A law regulating the composition of a court is in violation of the fundamental human right to a fair hearing, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.
The case go back to 1985 when a woman (referred to in the judgment as Mrs M) was sued by her neighbour who requested the First Hall of the Civil Court to prohibit her from hanging out clothes to dry over the courtyard of his apartment. The neighbour was referred to as Mr F.
The warrant of prohibitory injunction was issued in the absence of Mrs M who had not been informed of the date of the hearing. The court found against Mrs M on the merits of the case.
In the meantime, Mrs M had asked the courts to overturn the warrant on the basis that it had been granted in her absence and without giving her the opportunity to be heard. In October 1990 the court found in her favour and declared the warrant to be null and void.
In February 1993 the Court of Appeal upheld Mr F's appeal and overturned the October 1990 judgment which had been given in favour of Mrs M.
Mrs M then lodged a constitutional application in the First Hall of the Civil Court claiming that the Chief Justice had not been impartial as he was the brother and uncle respectively of the lawyers who had represented Mr F. Mrs M died in the course of these proceedings and her place in the litigation was taken by her brother Joseph Micallef.
The constitutional application was dismissed in January 2004 and this judgment was confirmed by the Constitutional Court.
Mr Micallef went to the European Court of Human Rights which, in January last year, ruled by four votes to three that there had been a violation of the right to a fair hearing on account of lack of objective impartiality due to the composition of the Court of Appeal.
The government then requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights composed of 17judges, including Mr Justice Giovanni Bonello.
Following this reference the government argued that Mr Micallef did not have what it termed "victim status" for he was not entitled to lodge an application on his own behalf after his sister had died while the proceedings were still going on a domestic level.
The court heard submissions by the government and the Grand Chamber declared that in this case, the Chief Justice sufficed to objectively justify fears that the panel of judgments lacked impartiality.
It found there had been a violation of the fundamental human right to a fair trial. Mr Micallef was awarded 2,000 euros towards his costs and expenses.
Maltese law, at the time of the Court of Appeal judgment in 1993 did not allow a party to a trial to challenge a judge on the grounds of an uncle-nep[hew relationship.
In this case the European Court took the view that the close family ties between the opposing party's lawyer and the Chief Justice sufficed to objectively justify fears that the panel of judgments lacked impartiality.