European Court dismisses Mintoff's claim

The European Court of Human Rights has dismissed a complaint by former Prime Minister Dom Mintoff and his daughters against Malta.

Mr Mintoff and his daughters - Anna Mckenna and Yana Mintoff Bland - sued Malta on the basis that their fundamental human rights had been violated.

They claimed they had not been given an adequate remedy by the Maltese courts after a decision that they had been deprived of the enjoyment of their property at Delimara as a result of the construction of the new power station.

The European Court heard that in 1987, the government had built a power station at Delimara, five metres away from Mr Mintoff's property. When the power station started operating in 1992, Mr Mintoff had to leave his residence and move to his other house in Tarxien. Mr Mintoff and his wife (who died while the case was pending) filed proceedings in Malta claiming they had been deprived of the enjoyment of their property.

In 1995, the First Hall of the Civil Court found in favour of Mr Mintoff and ruled that his property had been de facto expropriated and that it had suffered a dramatic depreciation in value.

In April 1996, the Constitutional Court confirmed the first judgment but did not award compensation. Instead, the Constitutional Court remitted the case to the first court with a view to the parties reaching a friendly settlement.

As no agreement was reached, in August 2004 the First Hall of the Civil Court determined compensation and awarded Mr Mintoff and his daughters Lm360,000. In July 2006, the Constitutional Court upheld the first court's judgment and the award of compensation.

The European Court noted that, in 2004, Mr Mintoff had been contacted by Enemalta Corporation and asked to pay water and electricity bills for the Tarxien house, amounting to a few hundred liri. After he refused to pay the bills, the utilities supply was cut off and it was only restored when a third party paid the bill against Mr Mintoff's wishes.

According to the Mintoffs, when the water supply was restored, the pressure was initially too high and it caused the pipes to burst. This had rendered the Tarxien house uninhabitable too.

However, the Maltese courts dismissed the constitutional claim filed by the Mintoffs in connection with the Tarxien property. Both the First Hall of the Civil Court and the Constitutional Court found that the Mintoffs had not made use of the ordinary remedies available to them.

The Mintoff family then sought recourse to the European Court claiming they had not been provided with an adequate remedy. They added they had been discriminated against as another individual who had also sustained deprivation of his property due to the Delimara power station had been awarded Lm550,000 in damages.

The third party was referred to in the European Court judgment as "Mr B". (In February this year, the First Hall of the Civil Court awarded damages of Lm550,000 to Alfred J. Baldacchino, who owned property in Delimara.)

The European Court declared that a fair balance had to be struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirement of the protection of the individual's rights. It found that the sum of Lm360,000 (equivalent to €864,000) could not be considered derisory.

The architects appointed by the Maltese courts had established that, had the power station not been built, Mr Mintoff's property at Delimara would have been worth Lm220,000. The entire value of Mr Mintoff's property was evidently covered in the award he had received, as the award exceeded this sum by Lm140,000.

Furthermore, the property remained in Mr Mintoff's possession.

The European Court reiterated that it was for the Maltese courts to interpret domestic law and that it would not substitute its own interpretation for that of the local courts unless arbitrariness resulted.

When referring to Mr Mintoff's claim that he expected the award to include the damage to his Tarxien house, the European Court noted that these damages were the subject of other litigation. The conditions created in the Tarxien property were not related to the de facto expropriation of the Delimara residence.

Mr Mintoff's decision not to pay his utility bills, which resulted in further damage to his Tarxien residence, could have no bearing on the compensation awarded to him by the Constitutional Court.

The European Court concluded that the compensation awarded to Mr Mintoff and his daughters did not upset the fair balance required at law as the Mintoffs did not have to bear a disproportionate or excessive burden.

When examining the Mintoffs' allegation of discrimination, the European Court noted that the properties of both Mr Mintoff and of "Mr B" had been affected by the power station. However, the parties had instituted different types of proceedings when seeking redress before the Maltese courts.

"Mr B" had filed an action for damages as resulted by the Civil Code. A different method of calculation of damages was applied in the Mintoffs' case, as they had lodged a constitutional application in terms of the European Convention. Furthermore, the proceedings involving "Mr B"' were not final and, therefore, even if the proceedings had been the same, no comparison could be made by the European Court at this stage.

The claim filed by Mr Mintoff and his daughters was, therefore, declared inadmissible by the European Court.