The proprietors of the De Paule band club in Paola have filed a constitutional case against a new law enacted earlier this year that effectively reversed a court-ordered eviction they had won after a long legal battle.

They insist that the new law is in breach of their human rights and amounts to unfair treatment.

The case was filed by Peter Paul Lanzon, Geoffrey Zarb Adami, Maurice Zarb Adami, Joseph Zarb Adami, Mercedes Schembri Wismayer and Adreana Zarb Adami against the Attorney General and the De Paule band club.

They told the court that in April, they had won back possession of the premises after a 20-year court battle, when an appeals court upheld a decision ordering the club to vacate the property due to structural works carried out without the owners’ consent.

The case had been initiated in 1997 by families from whom the club has rented the property since 1945.

Apart from the furore created among the members of the band club, who feared their beloved club might have to be disbanded, the judgment was seen as a ‘worrying’ precedent for clubs that also had pending court proceedings instituted by their landlords.

Totally unacceptable for any government to propose a law reversing a court judgment

Faced by calls to address the situation, and in line with the Labour Party’s manifesto, the government quickly took action. Justice Minister Owen Bonnici promised to intervene to ensure that band clubs are not evicted from the premises they were using.

Days later, the government announced its intention to amend the law. The result was a Bill, enacted in July, which effectively reversed the court order and also overturned their right to repossess their property.

The owners had slammed the new law, telling The Sunday Times of Malta that it made “a mockery of the judiciary and the rule of law”.

The same law also drew the criticism of former Chamber of Advocates president Reuben Balzan, who said it was “totally unacceptable for any government to propose a law reversing a court judgment”.

The law allows band clubs to continue occupying their premises even after their eviction has been ordered by a court so long as they pay a rent 10 times higher than they were paying before the eviction order, up to a maximum of one per cent of the property’s value.

It also blocks court-ordered evictions altogether when structural alterations carried out without the owners’ consent – previously grounds for eviction – are done for philharmonic or social purposes, and as long as the club offers a guarantee to allow the owners to restore the property at the end of the lease.

Signed by lawyers Paul Cachia and Hugh Peralta, the writ filed before the First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction calls on the court to declare that the law is unconstitutional and breaches their rights as guaranteed by the European Convention of Human Rights.

The writ also asks the court to liquidate damages suffered by the property owners who could not enforce a court judgment in their favour.