Court awards €41,352 after finding that Malta's protected rent regime imposed an excessive and disproportionate burden on property owners from 1996 to 2018.
First Hall of the Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction) · Honourable Judge Henri Mizzi · 30 April 2026
The case was brought by George Gusman and several co-owners — relatives forming the ownership chain of a residential property at 172, Triq il-Vittorja, Isla — against the Housing Authority and the State Advocate. The applicants complained that Malta's rent control legislation, specifically the provisions of Chapter 158 of the Laws of Malta, had violated their right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions as guaranteed by Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. The property had been requisitioned in April 1978 and allocated to Lewis Busuttil, who was given a temporary emphyteusis contract in 1979 at an annual ground rent of Lm60. When that concession expired in May 1996, the property automatically converted to a protected tenancy by operation of law under Article 12 of Chapter 158. Busuttil continued to occupy the property until his death in April 2018, during which time the owners could neither recover possession nor charge a market-rate rent. The court appointed expert architect Michael Lanfranco to assess the open market rental value of the property between 1987 and 2018. His report concluded that the property was worth €600,000 vacant in 2018, with an equivalent annual rental value of €18,000 at a 3% yield. By contrast, the owners had received rent as low as Lm60 per year (€139.76) for much of the relevant period. The court accepted the expert's methodology and conclusions, noting that the State Advocate had not requested the appointment of a counter-expert. The court found a clear violation of Article 1, identifying three key failures: the owners faced decades of legal uncertainty about when they could recover possession; they were prevented from raising rent to reflect market realities; and there were no adequate procedural safeguards allowing them to effectively challenge the restrictions before the 2018 legislative amendments. Applying the criteria established by the European Court of Human Rights in cases such as Cauchi v Malta, the court calculated pecuniary damages of €33,407.60 after applying reductions of 30% for the legitimate social aim and 20% for the uncertainty of rental income, and then deducting rent actually received. Non-pecuniary damages of €7,944.44 were also awarded at the standard rate of approximately €500 per year of violation.
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR declared for the period 21 May 1996 to 12 April 2018. The State Advocate (Avukat tal-Istat) ordered to pay the applicants: pecuniary damages of €33,407.60; non-pecuniary damages of €7,944.44; total €41,352.04, with legal interest running from the date of judgment. Costs of proceedings to be paid by the State Advocate. The Housing Authority was not found personally liable for post-derequisition conduct.
Article 1, First Protocol, European Convention on Human Rights (Chapter 319, Laws of Malta); Chapter 158 (Reletting of Urban Property (Regulation) Ordinance), Article 12; Chapter 125 (Housing (Decontrol) Ordinance); Act XXIII of 1979; Act X of 2009; Act XXVII of 2018