The sins of our fathers

The government should get ready to brace itself firmly and be prepared for a massive shockwave. A particular ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg could have huge repercussions on our Exchequer. In fact, I daresay that this particular decision could cost the government tens of millions of euros in compensation. There it is, finally, in black and white. After decades of legal wrangling we have a clear judicial pronouncement on the issue, and what a precedent this could prove to be!

I am referring to the case of Anne Fleri Soler and Herbert Camilleri v. Malta, decided only recently by the Strasbourg Court. Here, the Court decided that the government has to pay applicants the hefty sum of €287,285 in respect of pecuniary damages they have suffered over the years. Plaintiffs sought compensation for damages they incurred on account of a requisition order imposed on their property, creating a landlord/tenant relationship under which they received only a minimal amount of profit, causing them to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden.

As stated earlier, the legitimacy or otherwise of such requisition orders has been a hotly-debated legal issue for a long time now. It is acceptable for the state to requisition property for a public purpose but only after paying due compensation. What remained unclear was what defines the term "public purpose" and what just compensation signified. Until recently, our judiciary proved to be reluctant to give a clear and final ruling on the matter.

This attitude was the result of our judiciary probably bearing in mind the draconian consequences of declaring such requisition orders as anti-constitutional. Nevertheless, once accexssibility to the Strasbourg Court was made possible to Maltese citizens, the legal scenario has obviously had to change radically.

Over a period of almost 60 years, governments found it only too convenient to use their discretion to requisition properties as an easy way out when addressing problems relating to social housing. Undoubtedly, the owners of such property suffered undue prejudice. What should preoccupy the government most is the fact that there are thousands of such instances. In the aftermath of this important judicial precedent, it could well be the case that the government will now be inundated with hundreds, if not thousands, of similar claims and this would prove a hard pill to swallow. It is only too apparent what the economic consequences of all this could be. The amount of damages the government could be held accountable for could practically dwarf the problem of the national deficit.

It is therefore perhaps opportune, if not indispensable, for the minister concerned to pre-empt the situation and start considering what remedial action can be taken in the face of all this. It seems that the writing was already on the wall in relation to this sorry state of affairs for quite some time now.

In this respect, it should be pointed out that, way back in 1992, the law relating to requisition orders was finally repealed. Furthermore, it has been the government's policy during the last 15 years or so to issue what are referred to as de-requisition orders. By issuing such orders, the state would thereby be relinquishing its legal hold on such properties. This notwithstanding, such de-requisitions would not be nullifying the contractual relationship which would have been imposed between the tenant and the owner. Thus, even here, such owners would continue to suffer a prejudice and cannot be held back from forwarding their pretentions.

The new rent proposals in the White Paper recently published could go some way in remedying such injustices.

The Strasbourg judgment goes even further than this because it has dictated compensation for the hardship suffered over the years. Understandably, the White Paper merely tries to accommodate and reach a balance between the various interests for the future.

Time does change but, unfortunately, we took long to adapt to such changes. What was legally and socially accepted say 20/30 years ago does not necessarily fit in within today's norms. Unfortunately, it is proving to be one thing aspiring to a more just society and a higher form of justice by, say, joining the European Union but an altogether different matter living up to such a mark.

Dr Herrera is a Labour member of Parliament.