Auditing firm loses human rights violation appeal

The Constitutional Court has overturned a judgment which had found that the fundamental human rights of an accountancy firm were violated.

The judgment was delivered in a constitutional case filed by Deloitte and Touche Certified Public Accountants and Auditors and the firm's partners against the Attorney General and the Registrar of Courts.

The court heard that the firm had been used by Valle Del Miele Ltd in 2001 for work in connection with the Price Club chain of supermarkets.

A preliminary judgment was delivered by the First Hall of the Civil Court in December 1, 2003, and the accountancy firm had requested the permission of that court to appeal from the judgment to the Court of Appeal.

The authorisation was given on December 12, 2003, and the firm lodged its appeal on December 29 of that year.

But in June, 2004, the Court of Appeal ruled that the appeal could not be accepted as it had not been filed within the legal time limit. According to the appellate court, an appeal from a preliminary judgment had to be filed within 20 days from the date of the judgment and not within 20 days from the authorisation to appeal.

Deloitte and Touche then had recourse to the First Hall of the Civil Court (in its constitutional jurisdiction) claiming that the decision by the Court of Appeal had violated its fundamental human right to a fair hearing and access to the courts.

In November 2006, the First Hall of the Civil Court ruled that the judgment by the Court of Appeal of June 2004 had violated the firm's fundamental human rights to access to the court.

The Attorney General then appealed to the Constitutional Court, composed of Mr Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo, Mr Justice Joseph R. Micallef and Mr Justice Tonio Mallia.

The Constitutional Court declared that it agreed with the firm that the interpretation of the law as expressed by the Court of Appeal, in its judgment of June 2004, was incorrect.

However, not every incorrect interpretation gave rise to a violation of fundamental human rights. If this were the case, then every time a person lost a court case, he would be able to request the case to be heard again on the basis of a violation of human rights. The court had therefore to decide whether the wrong interpretation of the law in this particular case had given rise to a violation of the firm's right to recourse to the courts.

A person aggrieved by a preliminary judgment was entitled to appeal from this judgment on two occasions, the first being immediately after the judgment was given and the authorisation of the court issued, and the second after the final judgment was delivered.

But a person/body was not entitled to lodge two appeals from the preliminary judgment, and had to decide whether to appeal immediately after it was delivered or together with an appeal from the final judgment.

It was therefore clear that the firm had not been deprived of its right to access to the court of appeal. The firm had only been deprived of the right to lodge an appeal from the preliminary judgment immediately after it was delivered. This could not be said to be a violation of the firm's fundamental human rights.

The Constitutional Court, therefore, upheld the appeal lodged by the Attorney General and found that no violation of the firm's rights had occurred.