A woman who was seriously injured and lost her daughter when the false ceiling of Paola's Save On supermarket collapsed in July 1990 has been awarded €5,000 in moral damages after a court ruled that the 20-year delay in deciding her case was a violation of her human rights.

Iris Cassar and her husband Michael filed their constitutional application against the Attorney General.

They told the court that their daughter (who was then 27) had died in the accident while Mrs Cassar, who was then 45, had suffered a permanent disability.

The Cassars had filed action for damages against the owner in September 1992, but this action was only decided by the First Hall of the Civil Court in March 2011.

There was an appeal from the judgment which was decided by the Court of Appeal in November 2012.

This delay, Mr and Mrs Cassar said, was absolutely unreasonable for the case presented no extraordinary difficulties.

They claimed that this delay had caused a violation of their fundamental human right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time and requested the First Hall of the Civil Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, to provide them with a remedy in the form of moral damages.

Madame Justice Anna Felice said that the European Convention of Human Rights provided that every person was entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.

To see whether this right had been violated each case had to be examined as to its nature and complexity, the actions of the parties, and the manner in which the judicial system treated it.

In its judgment, the court pointed out that Mr and Mrs Cassar's action for damages had been assigned to no less than seven judges. Five legal experts, one architect and three medical doctors had been appointed by the court to assist it. It also resulted that the Cassars' action had been connected with two other court cases which had their origins in the same accident.

Although the Cassars had not changed their lawyer, Save On had engaged four different lawyers.

Madam Justice Felice added that although the Cassars' action was serious in its very nature it was not particularly complex. The court concluded that the court case filed by the Cassars had been a victim of a complicated and lacking system of administration of justice and that the delays they had experienced had not been justified.