Nineteen former dockyard workers have been granted €226,000 in compensation by a European court for asbestos exposure but the figure falls short of the victims’ expectations.

Lawyer Juliette Galea, who represented 18 workers – including two who died during the proceedings – and the family of a man who died from cancer in 2009, welcomed the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment, which concluded that Malta failed to protect them from exposure to the carcinogenic fibre.

Although the ruling was a “step in the right direction”, she disagreed with the amount, which will be split between the men and the family.

“I am disappointed because the quantum of damages does not reflect the severity of the damage caused and I will be exploring every possible way to redress the issue.”

Dr Galea initiated the battle against the government in 2009 and then, in 2011, she took the case to Strasbourg after three Maltese judges sitting in the Constitutional Court upheld previous judgments which said the workers’ claims should have been filed in a civil court and not a constitutional one.

Emotionally, the judgment closes a chapter

Seven European judges, including Chief Justice Emeritus Vincent De Gaetano, yesterday concluded the Maltese government “knew or ought to have known of the dangers arising from exposure to asbestos at least as from the early 1970s”.

The ex-workers had their rights to life and to respect for private and family life violated, they added.

Asbestos is a mineral fibre used for insulation and as a fire retardant, especially in ships. Fibres are too small to be visible but if inhaled can accumulate in the lungs.

The symptoms of mesothelioma or asbestosis – irreversible lung scarring – do not show up until many years after exposure.

The European Court said the men had not been given adequate safeguards against the dangers of asbestos, either through protective clothing or information, between the 1950s an the early 2000s when they had stopped working.

They had complained about being “constantly, heavily exposed” to asbestos at the drydocks. The material was kept in storerooms and ships containing asbestos regularly arrived for repairs.

Asbestos particles in the air during repairs were inhaled and settled on the men’s clothing, thus also affecting their families.

The former workers suffered respiratory problems and plaques, that is areas of calcification in the lungs.

One of them, Joseph Attard, died in 2009 from mesothelioma – an aggressive cancer caused by asbestos – and the case was followed by his wife, Maria, and children Claudine and Toni.

Mr Attard welcomed the judgment, saying it was a long emotional journey. They had finally won the principle that the worker’s human rights had been breached.

“It was a blow for us when the Maltese courts dismissed the case. It made us feel as though we were doing something wrong,” he said.

They resorted to the European Court and that was a “wonderful thing” because the case was about human rights.

The judgment would send an important message to the government and employers “not to take workers’ rights for granted”.

Noting that the compensation was “very small” and “more like a token”, Mr Attard said no amount could ever bring back his father.

“I don’t wish anyone to go through what we had to experience and it’s sad that it happened also to all the other workers who were there,” he said.

“Emotionally, the judgment closes a chapter. I’m very proud of my dad as, through his pain, something has been achieved. And if it was worth anything, it was definitely worth this,” Mr Attard said.

The European Court judges concluded the Maltese government had failed to satisfy “its positive obligations” under the European Convention of Human Rights to legislate or take other practical measures to ensure the workers were adequately protected and informed of the risk to their health and lives.

“Indeed, at least from the early 1970s, the Maltese government had been aware or should have been aware the workers could suffer from consequences resulting from the exposure to asbestos, yet, it had taken no positive steps to counter that risk until 2003,” they said.