European court rejects judges' complaints

The European Court of Human Rights has rejected three complaints filed by former judges Noel Arrigo and Partick Vella, claiming a breach of their rights, and declared their application inadmissible.

The judges took their case before the European court in an application lodged on January 28, 2004.

The court heard how on August 4, 2002, former Chief Justice Noel Arrigo and former Judge Patrick Vella had been charged with two counts of bribery and with revealing official secrets in connection with a judgment handed down by the Court of Criminal Appeal against drug trafficker Mario Camilleri.

The two former judges filed a case in the First Hall of the Civil Court arguing that comments passed by the Prime Minister (then Eddie Fenech Adami) during a press conference on August 1, 2002, were in breach of their fundamental human rights.

In a judgment of December 4, 2002, the Civil Court held that the declarations made in the press conference by the Prime Minister could not be considered as statements of guilt and therefore declared that the applicants' fundamental rights had not been breached. The Civil Court directed the Court of Criminal Inquiry to continue the criminal proceedings instituted before it.

The applicants appealed to the Constitutional Court against the judgment. In a judgment of October 29, 2003, this court revoked the impugned decision and declared that there had been a violation of the applicants' rights to a fair trial and to be presumed innocent.

The Constitutional Court ruled that the judges' right to a fair trial had been violated on the basis of the violation of the presumption of innocence at the news conference given by the Prime Minister.

The Constitutional Court, however, concluded that as the judges' fundamental human right to trial by an independent and impartial court had not been violated, there was no reason to halt the criminal proceedings against the former judges.

On March 17, 2004 the applicants requested the Court of Criminal Inquiry to suspend the trial pending a decision from the European Court of Human Rights - where they had taken their case in January that year.

In an order of September 7, 2004, the Court of Criminal Inquiry rejected the applicants' claim and decided to continue with the collection of evidence.

In their application to the European Court of Human Rights, the former judges complained that their right to be tried by an impartial and independent tribunal had been breached, their presumption of innocence had not been respected and that their case was not redressed in an effective manner.

As for their first complaint, that their rights to a fair trial had been breached, the European Court, noted that the criminal proceedings in question (before the Court of Criminal Inquiry) have not yet been completed and the legal requirements of the article evoked could only be determined once the proceedings were concluded. For this reason the court found the complaint to be manifestly ill-founded and was rejected.

As regards the second complaint, that their presumption of innocence had been tainted through the Prime Minister's speech, the EU court ruled: "The court recalls that this provision cannot prevent the authorities from informing the public about criminal investigations in progress... Moreover, the court considers that in a democratic society it is inevitable that information is imparted when a serious charge of misconduct in office is brought, as in the present case, against two high-ranked magistrates...

"The fact that the applicants had important duties in the national judicial system at the time of the alleged offence required the highest state officials, including the Prime Minister, to keep the public informed of the alleged offence and the ensuing criminal proceedings... Otherwise, the gravity of the accusations could have undermined the confidence which the courts in a democratic society must inspire in the public."

However, the court said, respect for the presumption of innocence requires that the authorities use all the necessary discretion and circumspection.

On noting the decision of the Constitutional Court, the European court ruled that in its view, the highest court, in Malta had thus made clear that the applicants' guilt or innocence should be established by the Criminal Court only on the basis of the evidence produced during the trail, and that the declarations of the Prime Minister should not have any influence on the outcome of the criminal proceedings. For this reason the second complaint was also rejected.

Moving on to the third complaint, the former judges said they were not provided with an effective domestic remedy for the violations of their rights to a fair trial and to be presumed innocent.

The applicants observed that the Constitutional Court sought to redress the violations by simply ordering that a copy of its judgment of October 29, 2003 be inserted in the file of the pending criminal proceedings.

The European court observed that the Constitutional Court adopted measures aimed at providing redress for the violations of the presumption of innocence and of the right to a fair trial. It also sought to place the applicants, as far as possible, in the position they would have been in had the requirements of the law not been disregarded. It followed that this complaint was manifestly ill-founded.

Based on these reasons, the EU court unanimously declared the judges' application inadmissible.