The Constitutional Court has partially upheld an appeal from a human rights application judgment and has declared that the hearing of a case for a retrial by the same judges who had decided the case originally was in violation of the right to a fair hearing.
The judgment was given in the case filed by Arcidiacono Ltd against the Attorney General and against Renato and Antoinette Arcidiacono.
The company had filed its constitutional application in the First Hall of the Civil Court and had requested the court to declare that two provisions of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure were in violation of its fundamental human right to a fair hearing.
The company had also requested the court to declare that the hearing of a case for retrial by the same three judges who had given the original judgment (in respect of which the retrial was requested) was in violation of its right to a fair hearing.
On January 12 the First Hall of the Civil Court had dismissed the company's application and Arcidiacono Ltd submitted its appeal to the Constitutional Court composed of Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Joseph D. Camilleri and Mr Justice Anton Depasquale.
The Constitutional Court heard that Renato and Antoinette Arcidiacono had filed a case against the company and the First Hall of the Civil Court had, in a judgment delivered in April, 1997, condemned the company to pay the couple Lm20,000.
Arcidiacono Ltd lodged an appeal which was also dismissed by the Court of Appeal in June, 1999.
In the following month Arcidiacono Ltd filed a request for the retrial of the Appeal Court case.
The Court of Appeal appointed to hear the request for the retrial was composed of the same three judges who had delivered the appellate judgment.
The company called upon the judges to abstain from hearing the retrial, but this request was turned down by the judges in February, 2000.
This decision led to the company filing its constitutional application before the First Hall of the Civil Court and eventually to the Constitutional Court.
In its judgment the Constitutional Court declared that in 1991 a court judgment had ruled that in certain cases of retrial the judges who had delivered the judgment that was the subject of the retrial could not preside over the retrial once challenged to abstain.
However, after this judgment was delivered there developed a fear that this could lead to a means of prolonging court cases, and a retrial would be requested on the flimsiest pretext.
It was for this reason that it was decided that a judge, when challenged to abstain in the course of a retrial, had to first decide whether there were, on a prima facie basis, grounds for a retrial, and only after that proceed to decide whether or not he was to abstain.
However, in this judgment the Constitutional Court declared that when a judge was called upon to hear a case of retrial in which he had to examine his own previous judgment, then the judge could not proceed to examine the case on a prima facie basis without violating the European Convention of Human Rights.
In conclusion the Constitutional Court confirmed part of the judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court and ruled that the provisions of the code regulating procedure did not violate the company's rights.
However, the Constitutional Court concluded that the hearing of the retrial requested by the company by the same judges who had already previously decided the case was in violation of the company's fundamental human right to a fair hearing.
The Constitutional Court ordered the retrial to be heard by three different judges.