Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1546037
8 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 2 AUGUST 2026 LAW It is all about balance: Public interest vs individual interest IN a judgment 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 Jo- hanna Zammit et vs the State Advocate and Mario Fava, was presided over by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti and judges An- thony Ellul and Robert G. Man- gion. The applicants inherited agri- cultural land in Luqa, which had been leased for decades under a traditional agricultural tenan- cy agreement known as qbiela. This type of agreement is regu- lated 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 pro- ceedings, the appellants alleged that the property's market rent- al 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 val- ue. This, the applicants claimed, violated their human right to peaceful enjoyment of property. They therefore sought com- pensation, 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 juris- diction, dismissed all of the ap- plicants' claims, finding that no violation of their constitutional or convention rights had oc- curred. It held that Chapter 199 of the Laws of Malta pursued a legitimate public interest by pro- tecting agricultural production and preserving the agricultural sector. The court also estab- lished that there was a remedy available before the Agricultur- al 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 ques- tions. The first was to reaffirm that the regulation of agricul- tural leases under Chapter 199 serves a legitimate public inter- est. However, the court stressed that even where legislation pur- sues a legitimate social objec- tive, it must still satisfy the re- quirement of maintaining a fair balance between the interests of the community and the property rights of individual owners un- der 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 Ag- ricultural Leases Control Board for an increase in rent was suffi- ciently effective to safeguard the applicants' property rights. The court found that the board gen- erally determines rent by com- paring it with neighbouring ag- ricultural leases, many of which remain subject to the same stat- utory controls. As a result, rent revisions often remain well be- low market levels and fail to pro- vide owners with fair compensa- tion for the restrictions imposed on their property rights. The court also made reference to the principles established in J&C Properties Ltd vs Nazzare- no Pulis, emphasising that the existence of a statutory remedy is insufficient if, it cannot effec- tively 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 Ag- ricultural Leases Control Board, the court held that mere access to a tribunal does not automat- ically satisfy the right to a fair hearing. The court reasoned that since the statutory frame- work 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 vi- olation of Article 6 of the ECHR. Due to these considerations, the court found that although the objectives of Chapter 199 remain legitimate, its applica- tion in this case imposed a dis- proportionate burden on the applicants' property rights. The court-appointed expert estab- lished that the property's annu- al rent value was substantially higher. The court held that this significant disparity prevent- ed the applicants from obtain- ing fair compensation for the restrictions imposed on their ownership and upset the fair bal- ance required under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, the court reward- ed 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. MALCOLM MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates 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