Family awarded €75,000 in compensation over requisitioned house in Sta Venera
The owners of a property requisitioned and later turned into a political party club were yesterday awarded €75,000 in compensation after a court ruled that their fundamental human rights had been violated.
The family had filed a constitutional case after their Sta Venera house had been requisitioned by the government in 1967 to be eventually used as a party club.
The government originally declared that the property had been required to build a bypass from Ħamrun to Marsa. However, the project never materialised because the government had instead decided to excavate a tunnel to ease the traffic flow.
There was no need for the house to be knocked down and it remained vacant until 1973, when the government handed over the house to the Labour Party to be used as a political club against a payment of €104 a year, which was later raised to €382.
The family eventually filed a constitutional application before Mr Justice Raymond Pace in the first hall of the civil court against the Director of Social Accommodation and against the PL club of Sta Venera.
They did not insist on the eviction of the PL from the house but claimed that the government had overstepped its powers when it requisitioned their property and that they were not being adequately compensated for it.
Mr Justice Pace noted that the family did not have a remedy to contest the requisition, because case law going back to the mid-1970s had established that the government was entitled to requisition properties for the purpose of accommodating political party clubs. More recent case law had overturned these judgments, however, and the court, therefore, concluded that the requisition order was null and void. However, the court declared that the relationship between the owners and the PL was that of landlord and tenant.
The court found that the owners were entitled to compensation for the loss of their property and ordered the Director of Social Accommodation to pay them €75,000.
Lawyer Claire Bonello appeared for the family.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
9 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
N.Calleja
Nov 27th 2009, 17:23
Joseph Muscat is always harping that people are paying 'taxes 'because of corruption. What is he going to say for all this usurping of power throughout the Labour years? Isn't this 75,000 euro compensation coming out of the taxpayers' pocket another form of taxation?
joseph saliba
Nov 27th 2009, 17:21
Let us celebrate an excellent judgement enabled by a fresh just law defending the maltese citizens from past and future injustices. I am also happy that the P.L. can still enjoy their club which I augur will be used for the good of the people.
J Martinelli
Nov 27th 2009, 13:29
@ James Grech et al
"...it remained vacant until 1973, when the government handed over the house to the Labour Party to be used as a political club against a payment of €104 a year...Mr Justice Pace noted that the family did not have a remedy to contest the requisition, because case law going back to the mid-1970s had established that the government was entitled to requisition properties for the purpose of accommodating political party clubs.
Who changed the law allowing requisitioned properties to be converted to political party clubs? That's the crux of the matter! And, who took advantage of it?
Owners of such properties should be adequately compensated irrespective of which government did what.
@ James A Tyrrell
Do you know the difference between requisitioning powers and downright thievery?
Galea. L
Nov 27th 2009, 12:28
e. fenech
The PN requisitioned it and it should be the PN that pays the amount awarded. The PN requisitioned many properties and allowed them to continue to be requisitioned without having any use for them.
e. fenech
Nov 27th 2009, 12:13
dear james t., between requisitioning the property (1967) and building the tunnel (if memory does not fail me in 1990's) besides a good 20 years we also had a labour party in government for 16 of those years. the theft comes in, because whereas the property was originally taken for public use (i also have my reservation about this right, but which must be the case in most countries)the labour party changed the law to use such properties for its own (rather than national use). yes that is theft
James A. Tyrrell
Nov 27th 2009, 11:57
@e. fenech. The issue seems very clear to me sir. The property in question was requisitioned by the PN government, which planned to knock it down to facilitate the building of a bypass. The same Government then decided to excavate a tunnel instead which meant they no longer had any need to retain the house. However rather than return it to the rightful owner they decided to hold onto it. Sounds very much like theft to me.
e. fenech
Nov 27th 2009, 10:26
knowing the whole truth is, as has always been of great value, dear james... but literacy is also of great value. had u bothered to read the whole article , or perhaps understand what u read, u would have found out that the originally the property was requisitioned in 1967 for a public cause. the laws were changed in mid - 1970' s to allow requisitioned property to be used for political clubs. and guess who passed that law...yes the labour party, and guess who got the use of the property for a platry sum... yes the labour party. do u understand now the issue dear james?
James Grech
Nov 27th 2009, 09:45
Ah so it was a PN government which requisitioned the place and which failed to hand it back to the legitimate owners when plans were changed. Blaming everything on the PL is not correct then, since even the law was different then. It is also nonsensical for the PN and its newspaper to claim that the compensation that the maltese have to fork out is because of a PL government. Isn't saying reporting the whole truth a value anymore, nowadays?
e. fenech
Nov 27th 2009, 09:24
great isn't it. the labour party occupies a prime site property for €382 to use solely as a party club. ... and the country pays €75,00 as compensation to the owners!! what a country eh! any comments from joseph muscat re this gem? is the labour party going to reimburse the state coffers for this?