Updated 12pm with PN reaction
The owners of a Birżebbuġa property housing the Labour Party club were awarded almost €1 million in damages for having been denied full enjoyment of the property after being ‘forced’ into agreeing to the lease.
The case concerned property overlooking Pretty Bay, formerly known as The Smiling Prince Hotel and later used as a telephone exchange, together with adjacent property on Triq id-Duluri housing a health centre.
Prior to 1979, the property was placed under a Requisition Order.
On August 6 of that year, the owner, predecessor in title to the applicants who filed the constitutional case in 2018, was summoned for a meeting at the office of then-minister for lands Joe Brincat.
Two relatives who attended that meeting claimed to have been presented with a Hobson’s choice when told that they would benefit by leasing the property to the Labour Party since it would remain under requisition anyway.
In September 1980 the owners were informed that the government was vacating the premises, handing the keys to Housing for the Labour Party to take over as lessees.
The lease agreement with the owners was signed on September 16 of that year.
The currently rent was €1,164.90 - far below the market value.
The landlords claimed that their fundamental rights were breached since they were denied full enjoyment of their property and requested adequate compensation.
When delivering judgment on Wednesday, the First Hall, Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, presided over by Mr Justice Ian Spiteri Bailey, pointed out that the judgment would not affect the Requisition Order that was still in force.
The court also rejected the plea that the Labour Party and its Birżebbuġa section were non-suited.
The applicants’ claim was to be decided in terms of Article 1 Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, said the judge.
“Public interest” was subject to wide interpretation and the authorities had wide discretion when controlling the use of property in that public interest.
However, such discretion was not unlimited and had to ensure a fair balance between that interest on one hand and the fundamental rights of individuals on the other hand.
After delving into extensive case law on the subject, the court upheld the landlords’ claim that the ‘forced’ reletting in terms of law effectively amounted to a breach of their right to the full enjoyment of their property.
The court, however, rejected their claim of discrimination.
As for the lessees, the court declared that the Labour Party could no longer rely on Chapter 69 (Reletting of Urban Property - Regulation - Ordinance) for ‘protection’ to retain occupancy of the premises.
As for compensation, after taking note of the valuations prepared by the court expert, the court awarded the applicants €978,462 in pecuniary damages and a further €15,000 in non-pecuniary damages payable by the State Advocate and the Housing Authority as respondents.
When awarding a total of €993,462, the court took note of various factors besides the discrepancy between the current rent and the market value.
Those factors included the general interest, the disproportionate rent accrued to the landlords for a number of years, the fact that they continued to accept payment of rent, the time it took them to take action and the State’s inertia for years on end to try to remedy the situation.
Lawyers Edward de Bono, Nick de Bono and Karl Micallef assisted the applicants.
'PL should foot the bill': PN
Reacting to the court ruling, the PN said that the Labour Party, and not taxpayers, should fork out the €1 million.
"It is unacceptable that the PL stole private property and kept it for over 40 years while breaching fundamental human rights.
"The abuse took place while PL was in government, and, so far, the PL has not shouldered responsibility," the party said in a statement.