Attard et al. vs Mamo — Rent Control Violates Property Rights

Constitutional Court examines whether Malta's controlled rent law (Cap. 69) breaches owners' right to peaceful enjoyment of property under Protocol 1 ECHR.

Constitutional Court · Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, Hon. Judge Anthony Ellul, Hon. Judge Robert G. Mangion · 4 May 2026

A group of twelve co-owners of two interconnected warehouses in Triq il-Kanun, Qormi — trading under the name 'Mamo Pyrotechnics' and situated beneath St. Andrews Flats — brought constitutional redress proceedings claiming that Malta's rent renewal law (Cap. 69) unlawfully forced them to continue renting their commercial premises to the Mamo family at a heavily controlled annual rent of just €3,622, far below open-market value. The owners argued that the legislation, which grants sitting tenants the right of relocation and caps rent increases, violated Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights — the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. They sought a declaration of violation, compensation, and an order for the tenants' eviction or at least a declaration that the tenants could no longer rely on the protective legislation. The First Hall of the Civil Court, sitting in its constitutional jurisdiction, delivered judgment on 17 October 2024. It upheld the claim of a violation of Article 1 of the First Protocol and awarded the owners a global sum of €170,000 in damages, to be paid by the Attorney General (Avukat tal-Istat). However, it rejected the requests for eviction and for a declaration that the tenants could no longer rely on Cap. 69, reasoning that eviction was a matter for ordinary courts and that the commercial premises would revert to the owners within a few years under recent legislative amendments. Both the plaintiff owners and the defendant tenants appealed. The owners sought a higher compensation award and reinstatement of the eviction request. The Mamo tenants filed an incidental appeal challenging whether the owners had adequately proved title to the property and whether there was any market rental value at all, given that the expert surveyor's report indicated the premises may have been built without a permit. The Constitutional Court first addressed and dismissed the owners' nullity objection to the incidental appeal, confirming that the Mamo tenants retained a legal interest since the owners' own appeal contested the part of the judgment affecting them.

The Constitutional Court rejected the applicants' appeal in full, upheld the lower court decision dismissing their claims for compensation and eviction, and varied the costs order so that the first instance costs are borne by the applicants rather than the State.

• Malta's rent control legislation (Cap. 69) can constitute a violation of Article 1 of the First Protocol ECHR where it imposes a disproportionate burden on property owners by requiring them to lease at rents substantially below open-market value without adequate compensation.
• In constitutional redress proceedings, plaintiffs need only establish prima facie proof of title to the property — the 'probatio diabolica' standard required in a rei vindicatoria action does not apply.
• Maltese constitutional courts have consistently held that the Attorney General (Avukat tal-Istat), as representative of the State, bears responsibility for paying compensation when legislation is found to violate fundamental rights — not the sitting tenant who simply benefited from the law.
• An incidental appeal under Article 240 of the Code of Organization and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12) is admissible even where the respondent was released from the judgment's binding effect, provided the opposing party's own appeal contests aspects of the judgment that still affect the respondent's interests.
• Maltese courts have repeatedly held that eviction of a protected commercial tenant is a matter for ordinary courts or tribunals (e.g. the Rent Regulation Board), not for the constitutional jurisdiction — even where a rights violation is established.

Article 1 of the First Protocol, European Convention on Human Rights (First Schedule, Cap. 319); Reletting of Urban Property (Regulation) Ordinance Cap. 69; Civil Code Cap. 16 Arts. 1531D and 1531L; Code of Organization and Civil Procedure Cap. 12 Art. 240