The Attorney General has been ordered to pay €1 million in compensation to the heirs of the late Marquis John Scicluna for the violation of their human rights when the property they owned in Valletta was transferred to Bank of Valletta without their consent.

Heirs Cristiane Ramsay Pergola and Mignon Marshall told the court, presided by Mr Justice Silvio Meli that in 1958 Marquis Scicluna had rented the property in St George's Square, Valletta to Scicluna's Bank for 10 years against the annual rent of Lm800.

Scicluna's Bank was eventually amalgamated with the National Bank of Malta and adjacent properties were incorporated into the leased premises. Bank of Valletta was established in 1973 and the property which was the subject of this case passed on to the said bank.

The heirs said that the law establishing Bank of Valletta had removed their existing right to regain possession of their property. They added that they had never consented to the transfer in favour of the bank and had never accepted any payment of rent from the bank.

In 1989, the heirs filed court proceedings against the bank to regain possession of their property but their action was dismissed in June 2010 when the Court of Appeal ruled that the lease in question was protected at law.

The heirs then filed their constitutional application, signed by Vincent Curmi, in which they claimed that their right to a fair hearing within a reasonable period of time had been violated. They also claimed that they had suffered a violation of their right to enjoyment of property and that they had been discriminated against.

Both the Attorney General and the bank contested the heirs' allegations, with the bank submitting that it could not be held responsible for any human rights' violations as it had not deprived the heirs of their property.

In its judgment, the court ruled that no one could be deprived of the enjoyment of his or her property without suitable compensation. There was no doubt that the heirs had been deprived of the enjoyment of their property, which enjoyed the receipt of suitable rental income from it.

The court appointed architect concluded that the property had a rental value of €159,350 per annum and that the rent of Lm800 offered by the bank to the heirs was negligible.

There had to be a balance between the interests of the community as a whole and the protection of the owners' human rights. This was known as the principle of proportionality, said the court.

The court found in favour of the owners and declared that their right to enjoyment of property had been violated. The bank was not found to be guilty of the violation.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.