Firm loses appeal over land expropriation

A constitutional appeal filed by a company from a judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court was yesterday dismissed by the Constitutional Court composed of Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Joseph D. Camilleri and Mr Justice Joseph A. Filletti.

J. Lautier Co. Ltd had filed a constitutional application in the First Hall of the Civil Court against the Commissioner of Lands and the Attorney General.

The company owned some land in Msida, part of which had been expropriated by the government by title of outright purchase in September 2003. This land had been allocated to the Housing Department for the use of third parties so that stables could be constructed for karrozzini horses.

Thus, the company submitted that the land had not been required for a public purpose, but for it to be utilised by third parties. The company had therefore claimed that its fundamental human rights had been violated.

The Commissioner of Lands and the AG had submitted that the land was required for the relocation of a number of stables that were formerly situated in a slum area in Msida that was due to be demolished. The purpose of the expropriation was so that the stables would no longer be situated in a residential zone.

The First Hall of the Civil Court had remarked in its judgment that in order for private property to be validly expropriated this had to be in the public interest and not for a public purpose. Such interest had to comprise that of the generality of the country's citizens and of the universality of the public in the country.

The first court had dismissed the company's application and the company had then appealed to the Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court declared that in its opinion the first court had expounded and explained the correct position on the expropriation of private property by the government.

When an expropriation was contested (as was the present case) then the government was obliged to prove, to the satisfaction of the courts, that the expropriation was in the public interest.

It was also up to the government to satisfy the courts that there existed that element of balance and proportionality between the aim of satisfying the public interest on the one hand and the protection of the individual's rights on the other.

However, once the state satisfied these requirements, even on a basis of probability, the courts could not substitute their discretion for that of the state as to the modality or technicality of the project that was to be carried out.

There was no doubt, the Constitutional Court ruled, that the slum clearance project in Msida was one of social housing and flood relief that fell perfectly within the definition of public interest.

The Constitutional Court therefore dismissed the company's appeal application.