In a judgement delivered on 23 July 2026, the Constitutional Court awarded compensation for a human rights breach but declined to order the eviction in a case concerning an agricultural lease.
The case in the names of Johanna Zammit et vs the State Advocate and Mario Fava, was presided over by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti and judges Anthony Ellul and Robert G. Mangion.
The applicants inherited agricultural land in Luqa, which had been leased for decades under a traditional agricultural tenancy agreement known as qbiela. This type of agreement is regulated by the Agricultural Leases (Reletting) Act.
Due to this agreement, the tenant paid €6 annually to the appellants, who are the owners of the property. During proceedings, the appellants alleged that the property’s market rental value was thousands of euros per year and argued that the law effectively granted the tenant an indefinite right to remain in possession while preventing the owners from recovering the land or charging rent at market value. This, the applicants claimed, violated their human right to peaceful enjoyment of property.
They therefore sought compensation, a declaration that the relevant provisions of Chapter 199 were unconstitutional and requested an eviction order.
The First Hall of the Civil Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, dismissed all of the applicants’ claims, finding that no violation of their constitutional or convention rights had occurred. It held that Chapter 199 of the Laws of Malta pursued a legitimate public interest by protecting agricultural production and preserving the agricultural sector. The court also established that there was a remedy available before the Agricultural Leases Control Board, where they could seek an increase in rent.
Dissatisfied with this outcome, the applicants appealed to the Constitutional Court, which considered three principle questions. The first was to reaffirm that the regulation of agricultural leases under Chapter 199 serves a legitimate public interest. However, the court stressed that even where legislation pursues a legitimate social objective, it must still satisfy the requirement of maintaining a fair balance between the interests of the community and the property rights of individual owners under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.
The second consideration was whether the remedy available to landlords to apply to the Agricultural Leases Control Board for an increase in rent was sufficiently effective to safeguard the applicants’ property rights. The court found that the board generally determines rent by comparing it with neighbouring agricultural leases, many of which remain subject to the same statutory controls. As a result, rent revisions often remain well below market levels and fail to provide owners with fair compensation for the restrictions imposed on their property rights.
The court also made reference to the principles established in J&C Properties Ltd vs Nazzareno Pulis, emphasising that the existence of a statutory remedy is insufficient if, it cannot effectively restore the owner’s rights under the convention or achieve the fair balance required by it.
The final consideration was whether there was a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). While the applicants formally had access to the Agricultural Leases Control Board, the court held that mere access to a tribunal does not automatically satisfy the right to a fair hearing. The court reasoned that since the statutory framework made it highly unlikely that the board could grant a rent reflecting the true value of the property or otherwise provide adequate redress, the applicants were effectively denied access to a remedy capable of protecting their rights. Therefore, the court concluded there was indeed a violation of Article 6 of the ECHR.
Due to these considerations, the court found that although the objectives of Chapter 199 remain legitimate, its application in this case imposed a disproportionate burden on the applicants’ property rights. The court-appointed expert established that the property’s annual rent value was substantially higher. The court held that this significant disparity prevented the applicants from obtaining fair compensation for the restrictions imposed on their ownership and upset the fair balance required under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Therefore, the court rewarded the applicant with €7,319 in compensation. Of this, €5,819 were pecuniary damages and €1,500 moral damages.
The court declined to order eviction, limiting the relief to a declaration that the applicants’ constitutional right had been violated and awarding them compensation against the State, while leaving the agricultural lease itself intact.
This article may also be accessed on MaltaToday.
