The Constitutional Court has revoked a judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court whereby a constitutional application filed by Kirkop local council was dismissed.

The council had filed its application against the Attorney General, the Appeals Board of the Planning Authority, the Development Control Commission and against Multigas Limited.

It had claimed that its fundamental human rights to a fair hearing were violated by proceedings before the Planning Authority. The proceedings were instituted after the Malta Development Corporation, on behalf of Multigas Ltd, applied for an outline development permit to move a gas production unit from Hamrun to Kirkop.

The council had objected to this application and had sought recourse to the Appeals Board. The council then filed a constitutional application, following a warrant of prohibitory injunction issued at its request, claiming that the proceedings before the board were in violation of its fundamental human rights as the board, which was financed by the authority, was not an independent body nor was it impartial.

In its judgment, the First Hall of the Civil Court had declined to investigate the council's allegations as it concluded that the council had other means at its disposal in terms of the ordinary law of the land, for the council could appeal from the decision of the authority which had approved the application.

The council appealed from this judgment to the Constitutional Court which revoked the ruling and ordered that the case be remitted to the First Hall of the Civil Court to be heard on its merits.

The Constitutional Court, composed of Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Joseph D. Camilleri and Mr Justice Joseph A. Filletti, noted that while the first court was hearing the evidence it was informed that the Planning Authority had in fact upheld the request for full development permission.

Respondents then submitted that as a result of this approval the courts had to decline to hear the constitutional application as the local council had other remedies available to it at law. This submission was upheld by the First Hall of the Civil Court.

In its judgment the Constitutional Court declared that it could not agree with the reasoning that had led to the first court's judgment. The local council had based its constitutional application on the submission that it would not be given a fair hearing by the Planning Appeals Board as this was a body that was not independent of the Planning Authority.

This submission was, the appellate court ruled, still subject to a decision for the relationship between the Planning Authority and the board had not yet been examined by the courts.

The Constitutional Court added that it could not understand how the local council was expected to appeal from the decision granting full development permission to the Planning Appeals Board when the council itself was submitting that the board was not independent and impartial and was therefore not guaranteeing the right to a fair hearing.

Although the Constitutional Court did not ordinarily disturb the discretion of the First Hall of the Civil Court, the appellate court was bound, first and foremost, to establish that the remedy which the first court had said was available to applicants was in reality adequate.

The Constitutional Court concluded its judgment by revoking the judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court and by remitting the case to be heard anew.