The European Court of Human Rights has ruled in favour of the Frendo Randon family and concluded that the expropriation of their land for the development of the Malta Freeport was in violation of their human rights as the family had been deprived of access to the courts.

Forty-six members of the Frendo Randon family claimed a violation of their right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time and a violation of their right to peaceful possession of their property.

The European Court heard that the family owned four plots of land and that the land had been subject to a requisition order in 1969.

The family had refused the compensation offered for the land and although the Commissioner of Lands was required at law to institute proceedings before the Land Arbitration Board he had failed to do so.

In the 1990s, following changes to the law, the family was entitled to file a request before the ordinary courts requesting a time limit within which the commission had to institute proceedings before the board.

After the family's request, the Civil Court ordered the commissioner to file proceedings before the board within three months from February 4, 2000.

The commissioner had filed these proceedings only in respect of two of the four plots of land.

It resulted that only one of the four plots of land was being fully utilised for the Freeport. Two of the plots were outside the Freeport zone.

In October 2008, the First Hall of the Civil Court had delivered a constitutional judgement in favour of the family and had ruled that the family had been deprived of access to the courts as only the commission had had the right to file proceedings before the board up till the 1990s. The family was awarded €100,000 by way of compensation.

On appeal, the Constitutional Court had, in part, confirmed the first court's judgment but also found that the family's right to enjoyment of property had been violated because not all the land had been utilised for a public purpose. The court reduced the compensation award to €20,000.

These two judgments were limited to only two of the four plots.

The family then took action in connection with the remaining plots of land and the First Hall of the Civil Court had awarded it €125,000 by way of damages for the lack of access to a court.

The court found that the case was more serious than the first court case because the commissioner had not filed action before the board even though he had been ordered by a court to do so.

On appeal, the Constitutional Court confirmed its earlier judgment and reduced the damages awarded to €27,000.

On November 22, the European Court, including Maltese Judge David Scicluna, noted that it was not contested that in this case there had been a deprivation of property in violation of the European Convention of Human Rights.

The Court, therefore, ruled that it would examine whether this deprivation had placed a disproportionate burden upon the family.

The Malta government had submitted that the family would receive the value of the land as in 1969, as established by the board, together with five per cent interest.

The European Court added that it had previously decided that awarding compensation that reflected values applicable decades before and deferring payment for decades without taking this delay into account was inadequate and constituted a violation of the right to enjoyment of property.

The Court therefore ruled that the family's right to property and to access to the courts had been violated.

However the Court did not deliver a decision as to the compensation to be awarded to the family.

It resulted that the family was claiming compensation of €7,531,650 being the value of the land together with €250,000 for non-pecuniary damages.

The government had submitted that the 1969 values should apply together with €47,000 by way of moral damages.

The European Court invited the government and the family to submit, within three months, their written submissions as to the compensation payable.