Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1312765
9 maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 25 NOVEMBER 2020 NEWS MATTHEW VELLA MALTESE farmers are facing an imminent threat after a Consti- tutional Court ruled that the law which grants tenants of agricul- tural leases an indefinite right of renewal, breaches the owners' fundamental rights. The landmark judgment con- firms a lower court judgment declaring that the Agricul- tural Leases (Reletting) Act breached owners' rights to the enjoyment of property. This judgement, the first to vindicate owners of agricultur- al land worth millions, leased to third parties at a paltry rent, is expected to open the flood- gates to many more cases on similar merits. The case concerned a 5,000sq.m parcel of land and farmhouse, in Zabbar, acquired in 1982 by J & C Properties, along with another four prop- erties, for Lm26,000 then. The land was leased to Nazzare- no Pulis, at an annual rent of €58.23, remaining so leased until today. The owners filed a claim that their rights were being breached because they were not being afforded adequate compensation. The first court had upheld that claim, award- ing the company €100,000 in damages. The State Advocate appealed but the Constitutional Court rejected the arguments put forward, save for that con- cerning the awarded damages, effectively slashing the sum to €22,000. While such restrictions on ownership rights had been in- tended for "social purposes", the Court asked whether the owner was receiving adequate and proportionate compensa- tion. wUnder the current regime, the owner could only claim back his land for farming pur- poses or to develop the site, save for other instances where shortcomings were proved on the part of the lessee. This meant that if the owner did not intend to farm the land or lacked the capital to devel- op it, he could not claim his property back, unless the lessee agreed in writing to the termi- nation of the lease. The Court therefore ruled that the lessees could no longer avail themselves of the law to renew the lease. Whether any eviction follows, will fall within the competence of the ordinary courts, The court also said that it had not been proved that the prop- erty was irrigated land. This meant that the land could be acquired for develop- ment purposes and the poten- tial developer could proceed to evict the tenants. It also said that the rental losses between 1982 and 2018, as calculated by the technical expert, were not "so realis- tic", reducing the damages to €22,000. Lawyers Edward Debono and Karl Micallef represented the applicants. Landmark judgment threatens agricultural land tenants Constitutional Court says tenants of agricultural leases do not have indefinite right of renewal