Malta's protected rent legislation (Cap. 69) violated owners' Article 1 Protocol 1 rights from 1987 to 2021, entitling them to €94,530 compensation.
First Hall of the Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction) · The Honourable Judge Henri Mizzi · 30 April 2026
Six co-owners of a property known as 'Tulip' at Triq il-Papa Alessandru VII, Balzan — successors in title of Paul and Vincenza Dimech who acquired the land in 1948 and 1949 — filed a constitutional application in February 2025 claiming that Malta's protected rent legislation had violated their fundamental property rights. The property had been rented to Carmel sive Lino Callus long before 1 June 1995, meaning the tenancy fell under Chapter 69 of the Laws of Malta. After Lino Callus died, the tenancy passed to his widow, Mary Callus, who was paying just €396.08 per year — a sum unchanged from before 2009. The applicants argued that being forced to accept this derisory rent indefinitely, with no realistic prospect of recovering possession, amounted to a disproportionate burden in breach of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. The court examined whether the applicants had sufficiently proved their title to the property and whether the tenancy was indeed protected under Cap. 69. Despite an objection from the Attorney General, the court found that in constitutional redress proceedings an absolute or original title is not required — it suffices to show a right over the thing that allows one to resist the claims of others. On the basis of acquisition contracts, death certificates, testamentary searches, wills, affidavits, rent receipts, and the Rent Regulation Board's own judgment, the court was satisfied on both points. An independent architect, Perit Alexei Pace, was appointed to assess the property's open-market rental value at five-year intervals between 1987 and 2021. He valued the property at €490,000 and calculated that its 2021 rental value was €14,150 per year — compared to the €396.08 that had been paid for decades. No party challenged this expert report. The court noted that after the enactment of Act XXIV of 2021, the Rent Board had already set a new annual rent of €9,000 from January 2025, providing an adequate remedy for the post-2021 period. The constitutional complaint was therefore limited to the period from 30 April 1987 (when the ECHR entered into force in Malta) to 28 May 2021. Applying the methodology from Cauchi v. Malta, the court calculated the total open-market rental value for the relevant period at €193,488.80. It applied a 30% reduction for the social purpose of the measure and a further 20% reduction for the uncertainty that the property would not necessarily have been rented throughout the entire period. After deducting the €13,823.72 actually paid in rent, the court arrived at a pecuniary compensation figure of €94,530.01. Moral damages were excluded because the applicants inherited the property in 2021 and 2023, and Maltese law does not allow moral damages to be inherited. The Attorney General was ordered to pay the compensation together with legal interest from the date of judgment and all costs.
The court declared that Cap. 69 and Cap. 16 (including Article 1531C) as in force before Act XXIV of 2021 violated the applicants' fundamental rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol for the period 30 April 1987 to 28 May 2021. Pecuniary damages of €94,530.01 were liquidated and the Attorney General was ordered to pay this sum with legal interest from the date of judgment. No moral/non-pecuniary damages were awarded. The Attorney General was also ordered to pay all costs of the proceedings, including those of respondent Mary Callus.
Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR; Chapter 69 of the Laws of Malta (Housing Act); Chapter 16 of the Laws of Malta (Civil Code) — Article 1531C; Act X of 2009; Act XXIV of 2021; Constitution of Malta