The captain and the crew of an Italian trawler which had been detained in Malta for not declaring the entire catch did not suffer any human rights breach, a court has ruled.

Last December, the Italian-flagged vessel Mariella was found fishing in Maltese waters. Its electronic logbook had been deleted.

A discrepancy in the catch came to light during routine administrative checks while the vessel was undergoing  minor repairs in Malta.  The captain, Angelo Miraglia had declared 1,000kg of swordfish and fishing bait. This amount, however, did not tally with the results of an inspection carried out by the Fisheries Department.

The catch had been sold at the fish market on the following day, on the instructions of the Director of Fisheries.

Subsequently the captain filed Constitutional proceedings, claiming that the detention of the vessel was an illegal arrest, a breach of their fundamental right to peaceful enjoyment of their possession and amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.

A few days later, Captain Miraglia was charged with a number of offences, and released on bail.

In its decision the Civil Court (Constitutional jurisdiction) presided by Mr Justice Joseph. R. Micallef, rejected the Italian’s arguments. He pointed out that fundamental rights pertained only to physical persons and certainly not the vessel itself. In this respect the case should have been filed in the name of the crew  and not on the vessel’s behalf.

With regards to the alleged breach of the crew’s right against arbitrary detention, the Court ruled that it could not be said that the crew had ever been in an actual state of arrest.

Captain Miraglia’s arrest on suspicion of irregularities in his sailing licence and catch declarations had been justified, ruled the Court, saying that at no point had the crew's freedom been affected. He had argued that the uncertainty surrounding the future of the men’s livelihoods – allegedly due to the dearth of information they had been given by the authorities – amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.

The court, however, rejected this argument saying that the plaintiffs had not been treated inhumanely or degradingly. Neither had it emerged that they had been kept in the dark about the Department's investigations into the irregularities on board their vessel, the Judge pointed out.