CLOSE
CLOSE

SEARCH ANYTHING

CLOSE

SEARCHING

Landmark judgement opens Agricultural Leases to scrutiny

27.2.20

In a landmark judgement delivered this morning by Mr Justice Joseph Zammit McKeon presiding over the First Hall of the Civil Court in its Constitutional Jurisdiction, in the names J&C Properties Limited vs Nazzareno Pulis et, the said court found that Chapter 199 of the Laws of Malta (Agricultural Leases (Reletting) Act), which effectively grants sitting tenants of agricultural property an indefinite right of renewal, which leases can also be inherited by family members, to be in blatant breach of the Constitution of Malta and of the European Convention on Human Rights, namely the right of every natural or legal person to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.

The Court awarded €100,000 in damages payable to plaintiff company J&C Properties Limited, which owns the land in question, valued at almost €1 million and currently leased to tenants Pulis at €58.23 per annum, and this on account of the fact that the legal regime in question was found to be in breach of the owner’s constitutional rights and was allowed to remain on the statute book when it was manifestly clear that such dispositions of the law breached the fundamental human rights of the owners.

This effectively means that all agricultural leases are now up for scrutiny, as the present legal regime imposes an excessive and disproportionate burden on the lessor and severely restricts said lessor’s right to the peaceful enjoyment and unhindered right of transfer of same. The court also noted how, in light of today’s property prices, particularly insofar as agricultural land is concerned, and the potential of same, this breach of human rights is even more pronounced and therefore the plaintiff’s claim merited to be upheld.

This judgement is the first to vindicate owners of agricultural land leased to third parties at a paltry rent, when the value of said property runs into the millions, and is expected to open the floodgates to many more cases on similar merits.

Plaintiffs were represented by Dr Edward DeBono and Dr Karl Micallef.

View the judgement here.

OUTLINE