A family has been ordered to vacate a house that it broke into in 1987 and has occupied since on the basis of a requisition order.

The judgment, handed down by the Constitutional Court, is the first of its kind and was based on the fact that the continued occupation of the Rabat premises would cause the owners to suffer further damages for which the taxpayer would have to make good.

The action was filed by Gerald, Neville, Alfred and Winston Montanaro Gauci and their sisters Nicholette Zammit Lupi and Marie Jose Sultana against the Housing Authority and Carmelo Caruana.

The Montanaro Gauci family told the court that a house that had belonged to their late father in Rabat had been broken into and illegally occupied by Mr Caruana and his family in 1987.

When the owners filed a court case for the eviction of Mr Caruana, the government authorities had, in an abusive manner in 1988, issued a requisition order and allocated the house to the Caruana family.

This action, the Montanaro Gaucis argued, was in violation of their rights to enjoyment of property and they requested the First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction to award them compensation and their property back.

In yesterday’s judgment, Mr Justice Joseph Azzopardi said the right to enjoyment of property was protected by the European Convention of Human Rights. The state was however entitled to deprive owners of the use of their property in accordance with the general interest.

But, the court declared, the deprivation of use of property for no other reason than to benefit a private individual could not be considered as being in the general interest.

The European Court had on two occasions found against Malta in similar circumstances. In the case Ghigo vs Malta, it had concluded that the property owner’s rights had been violated when he was deprived of his property for 22 years and had received €55 per annum by way of rent. In yesterday’s case the Montanaro Gauci family were receiving €35 per annum in rent.

Mr Justice Azzopardi ruled that despite previous judgments of the local courts which had delivered a different interpretation of the law, he was going to apply the principles stated by the European Court. He therefore concluded that the Montanaro Gauci family’s rights to enjoyment of their property had been violated and awarded them €8,000 by way of compensation. When referring to the owners’ request to have their property returned to them, the court declared that to date the European Court had not ordered such a provision. However, the local courts were certainly entitled to order that property revert to its owners.

The court was furthermore duty bound to find in favour of the owners. If they were not given their property back they would continue to incur damages for which the taxpayer would have to make good.

Mr Justice Azzopardi therefore ordered the Caruana family to vacate the property within three months.