Constitutional application upheld

Mr Justice Geoffrey Valenzia in the First Hall of the Civil Court has upheld a constitutional application filed by Francis Aquilina against the Attorney General and declared that a judgment of the Court of Appeal was in violation of applicant's fundamental human right to a fair hearing.

Aquilina filed his application against the First Hall of the Civil Court and against Emanuel Aquilina. He argued that he had filed a case against Emanuel Aquilina and that the case was decided by the Court of Appeal on March 30, 2001.

In his writ Aquilina had requested the court to condemn defendant Emanuel Aquilina to refund to him 50 per cent of the money that he had misappropriated from the sale of stocks.

When the case was in the appeal stage, plaintiff Francis Aquilina had discovered some information that he thought was fundamental to the deciding of his case. He filed an application before the Court of Appeal in November 1999 in which he gave a detailed explaination of the information he had just discovered.

This information was to the effect that a statement given by Emanuel Aquilina in the First Hall of the Civil Court was false.

The Court of Appeal had ordered Francis Aquilina to serve the application on Emanuel Aquilina, giving the latter three days in which to file his reply.

The Appeal Court had ruled, in January 2000 that it required more information on the matter. The following May Francis Aquilina had testified before the Appeals Court on the matter, and the application was put off for a final decree. However, on March 30, 2001 the Court of Appeal decided the whole case without issuing a decree on Francis Aquilina's application. This, said Aquilina, was in violation of his fundemantal human right to a fair hearing.

In his judgment Mr Justice Valenzia declared that case law of the European Convention of Human Rights stipulated that the notion of a fair trial was that of ensuring that the proceedings as a whole were fair. This principle was applicable also at the appeal stage of any proceedings. When one examined proceedings in dispute, the court had to examine not only procedural defects but also the proceedings as a whole so as to ensure that the case was conducted with both substantive and apparent justice.

In this particular case it resulted that the procedural defect that had occurred was not of an insignificant nature but could have determining effects on the procedures as a whole.

The First Hall of the Civil Court concluded its judgment by deciding that the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on March 30, 2001 was in violation of Aquilina's fundamental human rights. The Court revoked the judgment delivered by the appellate court and ordered that the case be remitted to the Court of Appeal for a decision on Aquilina's application.