A judgement awarding a family €60,000 in compensation after its property was requisitioned to be used as a post office has been confirmed by the Constitutional Court.

The court, however, found that no compensation was due to the family by Maltapost.

Victor Gatt, Joseph Gatt, Agnes Gabriele, Evelyn Chetcuti, Gemma Vella and Louis Sant Angelo filed their application against the Attorney General and Maltapost plc.

They told the court that, in 1958, the Housing Authority had requisitioned a property they owned in Hamrun.

The property, in Railway Avenue, was then transferred to the Postal Department to be used as a post office.

The original rent due to the family was Lm120 per annum but this sum was increased to Lm166 per annum in 1986 by court order.

The family told the court that with effect from May 1998 the government transferred the property to Maltapost, which had been entrusted with the country's postal service.

The family said that the requisition was no longer required for a public purpose as the postal service was being run by a private company and not by the government.

It further claimed that it had been deprived of its property without proper compensation and that this was in violation of fundamental human rights.

The First Hall of the Civil Court, however, did not agree with the family that the property was no longer required for a public purpose.

The fact that the postal service had been privatised did not remove the public interest that existed in the provision of post offices and services. The concept of the public interest was linked to the final purpose for which the property was to be utilised.

The use of the property as a post office by Maltapost was of benefit to the community as a whole and not purely in the private interest.

However, the court ruled that the family had suffered a disproportionate burden as a result of the requisition and the very low rent it received. They were, therefore, entitled to compensation.

The first court concluded that the family had suffered an annual loss of €6,000 which, calculated over a 10- year period, added up to €60,000.

The AG and Maltapost were each ordered to pay half the sum to the family.

All parties appealed to the Constitutional Court, presided over by acting Chief Justice Albert J Magri, Mr Justice Geoffrey Valenzia and Mr Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo.

The family appealed against the quantum of damages, claiming that it was too little, while the other parties claimed that there had been no violation of the family's human rights.

On its part Maltapost claimed that it bore no responsibility towards the family in damages.

On appeal, the Constitutional Court confirmed the findings of the first court and ruled that the compensation awarded was just and that the premises were still required for a public purpose.

The court, however, ruled that Maltapost was not responsible in damage for it had acquired its rights over the property legitimately in terms of law.

The court varied the first court's judgment limitedly by declaring that Maltapost was not liable towards the family.