A tribunal has confirmed a decision by the Land Authority not to grant former European Commissioner John Dalli a portion of land next to his Siġġiewi property because he is not a registered farmer.

The Administrative Review Tribunal turned down Dalli’s request to be given the right of first refusal for the lease of farmland beside his farmhouse that he wanted to control due to security concerns.

He said he had received death threats, which he reported to the police, and was particularly worried that a room in this field could be used for eavesdropping.

But the tribunal, presided by Magistrate Charmaine Galea, ruled that even though one of his daughters, Louisa Dalli, was registered as a full-time farmer, Dalli was not and neither was his other daughter, Claire Gauci Borda.

According to the terms, all applicants had to be full-time or part-time farmers.

Dalli’s farmhouse is in the area known as Tal-Bur il-Kbir, covering a total of four hectares. His two daughters own an adjacent area, he told the tribunal.

Failed to supply documents

The Land Authority turned down their request to lease agricultural land next to theirs because they failed to submit documentary evidence that they were the owners of the land they claimed to own and also because not all three were farmers.

Magistrate Galea said that the authority’s disposal committee was right in refusing the Dalli family right of first refusal and could not be influenced by security concerns.

The condition that applicants had to be full- or part-time farmers was “crystal clear”, she said.

Moreover, a statement from a lawyer was not enough to prove ownership. To prove it, the applicants had to submit the relevant documents, including land acquisition contracts.

“When it comes to deciding on a call for tenders the authority must be as transparent as possible and cannot turn a blind eye to shortcomings on the part of a tenderer,” the magistrate said.

“Although it may be that in the relative file there is some correspondence, this certainly does not mean that the Land Authority should have taken it as evidence that the applicants owned land adjacent to the land in question,” she added.