Zammit et al. vs Attorney General — Rent Control Violates Property Rights

Maltese rent-control law (Cap. 69) held to have violated owners' fundamental property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the ECHR, awarding €11,604.17 compensation.

Civil Court — First Hall (Constitutional Jurisdiction) · The Honourable Dr Joanne Vella Cuschieri B.A., Mag. Jur. (Eur. Law.), LL.D. · 8 May 2026

Anton Zammit, George Zammit, Frances Borg and Salvina Borg — siblings who inherited a residential property at No. 25 Triq San Ġwann, Victoria, Gozo — brought a constitutional application before the First Hall of the Civil Court arguing that Maltese rent-control legislation had violated their fundamental right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions as guaranteed by Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The property had been leased to the Attard spouses (Jude Taddeo and Carmela Attard) since before 1995 under the Housing (Decontrol) Ordinance, Cap. 69. The annual rent paid by the tenants was a mere €185 — a figure last set under article 1531C of the Civil Code (Cap. 16) and linked only to the inflation rate, with no mechanism to reflect true market values. The petitioners argued this created a compulsory, indefinite landlord-tenant relationship at a manifestly inadequate rent, imposing an excessive burden on them without just compensation. The court appointed technical expert Perit Valerio Schembri, who assessed the open-market rental value of the property from 1987 to May 2021. His valuations showed a dramatic disparity: in 1987 the market rental value was €150 per year against a protected rent of roughly €11.65; by 2020 it was €1,250 per year against the capped rent of €185. The court found this discrepancy to be grossly disproportionate and incompatible with the fair-balance test required under the ECHR. Applying a methodology derived from the Constitutional Court's 2023 Agius v. State Advocate ruling — itself grounded in the European Court of Human Rights judgment in Cauchi v. Malta (2021) — the court calculated total lost rental income at €22,595.83, then applied deductions of 30% for the social purpose of the legislation and a further 20% for market uncertainty, before subtracting the €2,549.49 actually received, arriving at pecuniary damages of €10,104.17. Non-pecuniary damages of €1,500 were added, bringing the total compensation award to €11,604.17 against the Attorney General (State Advocate). The court also ordered that its decision be notified to the Speaker of the Maltese Parliament.

Violation of Article 1, First Protocol ECHR declared. State Advocate (Attorney General) ordered to pay total compensation of €11,604.17 (€10,104.17 pecuniary damages + €1,500 non-pecuniary damages) to the petitioners Anton Zammit, George Zammit, Frances Borg and Salvina Borg. All costs charged to the State Advocate. Article 41 ECHR held inapplicable in domestic proceedings. Decision notified to the Speaker of the Maltese Parliament.

• Maltese constitutional courts can declare that rent-control legislation (Cap. 69) violates the ECHR's First Protocol right to property and award compensation, even though Article 41 ECHR itself is held to be inapplicable in domestic courts.
• The 'fair balance' test requires courts to examine whether the gap between protected rent and open-market rental value is disproportionate — a wide disparity (here €185 vs €1,250 per year) will in itself establish a violation.
• Compensation in constitutional redress proceedings is calculated differently from ordinary civil damages: the Maltese courts apply a structured formula deducting 30% for the social purpose of the law and 20% for market uncertainty, then subtract rent actually received.
• The absence of a number on a co-petitioner's identity card does not nullify proceedings where the petitioner's identity can be established from other documents (e.g., inheritance declarations and wills) on record.
• A finding of fundamental rights violation triggers a duty to notify the Speaker of the Maltese Parliament, underlining the constitutional significance of the ruling for legislative reform.

Article 1, First Protocol, ECHR (First Schedule, Cap. 319, Laws of Malta); Housing (Decontrol) Ordinance, Cap. 69; Act XXIV of 2021; Act X of 2009; Article 1531C, Civil Code (Cap. 16)

Report an error or outdated information