Mepa ordered to pay compensation of €15,000 to landowner
Mepa has been ordered to pay €15,000 as compensation after a court ruled that the scheduling of land at Fekruna, St Paul's Bay was in violation of the land owner's right to enjoyment of his property.
Mr Justice Gino Camilleri delivered this judgment following a constitutional application filed by Joseph Fenech against the Authority. The Attorney General was later called into the suit but was found not to be responsible for any human rights breaches.
Mr Fenech told the court that he owned plots of land in Fekruna, St Paul's Bay and that in 1991 the land had been indicated as a villa site. However, in 1996 the Planning Authority scheduled the land, thus rendering it unusable for development purposes. Mr Fenech claimed that the scheduling had been carried out in order to benefit third parties who had property in the vicinity.
Mr Fenech claimed that the scheduling was tantamount to an expropriation of his property and that he had been discriminated against.
Mr Justice Camilleri pointed out that the court was not being asked by Mr Fenech to examine whether the scheduling order had been carried out for a valid purpose and in accordance with law. The court had been requested to establish whether the scheduling was in violation of Mr Fenech's fundamental human rights.
The court said that the right to enjoyment of property was protected by the Constitution and by the European Convention of Human Rights. But this right was not an absolute one, for an owner could be deprived of his property in the public interest.
Mepa was undoubtedly authorized at law to schedule land for a number of reasons and to issue preservation orders. It further resulted that the Authority had conducted a detailed study on the coastal cliffs and that this had led to the scheduling of Mr Fenech's land.
However, the court had to see whether the scheduling of Mr Fenech's property for a public purpose was placing an inordinate burden on Mr Fenech.
From the evidence produced it resulted that the land had been purchased in order for development to take place. At the time the purchase took place, the land was included in the Temporary Provision Scheme which allowed for development. Mr Fenech had therefore reason to believe that he would be allowed to build on the land. The Authority had further declared its willingness to consider Mr Fenech's development application.
Once the land was scheduled, however, it could not be put to any use, not even agricultural, as the land was on a slope.
Mr Justice Camilleri concluded that Mr Fenech was bearing an individual and excessive burden and that the balance between the general interest and his interest had not been struck. This was tantamount to a violation of Mr Fenech's right to enjoyment of his property and the court awarded him compensation of €15,000.
The court however found no grounds to conclude that Mr Fenech had been discriminated against.
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...
Second group of migrants arrives
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
11 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mr Tony Camilleri
Oct 8th 2011, 22:10
Why not make those responsible for the decision to pay from their own pockets?
Why should we, the people, keep paying for these idiots?
Chris J Vassallo
Oct 8th 2011, 08:12
MEPA again changing the rules, breaking the law and its own policies!
Even though this case is in reverse of the norm, it’s still disgusting! When are we going have a shred of accountability from MEPA? Are MEPA boards above the law? Who is protecting our rights when the reverse of this case come to light? In my view, planning in Malta has developed into a cross between a lottery and an auction. No wonder the whole country looks a mess.
Mr Peter Murray
Oct 7th 2011, 21:01
Whatever the reasoning behind MEPA declaring the scheduling of ther the land-which I presume is one principally of protectionism-the way MEPA went about it impinged upon a citizen's basic fundamental rights relating to property ownership.Now the taxpayer is unfairly condemned to pay for MEPA's gross negligence and abuse of power through this fine and associated legal costs-strangely not mentioned.Thank God for MEPA as how else could we waste so much money without their ineptitude and incompetence as it would appear that being "protected" comes with a heavy price-tag?
Mr Peter Murray
Oct 7th 2011, 21:01
Whatever the reasoning behind MEPA declaring the scheduling of their the land-which I presume is one principally of protectionism-the way MEPA went about it impinged upon a citizen's basic fundamental rights relating to property ownership.Now the taxpayer is unfairly condemned to pay for MEPA's gross negligence and abuse of power through this fine and associated legal costs-strangely not mentioned.Thank God for MEPA as how else could we waste so much money without their ineptitude and incompetence as it would appear that being "protected" comes with a heavy price-tag?
Anton Zammit
Oct 7th 2011, 19:17
Well, well, frankly I think this is a just sentence for a site which could have been developed. It is about time that MEPA and its employees wake up and realize that removing a site from a building site status has its own implications. I know other sites which have been removed from a buildings site and rendered open spaces and piazzas, and without the owner getting any compensation.
Perit A Zammit
Zack Piccinino
Oct 7th 2011, 19:11
Well done MEPA... another tract of virgin land saved from scrupulous developers.
Mr Lawrence Fenech
Oct 7th 2011, 17:25
Yes, MEPA with permits for 5 storey buildings has ruined the view of thousands of residents who are now living in a shoebox.
Christina Pace
Oct 7th 2011, 15:42
Mr Friggieri, I think you may benefit from reading more often ta.
"From the evidence produced it resulted that the land had been purchased in order for development to take place."
"At the time the purchase took place, the land was included in the Temporary Provision Scheme which allowed for development."
"The Authority had further declared its willingness to consider Mr Fenech's development application."
"Once the land was scheduled, however, it could not be put to any use, not even agricultural, as the land was on a slope."
In other words the land he ligitimately purchased for development has been rendered useless and thus worthless and he got compensated 15,000 Euro for this. It was and always will be a cliff slope and enjoyable to all. There never was a building.
I would say 15,000 would only be just if it covered the original value he purchased the land for and all the MEPA fees for the applications he submitted and the land turn over to the public. Does 15000 cover that? Could he buy another patch of land with 15000euros? :S
Mr R ferriggi
Oct 7th 2011, 14:38
IN POCE PAROLE,,, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN EXACTLY??
DO I UNDERSTAND THAT THE BUILDING WILL BE PULLED DOWN FOREVER,,, AND LEFT FOR PUBLIC USE,,, BUT MR FENECH WILL BE GIVEN EUR15k IN COMPENSATION FOR THIS??
riccardo borg
Oct 7th 2011, 15:39
Yes, I quite agree with you, you do not know what it means.
I believe this is land involved not a building. As for the above, this is not the first time a similar authority acted this way with the rights of a person. It happened in 1981, it involved the authority and a third person. After 24 years in Court, the Authority lost the case and its face but paid nothing. The third person eventually paid the bill.
There is no sign of any land being transfered.
Mr David Ganado
Oct 7th 2011, 15:56
I take it you can't read.....
The guy never even got to build anything on it! It says MEPA 'showed willingness to consider' his application.