Maltese national Francis Vella did not have his right to be presumed innocent breached when he was ordered to pay damages to theft victims, the European Court of Human Rights ruled yesterday

The antiques collector, born in 1939, was charged with multiple counts of theft and receiving stolen goods more than two decades ago.

In October 1992 he was convicted of a series of offences of receiving stolen goods, while being acquitted of the theft charges.

The criminal appeals court reversed part of the judgment in October 2001 and acquitted him of most of the charges of receiving stolen goods.

Consequently, the Paola resident’s sentence was reduced from five years’ imprisonment to a two-year suspended sentence.

While the criminal appeal proceedings against Mr Vella were pending, a number of people alleging to be the owners of the stolen goods in question brought civil cases against him.

In three separate judgments delivered in 2004, the appeal court in the civil proceedings found that Mr Vella was not the owner of certain items that had been found in his possession. He was thus liable to pay damages for the destruction of some of those items.

Relying on Article 6:2 (presumption of innocence) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Vella complained that the appeal court’s civil judgments had been incompatible with his right to be presumed innocent.

In particular, he complained about statements to the effect that he had been responsible for receiving certain stolen goods, despite the fact that he had been acquitted of most of the charges related to stolen goods.

However, in a written judgment delivered yesterday, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that no violation of Article 6:2 had taken place. Mr Vella now has three months in which he may request that the case is referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court.