Malta's protected tenancy laws under Cap. 158 imposed disproportionate burdens on landlords for decades, violating Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR.
Civil Court First Hall (Constitutional Jurisdiction) · The Honourable Judge Dr Joanne Vella Cuschieri B.A., Mag. Jur. (Eur. Law.), LL.D. · 6 May 2026
John Soler, Paul Soler and Adelaide Abela — heirs of their late mother Mary Soler — brought a constitutional application claiming that Malta's rent control laws had violated their fundamental right to the peaceful enjoyment of property under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. The two properties at issue were located at 37 and 39 Triq Patri Magri, Ħamrun. Both had originally been granted on temporary emphyteusis in 1960 but, when those concessions expired, the tenants remained protected by law and the owners were forced to continue renewing the leases at extremely low rents. For No. 37, when the emphyteusis ended in December 1994, the tenant Paul Coleiro remained at a rent equivalent to just Lm23 (€53.58) per year, later raised to €200 per year under Act X of 2009, and only reaching €1,900 per year following a 2024 Rent Board decision. For No. 39, the tenant family Micallef stayed on after the 1977 expiry at Lm45 (€104.82) per year, rising to only €210 per year before the tenancy finally ended in August 2023 upon the death of the last tenant. The court appointed a technical expert, Perit Nicholas Mallia, who assessed the open-market rental value of both properties at five-year intervals from 1987 to 2021. His valuations showed a stark contrast: for No. 37, the market rent ranged from €3,600/year in 1988–1992 to €15,083/year in 2018–2021. For No. 39, figures ranged from €4,200/year to €17,597/year over the same periods. The rents actually paid were a fraction of these values throughout. Applying the three-stage test from the European Court of Human Rights — legality, legitimate aim, and proportionality — the court found that while the legislation had a legitimate social aim when enacted in 1979, the lack of a means test for tenants, the indefinite renewal obligation, and the passage of decades meant the proportionality requirement was wholly absent. Citing Cauchi v. Malta and Hutten-Czapska v. Poland among others, the court declared the restrictions a violation of the applicants' fundamental rights and awarded total compensation of €55,301.47 (comprising pecuniary damages of €21,079.89 plus €3,000 non-pecuniary for No. 37, and €27,721.58 plus €3,500 non-pecuniary for No. 39), to be paid by the Attorney General, with interest and costs. The court also ordered that its decision be notified to the Speaker of the Maltese Parliament.
The court upheld the applicants' claims in full. It awarded: (1) For No. 37 Triq Patri Magri — pecuniary damages of €21,079.89 and non-pecuniary damages of €3,000; (2) For No. 39 Triq Patri Magri — pecuniary damages of €27,721.58 and non-pecuniary damages of €3,500. Total compensation: €55,301.47. The Attorney General (Avukat tal-Istat) was condemned to pay this sum plus legal interest from the date of judgment until effective payment, plus all costs of the proceedings. The court ordered notification of its decision to the Speaker of Parliament.
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (Cap. 319 of the Laws of Malta); Cap. 158 of the Laws of Malta (Reletting of Urban Property Ordinance), as amended by Act XXIII of 1979, Act XXXI of 1995, Act X of 2009 and Act XXIV of 2021; Cap. 69 of the Laws of Malta (Housing Act)