A constitutional case filed by a company against the Attorney General has been dismissed by Mr Justice Tonio Mallia in the First Hall of the Civil Court.

Central Mediterranean Development Corporation Ltd filed its application claiming a breach of its right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time. The company argued it had filed litigation in December 1990 against Dorothy Stamp, in terms of which it had requested authorisation to be allowed to resume possession of a plot of land at Santa Maria Estate, Mellieha, on the grounds that the land had not been developed and because the ground rent due had not been paid.

The suit was decided by the First Hall of the Civil Court on October 5, 1993 after it was put off for judgment 13 times. Stamp had appealed to the Court of Appeal on October 29, 1993 and the company had filed its reply on November 25 of the same year. The appeal proceedings were appointed for hearing by the Court of Appeal for October 17, 1996, three years after it had been filed. Verbal submissions were made and the case was put off for judgment by the Court of Appeal for January 16, 1997. However, the case was put off 28 times until final judgment was handed down on October 9, 2001.

The company claimed in its application that the delays were excessive, and its fundamental human right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time had been violated by the courts as over 11 years had elapsed from when the case was first filed to final judgment. Central Mediterranean complained of the fact that after the case was decided in first instance in 18 months it had taken three years for it to be appointed for hearing by the Appeals Court and almost five years for the appeal to be decided. The delay of nine-and-a-half years meant there could be some flaw in the administration of justice as insufficient resources had been allocated.

The company requested the First Hall of the Civil Court to declare that its fundamental human rights had been breached and to provide it with a remedy.

The Attorney General, on behalf of the government, submitted that no breach of the company's rights had taken place and that the delays had been justified in the light of the complexity of the subject matter of the litigation.

In its judgment, the First Hall of the Civil Court noted that the company had requested the rescission of two notarial contracts of sub-emphyteusis on the grounds that payment of ground rent had not been effected.

Mr Justice Mallia noted that the company was not complaining of the delays in the hearing of the case but of the delay for judgment to be delivered. However, the court did not find the delay to be exaggerated. A number of preliminary pleas had been raised in this case and those were decided by the First Hall of the Civil Court in February 1991. The definitive judgment on the merits of the case had not taken undue time to be delivered. It resulted that the court had given two opportunities for the parties to file their written submissions and the one-and-a-half year delay in delivering the judgment on the merits of the case, which judgment was awarded in October 1993, was therefore definitely justified.

When referring to the proceedings before the Court of Appeal, Mr Justice Mallia noted that these had been lengthier, for three years had elapsed before the case was appointed for hearing and almost five years had passed before judgment was handed down.

It resulted that the principal delay before the Court of Appeal had occurred after the case was put off for judgment, for four years and 10 months had elapsed from when the case was first put off for this purpose until judgment was finally delivered on October 9, 2001.

Mr Justice Mallia added that the reasonableness of the delay had to be examined in the context of the judicial system of the country. In Malta the right of appeal was, for the most part, an automatic right in the sense that any party who felt aggrieved by a judgment of a court of first instance could file an appeal without the need for any authorisation to do so.

In certain other countries, the right of appeal was not automatic and in many cases the permission of the courts for the filing of an appeal was required. Thus, the number of cases that were referred to the appellate courts was controlled to a greater or lesser extent. The Maltese judicial system was different and any litigant who was not satisfied with the decision of the courts (save when the litigation involved minimal sums of money) could file an appeal therefrom to the appellate courts.

As a result, the Court of Appeal was inundated with numerous appeals, all of which had to be examined and investigated in detail. This court dealt with all appeals from the criminal and civil courts and therefore the Court of Appeal had to hear and decide a large number of cases. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal had to give a final judgment and direction to the inferior courts and each decision had to be delivered with the utmost attention and care.

Mr Justice Mallia added that the large number of cases dealt with by the appellate court was also a result of the low cost of litigation. At the time the appeal in this particular case was filed, the costs of filing the appeal amounted to Lm3.05. Today, the costs of filing an appeal had risen to Lm75, which was still not an exorbitant amount of money.

The appellant had also to pay security for costs of the appeal but this was by way of deposit and would be refunded should the appeal be successful. In this particular case, where the land that was the subject of the litigation was worth between Lm25,000 and Lm35,000, the security for the costs of appeal amounted to Lm236, which was definitely not an exorbitant sum of money.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Mallia declared that he was not trying to excuse the delays on the part of the courts but to explain that the privilege open to every citizen to file an appeal at a low cost led to judicial proceedings, particularly at appeal stage, being lengthy. There was only one Court of Appeal and it was not desirable for there to be more than one tribunal to give final decisions on the law.

What constituted a reasonable time for a case to be heard had to be considered in the light of the rights granted to citizens, such as the right of appeal open to all.

Mr Justice Mallia added that the period of almost five years for this case to be decided on was rather long for when one took into consideration the volume of work pending before the Court of Appeal and the complexity of the case three years ought to have been sufficient for judgment to be delivered. However, the length of time actually taken was not serious enough to merit judicial intervention. Although the First Hall of the Civil Court felt that the delay was unjustifiable it did not believe that the delay was exaggerated enough to seriously prejudice the parties' rights.

The Court referred to caselaw of the local and foreign courts that had concluded that in order for there to be a breach of the right to a fair hearing there had to be exaggerated and unjustifiable delay in the circumstances of the case. In this particular case the subject matter of the litigation was complex and that had to be taken into consideration too.

The Court concluded its judgment by finding that no breach of the company's fundamental human rights had occurred.