy between the two experts reports and considered that the real value was more likely to be a mean between them. 4. On appeal by the State, by a judgment of 6 October 2020, the Constitutional Court confirmed the first-instance judgment. 5. Following proceedings before the Rent Regulation Board where the rent was increased, in line with the 2018 amendments to the Ordinance, the tenants left the property. 6. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention the applicant company complained that it was still a victim of the violation of its Convention rights given the low amount of compensation awarded.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation