The Government has insisted with the European Court of Human Rights that it took all necessary measures, including changing legislation, to address the problem of carcinogenic asbestos in the dockyard.
As soon as the Government became aware of these dangers, remedial action was taken
The Malta Drydocks management provided employees with masks and made sure adequate ventilation was in place.
Exposed workers were given a compensation allowance, paid by the ship owners, the Government said in its legal submissions in a case taken to Europe by 20 ex-workers and the family of one who died from asbestos-related cancer.
They claim the Maltese Government, which owned Malta Shipyards from 1968 to 2003, failed to fulfil its “positive obligations” to protect their lives against the cancer-causing fibre and tell them they were exposed to danger.
The men resorted to the ECHR after three Maltese judges in the Constitutional Court upheld previous judgments that said their request for damages should have been filed in a civil court, not a constitutional one.
Led by lawyer Juliette Galea, they said they were “heavily exposed” during their years at Malta Shipyards and now suffered respiratory problems and areas of calcification on the lungs, known as plaques. One died from mesothelioma in 2009.
Asbestos is a mineral fibre used for insulation and as a fire retardant, especially in ships. The fibres are too small to be visible but can accumulate in the lungs if inhaled.
Symptoms of mesothelioma, or asbestosis – irreversible lung scarring – do not show up until many years after exposure.
The Government argued the men did not exhaust the domestic remedies required by law.
“It has long been established in Malta that public authorities are subject to ordinary law when it comes to responsibility for damages” and the Maltese courts “on several occasions” held the Government liable to pay damages.
But they did not have the right to request moral damages except in particular cases.
The Government said that until a few decades ago asbestos was considered one “of nature’s best raw materials to solve most insulation problems”. Related dangers started emerging in the late 1970s, when “the means of spreading of information was not as prolific as today”.
Once the Government knew the risk, it began “an exercise to phase out the material” and passed laws to stop its importation.
“It’s evident that, as soon as the Government became aware of these dangers, remedial action was taken through legislative intervention,” Dr Grech said.
Following the worldwide decision to stop its use, the Government decided to “step up” its decision to remove existing asbestos and, in the late 1990s, a removal exercise began. This had many stages and “it is almost impossible for any country to be totally free of asbestos or for no worker to ever come into contact with it”.
It “cannot be concluded that the Government is responsible or negligent,” Dr Grech argued.
In these cases, it was incumbent on the victims or their heirs to “initiate proceedings” before the Maltese courts and prove the link between exposure and the damages claimed.
The Government “cannot be held responsible for not prohibiting the use of asbestos or for not disseminating information about its health hazards before these were known and accepted as being ascertained correctly”.
The victims’ requests should be “declared inadmissible” and rejected by the court, the Government said.