Tickner vs Attorney General — Rent Control Violates Property Rights

Malta's protected rent scheme imposed a €60/quarter rent on a Sliema property worth €16,400/year at market rate, breaching ECHR Protocol 1.

Civil Court, First Hall (Constitutional Jurisdiction) · The Honourable Judge Dr. Joanne Vella Cuschieri B.A., Mag. Jur. (Eur. Law.), LL.D. · 6 May 2026

Carmen Tickner inherited a residential property at 4, Triq Ġuże' Cardona, Sliema from her mother in 1997. The property had been under a sub-emphyteusis arrangement since 1963, and then a lease since 1980, held by Carmel Henry Psaila and later his wife Alice Psaila. Under Article 3 of Chapter 69 of the Laws of Malta, as amended by Act X of 2009, the tenancy was automatically extended and Tickner was unable to reclaim possession. She was receiving only €60 per quarter (€240 per year) in rent under the protected scheme. Tickner brought a constitutional application arguing that the rent control regime constituted a flagrant interference with her right to peaceful enjoyment of property, as protected by Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights. She sought a declaration of violation and compensation from the Attorney General. The tenant Alice Psaila had already vacated the property on 30 May 2024 — over three months before the case was filed in September 2024 — and the court upheld her preliminary objection of lack of passive standing. The court appointed Technical Expert Perit Joseph Grech to assess the market rental value of the property from 1987 to 2021. His report established that the open-market rental value grew from €900 per year in 1987 to €16,400 per year in 2021, while the actual rent received remained a fraction of that — for example, just €240 per year in 2011 against a market value of €6,625. The court found this disproportion to be substantial and incompatible with a fair balance between the general interest and the owner's fundamental rights under ECHR Protocol 1. The court upheld the constitutional complaint under Article 1 of the First Protocol of the ECHR (rejecting the Article 37 Constitution claim as barred by Article 47(9), since Cap. 69 predated 1962). It calculated pecuniary damages based on the difference between market rental value and rent actually received from June 1995 to the entry into force of Act XXIV of 2021, applying deductions of 30% for social purpose and 20% for rental uncertainty, arriving at €81,332.04 in pecuniary damages plus €8,000 in non-pecuniary damages — a total of €89,332.04 — payable by the Attorney General. The court also ordered notification of its decision to the Speaker of the Maltese Parliament.

Constitutional violation declared under Article 1 of the First Protocol of the ECHR. Article 37 of the Constitution held inapplicable. Alice Psaila released from proceedings due to lack of passive standing. Attorney General (Avukat tal-Istat) ordered to pay total compensation of €89,332.04 (€81,332.04 pecuniary damages + €8,000 non-pecuniary damages) to Carmen Tickner. Full costs of proceedings, including those of the tenant, charged to the Attorney General. Decision notified to the Speaker of the Maltese Parliament.

• Article 47(9) of the Maltese Constitution shields laws enacted before 3 March 1962 (and amending laws) from challenge under Article 37 — meaning Cap. 69 rent control cannot be attacked via the constitutional property protection clause, only via the ECHR.
• Rent control schemes fall under the 'control of use' limb of Article 1 of Protocol 1 ECHR, not as a deprivation of property — but they must still maintain a fair balance between the general interest and the individual owner's rights.
• When calculating compensation for ECHR property rights violations in Maltese constitutional proceedings, courts apply deductions of 30% (for social purpose of the law) and 20% (for uncertainty that the property would have been rented throughout), following the Cauchi v. Malta ECHR methodology.
• A tenant who vacates and returns keys before a constitutional application is filed loses passive legitimation (leġittimazzjoni passiva) as a party in those proceedings — the complaint for compensation runs only against the Attorney General.
• The Maltese Constitutional Court may order its judgment to be notified to the Speaker of Parliament when a violation of fundamental rights has been found, serving as a signal for legislative reform.
• Whether Cap. 69 or Cap. 158 applies to a protected tenancy may be unclear, but the substance of the constitutional complaint remains the same under either law — both impose low protected rents and the same jurisprudence applies.

Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR (First Schedule, Cap. 319) — protected rent control; Chapter 69 (Reletting of Urban Property (Regulation) Ordinance) as amended by Act X of 2009 and Act XXIV of 2021; Article 37 and Article 47(9) of the Constitution of Malta

Report an error or outdated information