Europe’s highest human rights court has chastised the Maltese government for having expropriated a parcel of land in Birżebbuġa without providing “a shred of evidence” to prove the land grab was in the public interest.

The European Court of Human Rights gave the government until mid-January to return the land in Qajjenza to its owners or else be made to pay compensation for it, saying it was “disconcerted” to see land being taken away from its owners “without anyone being able to assert the reasons” why.

The case concerns an unused triangular plot in Qajjenza, Birżebbuġa, measuring 509 square metres in size that was previously used for an Enemalta gas bottling plant. The land runs across other property belonging to the original owners, “hampering its development and causing a devaluation of the entire site”, the ECHR found.

The authorities seized the parcel of land in April 2012 and used it for “some kind of installation” for the bottling plant, a local court had heard.

However, that plant ceased operations just three months after the land was expropriated and the ECHR found that no witnesses had made any effort to explain why the government needed to keep the land in the ensuing years. Photos taken in 2019 showed “there is nothing save for a boundary wall” on the land.

The patch of land is one of several expropriated from the owners to make way for the plant, in a legal process that first started in 1978.

Plant ceased operations just three months after land was expropriated

The owners made a legal bid to reverse the various expropriations, starting in 2013. Domestic courts found in their favour for larger tracts of land expropriated in previous years and ordered the government to return the lands to the owners and pay €15,000 in compensation.

The 509sqm strip that was expropriated in 2012 was, however, not returned to them, with the Maltese courts finding that the owners had failed to appeal the expropriation within the 21-day time limit established in a 2002 legal amendment.

Following that decision by the constitutional court, the owners took their case to the ECHR.

In its judgment, the ECHR noted that the government had not given any details to explain why it needed the land and had, instead, argued that, under Maltese law, there was no obligation to prove that an expropriation had a public interest.

A declaration to that effect by the president sufficed, the government insisted.

Lack of evidence

The European Court said it was “disconcerted” by the way with which the constitutional court had ruled against the owners despite no evidence or witnesses attesting that the expropriation had a public interest.

“The constitutional court had no basis on which to ground its finding,” the ECHR said, finding that, even if the parcel of land was originally needed for the bottling plant, that requirement ended just a few months later when the facility was decommissioned.

It said that “the most appropriate redress” for the land would be for the government to return it to the owners, with damages applicable if that did not happen by January 13.

The owners estimated that the expropriation cost them €1.5 million in losses. The government has not contested that figure at this stage.

Enemalta, which operated the bottling plant, said it was not in a position to comment as it was not a party to the case.