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

Constitutional Court examines whether Malta's rent renewal ordinance (Cap. 69) violated the landlord's fundamental 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

This case concerns a ground-floor apartment in 'Rose Flats', Żabbar Road, Fgura, which was subject to a protected tenancy under Malta's Rent Renewal Ordinance (Cap. 69). The tenant, Emanuel Scicluna, had been occupying the property since 1972 under a statutory tenancy protected by law, paying a nominal rent that had risen only incrementally to €236.80 per year by the time of the proceedings. The property had been donated to Joseph Galea by his parents Anthony and Orade (Laura) Galea in September 2012. The landlords filed constitutional redress proceedings in August 2021, arguing that the continued operation of Cap. 69 and Act X of 2009 imposed an indefinite right of relocation on the tenant at a rent far below market value, thereby violating their fundamental right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions as protected under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The First Hall Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction) found in its July 2023 judgment that a violation had indeed occurred — but only in respect of Joseph Galea, the registered owner, and only for the period between 6 September 2012 and 1 June 2021 (prior to amendments introduced by Act XXIV of 2021). The court awarded compensation of €30,000 against the Avukat tal-Istat (Attorney General), but refused to order eviction of the tenant and found no violation in respect of the co-petitioners Anthony and Orade/Laura Galea. Both sides appealed: the Avukat tal-Istat challenged Joseph Galea's legal standing, the finding of a violation, and the quantum of compensation; while the Galea family filed an incidental appeal seeking higher compensation (up to €77,000), extension of the violation finding to all co-petitioners, and an eviction order against the Scicluna family. The Constitutional Court was called upon to determine the legal standing of Joseph Galea, the scope of the violation, the adequacy of compensation, and whether eviction could be ordered as a remedy.

The Constitutional Court upheld the Avukat tal-Istat's appeal, reducing compensation awarded to Joseph Galea from €30,000 to €3,080 for the period 6 September 2012 to 1 June 2021, payable by the Avukat tal-Istat. Eviction request remained rejected. Appeal costs split 80% against appellees and 20% against the Avukat tal-Istat.

• Under Maltese constitutional redress proceedings, only the person with a direct legal title (such as ownership) over a property has legal standing (interess ġuridiku) to claim a violation of property rights under Article 1 of Protocol 1 ECHR — co-petitioners who are donors without retained ownership may be excluded.
• Malta's Rent Renewal Ordinance (Cap. 69) has repeatedly been found to violate Article 1 of Protocol 1 ECHR where it imposes indefinite tenancy renewals at below-market rents without maintaining a fair balance between public interest and the individual property owner's rights.
• Compensation awarded in constitutional redress cases for rent control violations in Malta is calculated with reference to the difference between market rental value and actual rent received over the violation period — courts have awarded sums significantly below full market value, reflecting the margin of appreciation afforded to the State.
• Eviction of a protected tenant is not automatically ordered as a remedy even when a constitutional violation is found — Maltese courts have consistently held that compensation is the appropriate remedy, with legislative reform being the mechanism for structural change.
• Amendments to rent legislation (such as Act XXIV of 2021) can limit the temporal scope of a constitutional violation claim, as courts will only assess the period during which the unconstitutional provisions were in force.

Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (Cap. 319 First Schedule); Rent Ordinance Cap. 69 (Ordinanza li Tirregola t-Tiġdid tal-Kiri tal-Bini); Act X of 2009; Act XXIV of 2021; Article 242(1) Cap. 12 (Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure)