The European Court of Human Rights dismissed human rights violation claims by four Gozitans who accused former minister Giovanna Debono of expropriating their land while she was acting prime minister.

Michael and Olympia Borg and Andrew and Lorena Vella told the Strasbourg court that their “picturesque” patch of land in Nadur had been expropriated for six years because individuals with political leanings different to their own had lobbied Ms Debono, the former Gozo minister, to take action.

Seven ECHR judges decided the claim was inadmissible because the land in question had since been returned to the complainants who had suffered no losses.

Attorney General Peter Grech, for the government, successfully argued that the expropriation, which was in force between 2008 and 2014, had been lawfully executed and was intended to protect the site from irreparable damage.

This, he submitted, would have been caused by the building of a boundary wall because the parcel of land was a designated green area that had to remain free of any construction.

Dr Grech also shot down claims the government had not acted fairly and treated the complainants differently from other land owners, insisting they had been adequately compensated and the process had followed standard procedures.

The complainants suffered no losses

When the expropriation occurred, Ms Debono issued a strongly-worded statement insisting the procedures involving cases of land expropriation “in no way involve the Office of the Prime Minister”. This, she pointed out, was illustrated by the fact that the public notice referring to the land in question was signed by the President of Malta and not by herself as acting prime minister.

She had argued it was impossible for her to have used her influence as acting prime minister because the notice announcing her acting role had been published on the same day the land expropriation announcement was made.

The European Court noted the applicants had reacquired ownership of their land, as the government had originally planned, and there was now nothing impeding them from building the wall. Moreover, they had not explained what use, if any, such a wall would have had and that there was an objective purpose for it to be built.

It noted that the fact that their land had been expropriated for a period of time did not appear to have had any particular consequences.