The Constitutional Court has overturned a judgment which had ruled that provisions of the law which allowed a temporary emphyteusis cens to be converted to a perpetual one were in violation of the property's owner's fundamental human rights.
The court heard that in 1999 John and Anna Grima filed a constitutional application against the Attorney General and Michael Camilleri before the First Hall of the Civil Court.
They told the court that in 1994 they had purchased the direct ownership of land in Gozo which was subject to a temporary emphyteusis of 99 years commencing in 1899. Michael Camilleri's house had been built on this land prior to the purchase by Mr and Mrs Grima.
In 1998, Mr Camilleri had claimed that he was entitled in terms of law to convert the temporary emphyteutical grant to one of perpetual emphyteusis, according to the Housing Decontrol Ordinance. He had requested the ordinary courts to declare that he was so entitled. This case was still pending.
But Mr and Mrs Grima objected to this conversion on the basis that they would be deprived of their property without adequate compensation.
Last September the Grimas’ constitutional application was upheld and the court concluded that the relative sections of the ordinance were null as they were in violation of human rights.
Both the Attorney General and Mr Camilleri appealed.
In its judgement today, the Constitutional Court composed of acting Chief Justice Geoffrey Valenzia, Mr Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo and Mr Justice Tonio Mallia, referred to a previous judgment "Mario Galea Testaferrata versus the Prime Minister" which had also ruled that the relevant sections were null and void.
This judgment had been appealed and the appeal was declared to have been abandoned. No ruling on it had been delivered by the Constitutional Court.
The court also referred to another judgment which it had delivered in 2009 "Josephine Bugeja vs Attorney General".
In this judgment the Constitutional Court had ruled that the said sections of the law were not in violation of human rights. The court had concluded that there could be cases where the application of the law in particular circumstances could constitute such a violation.
In its judgement today, the Constitutional Court said that the said sections of the Ordinance could not be examined in a vacuum but in relation to all the facts of the case.
Mr and Mrs Grima's constitutional application had been untimely, for the issue of whether Mr Camilleri was entitled to convert his title of temporary emphyteusis to one of perpetual emphyteusis was still pending before the ordinary courts.
When Mr and Mrs Grima had acquired the direct ownership of the land in 1994, they had stepped into the shoes of the person who had originally been granted the land by title of temporary emphyteusis.
They, therefore, enjoyed the same rights as the original owner to contest any claims in respect of the land.
The Constitutional Court upheld the appeal and revoked the first court's judgment.