Social Housing Minister Roderick Galdes earlier this month announced that, as part of a comprehensive reform to rental laws, landlords will now have a limit of six tenants per dwelling. In his press conference he emphasised that these legal changes aim to fortify the rental sector, enhance enforcement mechanisms and streamline procedures.

However, the First Article of Protocol Number One of the European Convention, states that: “Every natural and legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possession. No one should be deprived from his possession unless it is in the public interest and in accordance with the general principles of International Law.”

This becomes particularly relevant given that certain properties are adequately equipped to accommodate more than six individuals simultaneously.

This is not the first time that the Labour government has addressed legal inefficiencies tailored for a bygone society. In the past, the emphasis leaned towards providing greater benefits to tenants rather than property owners, a paradigm crafted when it made sense in the prevailing circumstances.

The regulation of rent laws was initially governed by the Civil Code. However, recognising the need to address social challenges during a challenging period in Malta's history, the government intervened and formalised the rental market in 1931 with the enactment of the Reletting of Urban Property (Regulation) Chapter 69 of the Laws of Malta. At that time, these laws markedly favoured lessees over lessors, aligning with the socio-economic context of Malta when such a stance was deemed justifiable.

Over the years, the original social justification for favouring lessees diminished, if not entirely dissipated. In 1995, the government took legislative action by enacting provisions stipulating that leases entered into after a designated date would revert to regulation under the Civil Code. Meanwhile, existing leases at that time continued to be governed by the pre-existing rent laws. This legislative move marked a shift in the regulatory framework, acknowledging the changing dynamics and needs of the rental landscape.

The de-liberalisation of the rental market resulted in a distinction between dwellings subject to the older laws, where a “fair rent” was determined under Chapter 69 of the Laws of Malta, and those available on the free market without regulatory constraints on rent conditions. This disparity highlighted a shift in the regulatory landscape, creating different standards for properties based on the timing of lease agreements and the prevailing legal frameworks governing them.

Moreover, the possession of rented dwellings could be inherited by the tenant's family, provided they were residing in the same household at the time of the original tenant's death, and under the identical rent conditions applicable to the original tenant. This inheritance provision extended the continuity of occupancy within the family unit and maintained consistency in rental terms.

In 2008, additional amendments to the laws aimed to address this situation. The government sought to strike a balance between rectifying perceived injustices against lessors and safeguarding their right to property enjoyment, while also considering the broader interests of the community. This legislative effort reflected an attempt to reconcile the conflicting demands of individual property rights and the overarching welfare of the community.

The old rent laws in Malta have been the subject of several significant Constitutional and European Human Rights cases, with the most recent instance involving the parties of Anthony Debono & Simone Debono vs Attorney General and Stefan and Michelle Mifsud (judgement given in 2019).

In this particular case, the Maltese Constitutional jurisdiction of the First Hall of the Civil Court, under the guidance of Hon. Judge Lawrence Mintoff, considered the circumstances wherein the applicants had acquired the property title through inheritance. The applicants contended that their right to enjoy the property had been compromised as the defendants retained possession in accordance with Chapter 69 of the Laws of Malta. The central argument put forth by the applicants was the unconstitutionality of the pre-1995 rent laws in Malta.

The court, in this instance, determined that while with the introduction of these pre-1995 rental laws, the government was seeing to the social needs of the time, they prejudiced the rights of the rightful owners of the property since no consideration was given to reflect the intended period of time without any compensation or help from the government itself.

While citing the first Article of Protocol Number One of the European Convention, among other legal provisions, the Constitutional Court concluded that the applicants were entitled to compensation from the state. The Court quantified the damages at €20,000, recognising an unjust disparity between the rent they received over several years and the potential rent they could have obtained in an open market scenario.

In the latest reforms, specifically the restriction of allowing only six tenants in one dwelling, Housing Authority CEO Matthew Zerafa remarked that: “We are ensuring that the rental market continues to offer opportunities of a dignified and stable living for Maltese families.”

However, it seems that the government is ignoring the ruling given in Anthony Debono & Simone Debono vs Attorney General and Stefan and Michelle Mifsud. Here the court emphatically emphasised that private individuals should not bear the sole burden of social measures designed to protect other citizens unless they are fairly compensated. This stance aligns with similar pronouncements made by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Amato Gauci vs Malta (judgement given in 2021 at the ECHR).

The possibility exists that Malta could face more landmark cases at the European Court of Human Rights if the issues surrounding rental laws and related matters are not addressed on a national level. If individuals continue to perceive their rights being infringed upon, especially in relation to property and housing, and if these issues are not resolved domestically, it could lead to legal challenges at international level. This, in turn, might result in compensation claims that could potentially come from public funds. Tackling such concerns on a national level, through comprehensive and fair reforms, may be crucial in mitigating the risk of further legal challenges and associated financial implications.