Eviction order declared null but law provision is upheld

The Constitutional Court yesterday confirmed a judgment whereby an eviction order served on a Siggiewi couple was declared null and void.

Emanuel Camilleri and his wife Mary had filed a suit against the Commissioner of Lands and the Attorney General claiming that their fundamental human rights had been violated when an eviction order was issued against them.

The first court heard that the Camilleris lived at premises numbered 45, 46 and 48 in St John Street, Siggiewi. The premises were interconnected. This property was originally inhabited by a certain Antonio Pace who rented it from the Archbishop's Curia. The Camilleris had then moved in with Mr Pace and had continued to reside there after Mr Pace's death.

The said houses eventually were transferred to the government as a result of the Church Properties Act of 1992, and the rent was paid to the Joint Office.

The Commissioner of Lands had, as the new owner of the property, ruled that the Camilleris had no legal title to the property and issued an eviction order against them.

The Camilleris submitted before the first court that this order was in violation of their fundamental human right to a fair hearing and to enjoyment of their property and of family life.

The first court ruled in favour of the Camilleris and found that the occupant of government property had to have the right to recourse to the courts for the dispute to be resolved.

The issue of whether Mr and Mrs Camilleri were legally entitled to live in the property could only be determined by a court empowered to investigate issues of both fact and law.

The law in terms of which the eviction order did not provide such access to an independent and impartial tribunal was declared null and void by the first court.

The Attorney General and the Lands Commissioner appealed to the Constitutional Court composed of Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Joseph D. Camilleri and Mr Justice Joseph A. Filletti.

In yesterday's judgment the appellate court declared that the first court had correctly explained the law governing the matter of access to the courts. The first court had applied the said law correctly.

The Constitutional Court said that although the eviction order ought to be declared null and void, or cancelled, on the basis that the order itself was in violation of the Camilleris' rights, it was not the case that the law itself was in violation of their rights.

It resulted that the Camilleris had only been given three days from the issue of the eviction order to vacate their home or part of it. This time limit was clearly far too short for it was impossible for the Camilleris to take legal action to stop the enforcement of the order.

The Constitutional Court therefore confirmed that the eviction order was to be cancelled. The court however dismissed that part of the first judgment which had pronounced the nullity of the section of the law in terms of which the order had been issued.