In a partial judgment, the Constitutional Court dismissed the request filed by third parties to intervene in constitutional proceedings pending before the court.

The judgment was delivered in the case, currently in appeal, based upon the application filed by Mario Galea Testaferrata, Nicholas Jensen, Helen Miles, Agnes Gera de Petri, Irene Bach, Anna Marie Spiteri Debono and Karen Preziosi against the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, George and Maria Theuma and Ganni and Lelina Grech.

Applicants had requested the First Hall of the Civil Court (in its constitutional jurisdiction) to declare that provisions of the Housing Decontrol Ordinance providing for the conversion of a temporary emphyteutical grant to a perpetual emphyteusis were in violation of their fundamental human rights.

In October 2000 the First Hall of the Civil Court had ruled that applicants' fundamental human rights to enjoyment of property, as protected by the Constitution, had been violated and consequently certain provisions of the Housing Decontrol Ordinance were null and void.

The first court however upheld respondents' submissions and therefore did not declare that the provisions of the Ordinance were in violation of the European Convention of Human Rights.

The Prime Minister and Minister of Justice lodged an appeal to the Constitutional Court composed of Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Joseph D. Camilleri and Mr Joseph A. Filletti.

In its judgment the Constitutional Court declared that certain complications in this case had arisen as a result of applications filed by third parties that requested to be allowed to intervene in the case at the appeal stage. Philip Grima and Brian Bajada had filed an application in June 2002. The two men asked permission to intervene on the grounds that the case involved principles of law that affected them directly and that they therefore had an interest in defending the legal possession as they held property under the same conditions as those which had given rise to the court case.

However, the original applicants who had commenced the litigation objected to the intervention as they claimed that their action was based on their right to protection of their fundamental human rights and was not a popular action. Furthermore, the original applicants submitted that a constitutional action had to be filed by a person who had a personal and direct juridical interest (save for the case of a popular action).

In February 2003 architect Joseph Barbara filed an application requesting authorisation to intervene in the case. He explained that he and others were the direct owners of the property held by Grima and Bajada and had therefore the same interests as the original applicants. Barbara requested the court to dismiss Grima and Bajada's application or, in the event that the application was upheld, to allow them to intervene in the suit.

Yet another application for authorisation to intervene in the suit was filed in February 2003 by Angela Balzan on the basis that she was a direct owner of property that had been occupied by Bajada.

The Constitutional Court noted that in order to intervene in a suit, the person requesting intervention had to prove that he had a substantive and direct interest in the lawsuit and not merely an interest in its outcome. A person wishing to intervene in a suit had to show he had an interest in protecting his interests in the particular suit.

It was obvious that the interest claimed by Grima and Bajada was not a direct interest in the case pending before the Constitutional Court but merely an interest in the case's outcome as it could have repercussions on other property they held.

The court added that in any event the outcome of the current case would affect only the original applicants and the original respondents.

The Constitutional Court therefore dismissed all the applications for intervention that had been filed.

The case was put off for continuation.