Mr Justice Geoffrey Valenzia in the First Hall of the Civil Court yesterday upheld a constitutional application filed by Edmond Mugliette against the Attorney General and ordered that applicant be awarded Lm500 in compensation for the breach of his fundamental human rights.

In his application Mugliette claimed that the late notary John Hayman, who died on April 23, 2001, used a room in Mugliette's flat in Hamrun, as his professional office.

Applicant had not charged any rent for the premises as he and Hayman were friends.

The court of Revision of Notarial Acts had issued various decrees for the conservation of the notary's records, and had, on October 31, 1991, ordered that the room previously used by the notary be sealed off.

In a subsequent decree, the court had appointed a legal procurator to make an inventory of the notary's deeds, and on-site meetings were held in this room.

When he realised that the process would take some time, Mugliette had requested that the notary's records be removed from his property, and that they be held by officials appointed for this purpose.

Furthermore, as a result of the court decrees, Mugliette found that he had to be constantly available to open the front door to provide access to this room.

However, although no official objection was raised to Mugliette's request, the Notary to Government had declared that his department had no space available where to place Notary Hayman's records.

The court of Revision of Notarial Acts had then dismissed Mugliette's application and had ordered him to continue allowing access to his premises.

Furthermore, Mugliette was also made responsible for the sealing of the room.

Although by September 2002 the court appointed officials had taken all the records belonging to the late notary Hayman from the office, the room remained sealed.

The court had refused to release the room back to Mugliette, and he claimed that this refusal was a violation of his right to enjoyment of his own property.

He further claimed that he was being deprived of his property without compensation, and that he was being subjected to forced labour.

In yesterday's judgment Mr Justice Valenzia declared that it was clear that the court orders had imposed certain inconveniences and restrictions upon Mugliette.

However, the court had to decide whether these restrictions were oppressive.

It resulted that Mugliette was tied down for six months, under penalty of being found in contempt of court, to open his premises and make them available to the court.

He had to be available and was also burdened with responsibility for the security of the documents belonging to the late notary Hayman.

Mugliette had this role imposed upon him, and the court concluded that the order was oppressive and not normal.

Mr Justice Valenzia added, when examining Mugliette's complaint that he had been deprived of his property, that the deprivation had not been complete, for applicant had still been able to make use of the remainder of his premises while the inventory was being compiled.

However, after the inventory was completed, the room was again sealed, and Mugliette was not given the keys to the room, nor had he been given access.

It was from this point that Mugliette was deprived of his property without valid reason at law.

The court therefore concluded that while the measures taken while the inventory was being compiled were legitimate in the public interest, there was no fair balance, as an excessive burden had been placed on Mugliette who had been deprived of his property.

Mr Justice Valenzia declared that Mugliette's fundamental human rights had been violated.

The court ordered that the room in Mugliette's premises be returned to him and that he be awarded Lm500 in compensation.