A man has been awarded €21,000 in damages, the European Court of Human Rights having found Malta guilty of breaching his fundamental right to a fair trial.
It upheld complaints from Charles Saliba that the domestic courts had failed to give proper attention to the validity, credibility and relevance of the evidence brought against him during civil proceedings.
Mr Saliba, a 67-year-old from San Ġwann, was ordered to pay civil compensation over a robbery at a residence in St Julian’s belonging to lawyer Joseph Zammit Tabona on the night of May 12, 1995, even though he had been acquitted from the criminal case.
Dr Zammit Tabona and his wife had alleged that Mr Saliba was behind the robbery. Mr Saliba denied the allegations. In March 2008, the First Hall of the Civil Court found in their favour and ordered Mr Saliba to pay them damages of €130,441.42.
This was confirmed on appeal, prompting Mr Saliba to take the matter to the European Court claiming that he had not been afforded a fair hearing.
The court heard Dr Zammit Tabona explain how masked robbers had entered the home during the night through a roof door. Three of them went into the bedroom and pushed the couple to the floor. One of the intruders broke Mrs Zammit Tabona’s leg and insisted she hand them her jewellery. The thieves ransacked the safe in the house.
He had not been afforded a fair hearing due to the unreasonable Maltese law courts
Dr Zammit Tabona told the court he had recognised one of the thieves as being Charles Saliba, whom he had known for many years, as he worked as a plumber and electrician in the St Julian’s area. He added that although he had heard the other thieves speaking between them, Mr Saliba had not spoken during the robbery.
The First Hall of the Civil Court deemed Dr Zammit Tabona’s version of events to be credible and noted that he had recognised Mr Saliba as being one of the participants in the robbery.
Mr Saliba contested the conclusions drawn by the court and took the matter to the Constitutional Court, which, in 2011, rejected his complaints. It considered that the applicant had not been found guilty of a criminal offence but was responsible for damages arising as a result of that crime.
Consequently, the proceedings remained under civil law and the burden of proof remained that for civil cases, namely a balance of probabilities, and did not require a more onerous burden of proof.
Mr Saliba told the European Court of Human Rights that he had not been afforded a fair hearing due to the unreasonableness of the Maltese law courts. He also told the court that during the proceedings, he had become extremely depressed and unfit for work and began to receive a disability pension.
In its judgment, the ECHR noted “with perplexity” the Maltese court’s conclusions based on Dr Zammit Tabona’s “inconsistent” testimony.
“Indeed it is striking that the first-instance court, while highlighting the inconsistencies of [Dr] Zammit Tabona’s testimony, gave no reasons as to why it considered that [Dr] Zammit Tabona’s statements remained credible and reliable. Nor did it justify those inconsistencies in any way (unlike the Court of Appeal).
“Such consideration was all the more necessary given that the applicant had originally not been able to identify the assailant back in 1995,” the court noted.
The ECHR concluded that there had been a violation of the right to a fair hearing because of various shortcomings in the proceedings, particularly the failure to give reasons in respect of the acceptance of conflicting evidence. It ordered the State to pay Mr Saliba €10,000 in damages and €11,000 to cover costs and expenses.