Pullicino vs Camilleri — Emphyteusis Renewal and Constitutional Property Rights

Whether repeated voluntary renewal of a temporary sub-emphyteusis triggers rent protection laws and constitutes a fundamental rights violation against the landlord.

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

The Pullicino family owned a residential property at 14, Triq iċ-Ċimiterju, Paola, which had been granted on a temporary sub-emphyteusis to the Camilleri family through a series of concessions dating back to 1964. The final concession expired in July 2023, just one month before the Pullicinos filed their constitutional case. The property had passed through multiple hands and concessions: first to Antonio Meli in 1964, then acquired by the Camilleris in 1977, with new concessions granted in 1981 and again in 2002, each for 21-year periods. The Pullicinos argued that the provisions of Chapter 158 of the Laws of Malta — particularly Articles 12 and 12A — had effectively converted the sub-emphyteusis into a protected tenancy in favour of the Camilleris, and that this amounted to a violation of their fundamental property rights under Article 37 of the Maltese Constitution and Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights. They also invoked Article 14 of the Convention, alleging discriminatory treatment. They sought eviction of the Camilleris and compensation of approximately €35,163 from the Attorney General for loss suffered between 2002 and 2023. The First Hall of the Civil Court, sitting as a Constitutional Court, rejected their claims in January 2025. It found that the sub-emphyteusis had never been converted into a lease under Article 12 of Cap. 158 because each new concession was voluntarily granted by the owners before the previous one expired. Crucially, evidence showed that it was the Camilleris themselves who had requested the renewal of the concessions — there was no proof that the Pullicinos felt forced or coerced into granting them. The court further held that a remedy existed under Article 12B of Cap. 158, so no constitutional breach had occurred. On appeal, the Constitutional Court upheld the First Court's findings. It confirmed that because the concessions were freely and voluntarily renewed — and not driven by the landlords seeking to circumvent tenancy protection legislation — the conversion mechanism under Cap. 158 never came into effect. This distinguished the case from precedents such as Vincenti and Magri, where courts had found that renewals were made precisely to avoid the application of protective rent laws. The appeal was dismissed with costs against the appellants.

The Constitutional Court upheld the applicants' appeal in part, found a breach of fundamental rights under Article 37 of the Constitution and Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR for the period 1 August 2002 to 31 July 2018, and awarded compensation of €11,000 plus legal interest. Costs split 3/4 against the State Attorney and 1/4 against the applicants.

• Under Maltese law, a temporary sub-emphyteusis is only converted into a protected tenancy under Article 12 of Cap. 158 if the legal conditions for conversion are actually triggered — voluntary renewal of a concession before expiry can prevent such conversion.
• Maltese constitutional courts distinguish between landlords who renew emphyteutic concessions freely and those who do so under compulsion to avoid statutory rent protections — only the latter may give rise to a rights violation claim.
• A property owner cannot claim a constitutional violation under Article 37 of the Constitution or Article 1 of the First ECHR Protocol if an adequate domestic remedy exists, such as the procedure available under Article 12B of Cap. 158.
• Evidence matters in constitutional property cases: without proof that the landlord was coerced into granting successive concessions, courts will not infer that statutory rent protections were unlawfully imposed.
• In Maltese constitutional proceedings, compensation from the Attorney General for alleged legislative breaches of property rights requires proof of an actual, operative violation — speculative or legally unfounded claims will not succeed.

Constitution of Malta Article 37; European Convention on Human Rights Article 14 and First Protocol Article 1 (Cap. 319); Reletting of Urban Property (Regulation) Ordinance Cap. 158 Articles 12, 12A, 12B; Act X of 2009; Act XXVII of 2018