Constitutional court upholds expropriation of farmers' land
The Constitutional Court has ruled that the expropriation of farming land for the construction of a road was not in violation of the farmers' fundamental human rights.
The decision was taken in a a case instituted by Paul, Giljan and John Farrugia against the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Lands.
The three men told the court that they farmed eight tumoli of land (roughly 8,800 square metres) in St Julians and San Gwann and that they were full time farmers producing three crops a year and raising dairy cattle. Their entire livelihood depended on farming.
In 1998 the Commissioner of Lands had issued a notice expropriating an area of this farmland to be allocated to a private company, MS & A Developments Ltd.
The farmers told the court that this expropriation was in violation of their fundamental human rights to property and that they were being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment.
The First Hall of the Civil Court had dismissed the farmers claims and had ruled that the expropriation had taken place in the public interest.
In its judgment the first court examined what the purpose of the expropriation was and whether it was intended to benefit a private company. It resulted that the land in issue had been intended for use as a public road. The company had requested the expropriation of the land as this land constituted the only access to the company's property.
A representative of the Roads Department had explained that when a person developed property, he was bound to create the access road. When such person was unable to do so, there existed a procedure whereby the Commissioner of Lands could expropriate land to be used as a public road. In such a case the expropriated land would devolve upon the government while the person requesting the expropriation had to pay the compensation due.
Expropriation of property was justifiable when land was required for a public purpose. In this case the expropriation had taken place in a legal manner and in the public interest for the land had been designated as an area for a public road since 1998.
The farmers then appealed to the Constitutional Court comprised of Chief Justice Vincent DeGaetano, Mr Justice Joseph A Filletti and Mr Justice Tonio Mallia.
On appeal the court pointed out that the fact that the development of the road was to be carried out by a private company did not diminish the public interest of the project. This was confirmed by previous judgements of the local courts and of the European Court.
The public interest was linked to the final purpose to which the expropriated land would be used. The construction of a road benefited the owners of adjacent properties, but it was obvious that the government was responsible for town planning in the public interest.
The Constitutional Court therefore dismissed the appeal and confirmed the first judgment.
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...
'No need for early election if PM's...
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...
15 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Dr Francis Saliba
Aug 10th 2010, 11:28
@JohnGatt
In this case the owners are not an aristocratic family. The area, with undefined boundaries, was granted in emphyteusis by the Curia for an unbelievable derisory low rent specifically so that the renter could build a wall on it - as if the Curia had any powers to grant building permits! The erection of that wall was successfully rejected by MEPA, nevertheless the same purpose was achieved in a roundabout way utilizing the bulldozers of the Lands Department. Although not blue-bloodied the owners have proved to be experts at inducing government departments to assist them in depriving all public access to a beauty spot that is protected by an Emergency Conservation Order. The same thing happened not so long ago when a traffic barrier was shifted from its correct position protecting pedestrians using the pavement and instead it was relocated so as to deny access to the beauty spot, even though the barrier, in its unusual new position, became a mortal danger to pedestrians! That abusive relocation was corrected only after the intervention of the Mellieha Local Council. These people are not aristocrats – they simply “know the ropes” for the local situation.
Joseph E Briffa
Aug 10th 2010, 09:16
The developers should not in the first place have been allowed to develop an area without an access. This is madness. Sopra corna the state then expropriates somebody else's private property to provide an access!! The law is an ass.
Marco Zerafa
Aug 10th 2010, 07:31
Total injustice by the Constitutional Court. How about the owners filing a case in the European Court of Human Rights? This means that nobody has his property protected as any government can say that a road needs to be passed through your property.
reno calleja
Aug 10th 2010, 00:08
In Oliver Twist, Charles Dickens coned the phrase The Law is An ass---idiot
I have today confirmed that Charles Dickens was right
F B Aquilina
Aug 9th 2010, 20:36
Who owned property first: the farmers or the householders? This is the crux of the matter!
Dr Francis Saliba
Aug 10th 2010, 06:31
This is not a case of "first come, first served" otherwise we would have no public roads leading to new conurbations. Of course the owners of expropriated land should be justly remunerated for any sacrifices made for the common good.
Peter Korsten
Aug 10th 2010, 08:11
No, the crux is that there's such a thing that requires you to provide access over your land to someone who doesn't have access to the nearest public road. Otherwise, someone could buy up all the land around me and lock me out. This law exists in many jurisdictions, and has existed for a very long time, including Malta.
As the article says, the farmers were unable (or perhaps unwilling, but that is not stated as such) to build such a road, so therefore the expropriation procedure was set in motion.
Joseph Aquilina
Aug 10th 2010, 09:51
No, the crux of the matter is who you are!!
John Borg
Aug 9th 2010, 18:25
So I build something in the middle of nowhere and than take away my neighbour's land in order to build a road for my building. Is this justice ?!
Kevin Zammit
Aug 10th 2010, 07:28
I was thinking the exact same thing. I wonder if its another case were the court does not go into the merits of why the company ended up in the middle of nowhere in the first place. Of course if it has been sanctioned its a moot point now.
d.attard
Aug 9th 2010, 18:04
may I express my solidarity with Paul Giljan and John.
Dr Francis Saliba
Aug 11th 2010, 18:27
There is still another possibility namely that government minions are not incorruptible and will remain so until a whistleblower act is passed and until vigorous action is taken out to punish offenders!
l borg
Aug 9th 2010, 17:04
THE PROBLEM IS NOT BECAUSE THE GOVERMENT TAKES A PIECE OF LAND BUT THAT HE DOES NOT PAY MARKET VALUE AND GOD KNOWS WHEN HE PAYS WE LOST A PIECE OF LAND IN 1968 AND GOT 7000 MALTESE IN 1987 JUST TO LET YOU KNOW THAT TODAY THE LAND IS WORTH 2 MILLION EUROS BUT WE ARE NOT FORMER PRIME MINISTERS OR MINISTERS
Dr Francis Saliba
Aug 9th 2010, 16:59
The Ministry of Finance, the Economy and Investment has stated that the Director of the Joint Office and the Ramblers Association were meeting "to discuss and explore any alternative, legally correct way forward" to re-open the access by the public to an inland cliff area on Mellieha Heights that is of inestimable value as a tourist and public belvedere, so much so that it is protected by an Emergency Conservation Order. The only practicable access was recently demolished by large earth moving machinery sent in by the Department of Lands at the instigation of the owners of the private property through which this rock cut hundred year old passage passes.
What is keeping the government and the Commissioner of Lands from making use of their powers, confirmed by the Constitutional Court, to expropriate also this land in the undoubted public interest? Unbelievably, in this case it was the Department of Lands itself that bulldozed away this traditional right of way!
John Gatt
Aug 10th 2010, 07:32
Dr Francis Saliba probably the owners are some blu-eyed boys or some aristocratic family who still hold so much land in Malta which only God knows how it became their property.