Judges confirm family’s right to financial compensation

The Constitutional Court has confirmed a judgment in terms of which a family was awarded €60,000 in compensation after its property had been requisitioned to be used as a post office.

The court, however, found that no compensation was due to the family by Maltapost plc.

Victor Gatt, Joseph Gatt, Agnes Gabriele, Evelyn Chetcuti, Ġemma Vella and Louis Sant Angelo had filed a constitutional application against the Attorney General and Maltapost saying that, in 1958, the Housing Authority had requisitioned a property they owned in Ħamrun. The property, in Railway Avenue, was then transferred to the Postal Department to be used as a post office.

The original rent due to the family was €280 per annum but the sum was increased in 1986 by court order to €380 per annum.

The family told the court that as from May 1998 the government had transferred the property to Maltapost, which had been entrusted with the country’s postal service.

The family said the requisitioned property was no longer required for a public purpose because the postal service was being run by a private company and not by the government. It claimed it had been deprived of its property without proper compensation and that this was in violation of fundamental human rights.

The First Hall of the Civil Court disagreed that the property was no longer required for a public purpose. The fact that the postal service had been privatised did not remove the public interest that existed in the provision of post offices and services. The concept of public interest was linked to the final purpose for which the property was to be utilised. The use of the property as a post office by Maltapost was of benefit to the community as a whole and not purely in the private interest.

However, the court ruled that the family had suffered a disproportionate burden as a result of the requisition and the very low rent it received. The family was therefore entitled to compensation.

The first court concluded that the family had suffered an annual loss of €6,000, which sum, calculated over a 10-year period, added up to €60,000. The Attorney General and Maltapost were each ordered to pay half this sum to the family.

All parties appealed to the Constitutional Court presided over by Acting Chief Justice Albert J. Magri, Mr Justice Geoffrey Valenzia and Mr Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo.

The family appealed against the quantum of damages, claiming it was too little, and the other parties insisted there had been no violation of the family’s human rights. Maltapost claimed it bore no responsibility towards the family in damages.

On appeal, the Constitutional Court confirmed the findings of the first court and ruled that the compensation awarded was just and that the premises were still required for a public purpose. The court also ruled that Maltapost was not responsible in damage for it had acquired its rights over the property legitimately in terms of law.

The court varied the first court’s judgment limitedly by declaring that Maltapost was not liable with the Attorney General towards the property owners.