The government has been ordered to pay a family €225,000 by way of compensation for human rights violations in connection with expropriation of land incorporated at the Malta Freeport.
In two judgments, Mr Justice Gino Camilleri, sitting in the First Hall of the Civil Court, found in favour of the Randon family and ruled that its fundamental human right to have recourse to the courts had been violated following the expropriation of land at Bengħajsa.
The Randon family had filed two constitutional applications against the Commissioner of Land and the Attorney General. The applications were also filed against the Minister for Justice and Local Government and against the Commission for the Administration of Justice but this last case was eventually withdrawn.
The family told the court that it owned four portions of land at Bengħajsa. One portion measured over six tumoli and the second measured over 11 tumoli. The third portion of land consisted of over 14 tumoli with the fourth being far smaller.
In 1969, the government had declared that all four portions of land were required for a public purpose and had offered the family Lm5,900 in compensation. This sum was refused by the family.
The Randon family claimed that the Commissioner of Land had not referred the issue to the Land Arbitration Board (LAB) with a request for the outright purchase of the land and the establishment of compensation. Instead, in 1989, the Commissioner of Land transferred the land to the Malta Freeport Corporation.
Although the family repeatedly called upon the Commissioner of Land to file proceedings before the LAB, the commissioner had failed to do so. It was only after the family took legal action against the commissioner that, following a court judgment delivered in 2000, he referred the matter to the LAB.
In the meantime, the Freeport Corporation was privatised.
The family claimed that its fundamental human rights had been violated because the expropriation had not taken place for a public purpose but to benefit the private sector. It further claimed that it had been deprived of access to the LAB as such right of access was granted at law only to the Commissioner of Land.
The family said that it had not been given a fair hearing within a reasonable time and that the LAB was not an independent and impartial tribunal. The family also claimed that its right to fair compensation for deprivation of property had been violated.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Camilleri examined the family's claim that the privatisation of the Malta Freeport meant that the land had not been expropriated in the public interest. There was no doubt that the expropriation had taken place in the public interest. The Freeport project was in the national interest and the private company that ran it paid a substantial rent each year for the land. This income was, in the final analysis, for the benefit of the community in general.
The crucial moment for deciding whether an expropriation was in the public interest was when the expropriation was actually effected. The family's complaint in this regard was, therefore, dismissed by the court.
Mr Justice Camilleri, however, upheld the family's claim that it had been deprived of access to a judicial authority. In terms of law it was only the Commissioner of Land who could have recourse to the LAB to obtain a valuation of the land. As a result, the family had not been entitled to have such recourse and it was only after a court order obtained in 2000 that the commissioner had initiated the proceedings. It was only after decades had elapsed that the family was given indirect access to the LAB.
In cases such as these, the Commissioner of Land was bound to act in an expeditious and reasonable manner and to cause the least damage to the property owners. The commissioner had failed to do so and, as a result, the Randon family had been deprived of its right of access to the courts.
Mr Justice Camilleri did not accept the family's claim that it had not been given a fair hearing within a reasonable time. The family said that over 30 years had elapsed from the expropriation in 1969 until the commissioner had filed proceedings before the LAB. But the court noted that, once the proceedings before the LAB were still pending, it could not determine whether this human right had been violated.
The court also dismissed the family's claim that the LAB was not an independent and impartial tribunal according to law. The family claimed that the LAB members, in particular the technical experts, were not independent and impartial. But Mr Justice Camilleri said the family could always object to the appointment of a particular technical member and, therefore, their claim could not be upheld by the court.
In conclusion, the court also dismissed the family's claim that its right to adequate compensation had been violated. The court noted that no compensation award had as yet been established by the LAB, so this claim could not be upheld.
The court ruled that the family was entitled to €100,000 as compensation for the violation of its human rights in respect of the first two portions of land and to €125,000 in compensation for the violation in respect of the third and fourth portions.
Lawyers John Attard Montalto and Gianfranco Gauci appeared on behalf of the Randon family.