issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 356 (2021)
25.11.2021
Judgments and decisions of 25 November 2021
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 12 judgments1 and
seven decisions2:
one Chamber judgment is summarised below;
separate press releases have been issued for four other Chamber judgments in the cases of Baljak
and Others v. Croatia (application no. 41295/19), Sassi and Benchellali v. France (nos. 10917/15 and
10941/15), Biancardi v. Italy (no. 77419/16), and Mucha v. Slovakia (no. 63703/19);
two separate press releases have also been issued for decisions in the cases of Melouli v. France
(no. 42011/19) and Ngumbu Kikoso v. France (no. 21643/19);
seven Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court,
The judgment summarised below is available only in English
Just Satisfaction
Mifsud and Others v. Malta (application no. 38770/17)
The case concerns the question of just satisfaction with regard to land owned by the applicants in
Qajjenza, Birzebbuġia (Malta). The land was taken away from them by the Government to serve as
an extension for a gas plant, and then was never formally expropriated save for two small parcels of
land (within the original perimeter) at a much later date.
In its principal judgment of 13 October 2020 the Court held that there had been two violations of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights in
respect of the taking of the applicants’ land from 1978 and 1984, respectively, until 2012 without
compensation and in respect of the expropriation, in 2012, of the two smaller parcels of the
applicants’ land.
The Court further held that the question of just satisfaction in so as far as it concerned the awards
resulting from the violations of the taking of the applicants’ two smaller parcels of land and the
expropriation of another smaller parcel of land (measuring 509 sq. m) was not ready for decision and
reserved it for decision at a later date.
Today’s judgment concerned the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the
European Convention in so far as pecuniary damage resulting from the violation found in respect of
the applicants was concerned.
Just satisfaction: the Court decided that the respondent State should return the property measuring
509 sq.m. to the applicants within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes
final. Should the respondent State fail to comply with the above obligation, it will have to pay the
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a judgment’s
delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five
judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final
judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the Convention,
judgments delivered by a Committee are final.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.
2
Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.
