Baroness wanted €6 million in damages, Strasbourg court gave her €160,000

A woman whose Valletta property was requisitioned by the government in 1958 had her claims of a breach of her right to private property upheld by the European Court of Human Rights.

Agnes Gera de Petri Testaferrata Bonici Ghaxaq (pictured) - the Marchioness of San Vincenzo Ferreri and Baroness of Qlejja - who lives in Balzan, sued the Maltese government in the Strasbourg court over an order issued in 1958 taking control of property she owned in Valletta, which formed the annexe to the Manoel Theatre, subject to payment of annual compensation.

She complained about the excessive length - more than 30 years - of the ensuing proceedings and that, although the Constitutional Court eventually found a breach of her property rights, she had not been granted compensation.

In its principal judgment of 5 April 2011, the Court found violations of her right to a fair hearing and right to private property, and held that the Maltese government was to pay her €25,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damages and €5,000 in respect of costs and expenses.

Gera de Petri was yesterday awarded €160,000 in total pecuniary damages for just satisfaction.

Gera de Petri was already awarded €641,000 in compensation by a Maltese court of appeal for the loss of use of the property in the period from January 1967 to January 2007.

In her original application to the European Court of Human Rights, Gera de Petri claimed €6.6 million in pecuniary damage, representing rent of €2.9 million from 1958 to 2007, and interest at 8% per annum totalling €3.6 million.

She claimed that the owners of the property had been entitled to war damage compensation after WWII in order to renovate the property; however, those claims could not be pursued since the government had been in possession of the property at the time, and therefore the owners could not undertake reconstruction works.

In its submissions, the government said the applicant's claims were much higher than those presented before the domestic courts, describing them as "unrealistic and absurd".

By way of comparison the government submitted that, in their experience of renting out property in Valletta, the best rent ever obtained for a shop in the heart of Valletta's prime shopping location was €125,820 a year.

It also revealed that premises until recently used by a "leading bank" - possibly Bank of Valletta - which are much larger than Gera de Petri's property were leased from private owners at €60,580 per annum. The premises used for "the best-located coffee shop" in Valletta were rented out at €27,960 a year, and another coffee shop in the heart of Valletta was rented at €93,233 a year. Another large property rented to a leading retail outlet was rented at €46,600 a year.

"All these premises were in the commercial heart of Valetta, as opposed to the property at issue, which is situated outside Valletta's commercial hub," the government said, saying the Gera de Petri house was first valued in 1941 at Lm210 or €490. Capitalisaton by the Rent Restriction Ordinance's 3% interest would establish the value of the property in 1944 at some Lm7,000 (€16,305).

So the government claimed that with regard to the years 1958 to 1999, at €16,305 the property would have been rented at a capitalisation of 5.5%, and deducting 20% from the resulting amount on maintenance costs the owner would have had to pay, as well as taxes, this would amount to €66,912.

With regard to the years 2000-2007, the same formula, this time applied to a valuation carried out in 1958, would put the value at €128,563. In total, the amount of lost rent would be €195,475.

In its judgement, the Court noted that the government's submissions were based on "a generous rental percentage" which was however calculated on an extremely low value attributed to the property.

The Court also noted that after 1972, the Manoel Theatre Management Committee had rented Gera de Petri's property to a number of commercial entities, including offices, coffee shops, reception halls, a restaurant and a publishing house.

In consideration of the fact that the Maltese government incurred expenses amounting to €735,115, as evidenced by receipts, to restore the property, the Court found that the applicant should receive a further €160,000 in respect of pecuniary damage.