Maltese judges opt to enforce European Court decision

The Constitutional Court yesterday ordered that a case originally filed in 1987 be heard again by a Court of Appeal composed of three judges who would be different to the ones who had decided the case on appeal in 1993.

This judgment was delivered following an application filed by the St Leonard Band Club of Kirkop.

The club had requested the Constitutional Court to order that a decision delivered last year by the European Court of Human Rights be rendered enforceable in Malta.

The court was also asked to rule that the only valid judgment delivered in the instance was that of the First Hall of the Civil Court in 1997 and to order that the retrial of the case be remitted to the Court of Appeal.

This case, the Constitutional Court noted, was the first in which the enforceability of a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights was requested in Malta.

The court commenced its judgment by summarising the facts that had led to the European Court judgment.

In 1987 the Vella family had filed a case against the Housing Secretary and against the band club's committee. The Vellas had asked the court to declare that a requisition order on the premises in Kirkop that were occupied by the club was null and void and to grant them possession of their property.

In 1991 the First Hall of the Civil Court had found against the Vellas and had put off the case sine die.

The Vella family had appealed and in December 1993 the Court of Appeal had upheld their appeal and had imposed a six-month time limit for the club to vacate the premises.

The band club then filed for a retrial and the case was appointed for hearing before the Court of Appeal composed of three judges, two of whom being the same judges who had decided the case in appeal in December 1993.

The two judges had dismissed a request for them to abstain from hearing the case and the request for a retrial was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in January 1996.

In the meantime the band club commenced constitutional proceedings in the First Hall of the Civil Court which, in April 1997, ruled that the refusal of the judges to abstain was in violation of the club's fundamental human rights.

The First Hall of the Civil Court had ordered that the case for retrial be remitted to the Court of Appeal to be heard and decided by three judges who were not the same ones that had decided the case in 1993.

The Vella family appealed from this judgment and in July 2000 the Constitutional Court had upheld this appeal and revoked the judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court.

The band club then took the case to the European Court of Human Rights which, last July, upheld the club's case and found that the failure of the judges to abstain was a violation of the club's rights.

The club then asked the Constitutional Court, composed of Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Joseph D. Camilleri and Mr Justice Joseph A. Filletti, to declare that this judgment could be enforced in Malta.

The Constitutional Court declared that this was a case which could be rendered enforceable in Malta in terms of law. The question that remained to be decided was how the enforcement was to take place.

The European Court of Human Rights was not, the Constitutional Court said, part of the judicial organisation of Malta and the local courts were not bound to follow case law of this court blindly. However this case involved the enforcement in Malta of a judgment delivered by a foreign court.

The law provided for the enforcement of a European Court judgment by the Constitutional Court in the same manner as judgments delivered by that Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court concluded that the most appropriate form of a remedy would be to ensure that the retrial was carried out by an independent and impartial tribunal.

The court therefore revoked and annulled the judgment of the Court of Appeal of January 1996 and ordered that the request for a retrial was to be heard once more on April 19 by the Court of Appeal in such manner that none of the judges composing that court would be the same judges who had decided the appeal in December 1993 or who had decided the case in first instance.