Requisition of prpperty. Low-rent violates the right to property
JUDGMENT
Montanaro Gauci and others v. Malta 10/10/2017 (no. 31454/12)
SUMMARY
Requisition of property and grant of low-value use compensation. Infringement of the right to property.
PROVISION
Article 1 of the Firts Additional Protocol
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The case concerned the requisitioning of property by the State.
The applicants are six members of the same family who are Maltese nationals and live in Sliema, St. Julian’s and Gozo (Malta). They inherited a house in Rabat (Malta) from their late father in 1997 which had been requisitioned in 1987. The rent fixed by the authorities amounted to approximately EUR 35 annually. This amount was increased to approximately EUR 185 in 2010.
In September 2008 the applicants brought constitutional redress proceedings, requesting that the courts: award them compensation for losses incurred as a result of inadequate rent and their inability to develop their property; annul the requisition order; release the property; and establish fair conditions in respect of their property, including a fair rent. Ultimately, in November 2011 the Constitutional Court awarded the applicants EUR 14,000, but found that the requisition had been lawful and in the public interest, thus it was not required to annul the requisition order.
Relying in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complained about the requisitioning of their property. They notably alleged that the compensation awarded to them was ridiculously low and did not provide sufficient redress and that, in any case, their property continued to be requisitioned for a rent much lower than its market value.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
In its principal judgment of 30 August 2016 the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Today’s judgment concerned the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention insofar as pecuniary damage was concerned.
Just satisfaction: EUR 30,000 to the applicants jointly in respect of pecuniary damage(echrcaselaw.com editing).
