Court awards compensation in land expropriation case

Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco, sitting in the First Hall of the Civil Court, yesterday upheld a constitutional application filed by the Pullicino family against the Commissioner of Lands and ruled that a 32-year delay in formalising expropriation procedures was unjustifiable and constituted a breach of applicants' fundamental human rights.

The court however dismissed the family's submission that the expropriation had not taken place in the public interest.

The application was filed by Anthony Pullicino, Stephanie Mosé Pullicino, Patricia Curmi, Graziella Pullicino, Eileen Pullicino, Victor Pullicino, Bernard Pullicino, Edward Pullicino, Maryanne Pullicino and Yvonne Pullicino against the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Lands. Malta Freeport Corporation Limited was later called into the suit.

Applicants claimed that in February 1969 the Governor General had issued a declaration which laid down that over 15 tumoli of land held by the Pullicino family in the locality of Kalafrana and Benghajsa were required by the government for a public purpose.

In March 1969 the family had refused the compensation offered to them by the Lands Commissioner for the expropriation of their land.

The family submitted that since 1969 it had not been served with any further notices from the commissioner in connection with the Governor General's declaration, except for the notice that the commissioner had deposited the compensation that had been refused under the authority of the courts.

The Pullicinos said that portions of the land claimed for expropriation were still in their possession while irremediable damage had been caused to those portions which had been excavated but not developed.

Furthermore, the government was not utilising any portions of the land for a public purpose.

They claimed that this was in violation of their right to deprivation of property without compensation and in violation of their right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time.

Following a lengthy examination of both local and foreign case law on the subject, Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco declared that in order for private property to be forcibly taken over by the government it had to be done in the public interest and not for a public purpose.

It had to result that it was in the interest of the generality of the public for the land to be expropriated.

Protection of private property was also in the public interest and one had to maintain a fair balance between the demand of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental human rights.

The right of expropriation had always to be interpreted restrictively and an expropriation without reasonable compensation would normally constitute disproportionate interference in the rights of the individual.

The court quoted from a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights which had established that the taking of property effected in pursuance of legitimate social, economic or other policies might be in the public interest even if the community at large had no direct use or enjoyment of the property taken.

Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco pointed out that the Lands Commissioner had declared that the land had been expropriated for a public purpose consisting in the Freeport project. This project, the court noted, was undoubtedly in the public interest as it employed a large number of employees and also enabled the importation of a large number of items into the country as well as transhipment.

The project was certainly necessary to the economy of the country.

The public interest in this project superseded that of the private owners, for even if one took into consideration the lapse of many years from the de facto expropriation to date, the project was still of public interest. The future expansion of the Freeport was also in the public interest.

Thus, the Pullicinos' claim that the expropriation had not taken place in the public interest was dismissed by the courts.

However, Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco pointed out in his judgment that for 32 years the Pullicino family had not been served with any judicial proceedings for the conclusion of the expropriation procedures which only commenced by the Governor General's declaration.

Describing this delay as "enormous", the court said it could never be justified within the concept of public interest as the commissioner had failed, for 32 years, to commence the judicial proceedings that would finalise the expropriation process.

The Pullicino family had not received compensation nor had they been served with a notice to treat in terms of law. As a result, the family had not been given the fair and public hearing within a reasonable time to which it was entitled at law.

This did not render the expropriation null and void but constituted a violation of the Pullicino family to a fair hearing.

Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco awarded the family Lm5,000 in compensation.