Galea vs Avukat tal-Istat — Forced Rent Control Violates Property Rights

The Constitutional Court upheld a ruling that Malta's protected tenancy laws violated a landlord's fundamental right to peaceful enjoyment of property under Protocol 1, Article 1 of the ECHR.

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

Bridget Galea is the sole owner of a commercial shop at 193 Brared Street, Birkirkara, which she inherited from her father Carmelo Spiteri who died in 2007. The property had been rented to Anthony Calleja before 1985 at an annual rent of Lm200 (€465.87), a figure that was automatically renewed each year under Chapter 69 of the Laws of Malta — the Ordinance Regulating the Renewal of Leases of Buildings — and subsequently adjusted under Act X of 2009. By the time of the case, the rent had risen only marginally to €1,334.24 per year, far below the property's open-market rental value. In August 2023, Galea filed a constitutional application before the First Hall of the Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction), arguing that the operation of Chapter 69 and Act X of 2009 forced her to renew the lease indefinitely against her will, at artificially low rents that bore no relation to market value. She contended that this regime violated her fundamental right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions as guaranteed by Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into Maltese law by Chapter 319. The First Hall, in its judgment of 8 November 2024, agreed with Galea. It found that the forced tenancy constituted a violation of her fundamental rights, but only up to May 2021, when the enactment of Act XXIV of 2021 effectively remedied the ongoing violation. The court awarded her €22,144.60 in pecuniary damages and €6,000 in non-pecuniary damages, plus legal interest from the date of judgment and costs, all to be paid by the Avukat tal-Istat (Attorney General). The Avukat tal-Istat appealed to the Constitutional Court, seeking the full reversal of that judgment. The Constitutional Court, sitting on 4 May 2026 before Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti and Judges Anthony Ellul and Robert G. Mangion, was called upon to determine whether the First Hall had correctly applied the ECHR proportionality test and whether the damage award was justified. The appeal was dismissed, confirming that the Maltese rent control regime, as applied to this commercial property, failed to strike the fair balance required between the general interest and the individual rights of the landlord.

Appeal by the Avukat tal-Istat dismissed. The First Hall's judgment of 8 November 2024 was confirmed. Bridget Galea awarded: €22,144.60 in pecuniary damages; €6,000 in non-pecuniary damages; legal interest from the date of the first-instance judgment until effective payment; costs of the proceedings. Violation of Article 1 of the First Protocol of the ECHR found to have subsisted until May 2021. No order for eviction or termination of tenancy issued, as Act XXIV of 2021 had already addressed the prospective violation.

• Under Article 1 of the First Protocol of the ECHR (incorporated in Malta via Chapter 319), the State must maintain a fair balance between the general interest and an individual property owner's rights — excessively low forced rents can constitute a human rights violation.
• Malta's Chapter 69 (Ordinance Regulating the Renewal of Leases) created automatic annual renewals of pre-1995 commercial leases that could not be terminated by the landlord, and courts have repeatedly found this regime capable of violating fundamental property rights.
• Act XXIV of 2021 introduced reforms that the Constitutional Court recognised as ending the ongoing violation from May 2021 onward; landlords whose violations pre-date that Act may still claim damages for the period before reform.
• The Avukat tal-Istat (Attorney General) is the correct respondent in constitutional proceedings where the alleged violation stems from legislative provisions — the tenant (Anthony Calleja) was joined only for procedural integrity, not as the liable party.
• The argument that a landlord or their predecessor freely entered into the protected tenancy is not a complete defence; once the State's legislative intervention removes the owner's control over renewal and rent, this can constitute an unjustified interference regardless of the original contractual choice.

Article 1 of the First Protocol of the ECHR (Chapter 319, First Schedule, Laws of Malta); Chapter 69, Laws of Malta (Ordinance Regulating the Renewal of Leases of Buildings); Act X of 2009; Act XXIV of 2021; Article 1531D and 1531I of Chapter 16 (Civil Code), Laws of Malta