The Constitutional Court yesterday revoked in part a judgment delivered by the First Hall of the Civil Court and ordered that a warrant for eviction of a couple be suspended.

In yesterday's judgment the Constitutional Court declared that this was an appeal from a ruling delivered by the First Hall of the Civil Court (in its constitutional jurisdiction) in terms of which applicants Joseph Emanuel Ruggier and his wife Carmen had requested the court to suspend a warrant for their eviction.

According to the Ruggiers the judgment delivered by the First Hall of the Civil Court on November 14, 1994, in terms of which their eviction had been ordered, was null and void as it was in violation of their fundamental human right to the enjoyment of property.

They had consequently filed a constitutional application to the First Hall of the Civil Court requesting a declaration that their rights had been violated.

It was in the course of the proceedings pending before the First Hall of the Civil Court that the spouses Ruggier had requested the suspension of the warrant for their eviction.

That court had dismissed this request and the Ruggiers lodged an appeal to the Constitutional Court presided over by Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Joseph D. Camilleri and Mr Justice Joseph A. Filletti.

It resulted that in the course of proceedings before the First Hall of the Civil Court, the Ruggiers had filed three applications to attempt to stop their eviction. All these applications had been denied.

Subsequently, Carmen Ruggier, acting alone, filed another application in the First Hall of the Civil Court requesting special authorisation to appeal from the rulings that had denied the applications.

This authorisation was granted to both spouses Ruggier who then filed their application of appeal.

The Attorney General submitted that the application of appeal filed by Mr Ruggier was null and void as it was only his wife who had requested permission to appeal.

This submission was upheld by the Constitutional Court which ruled that the appeal filed by Mr Ruggier was null.

In its judgment on the merits of the appeal, the Constitutional Court declared that it agreed with the first court that the general rule was that when a judgment was final a simple allegation of violation of fundamental human rights did not suffice to stop the execution of the judgment.

Were this rule not to be observed the legal and judicial system would be put into a state of total disorder and would give rise to abuses which would violate the rights of honest citizens.

This notwithstanding, the courts could not exclude the fact that there were certain exceptional cases when interim measures, including the suspension of the execution of a judgment, were required.

Each case had to be examined on its own merits.

In this particular case, the Constitutional Court pointed out that after the judgment of November 14, 1994, the other parties to the suit had waited almost six years before proceeding to issue a warrant of eviction.

The reasons for this delay were unknown and irrelevant, said the court.

What was relevant was the fact that there could be no serious objection to the suspension of the warrant for eviction when this constitutional case would be decided upon in a few months.

In the particular circumstances of the case, this was a circumstance that that was sufficient to justify Ms Ruggier's appeal.

However, the Constitutional Court reiterated that this ruling was based exclusively on the particular facts of this case and was not intended to act as a basis for any person to delay the execution of a judgment.

In conclusion, the Constitutional Court upheld Ms Ruggier's appeal and ordered that the warrant for eviction be suspended.

The court further ruled that the suspension was to take effect up to January 15, 2006 or until the final decision in the constitutional case filed by the Ruggiers that was pending before the First Hall of the Civil Court, whichever was the earliest.

In the event that the constitutional case was not decided by January 15, the suspension could be renewed upon a request by Ms Ruggier provided that she also produced evidence that the constitutional case was being pursued with speed and diligence.

The Constitutional Court further ordered that the suspension would be immediately revoked in the event that Ms Ruggier did not deposit a bank guarantee for Lm4,000 by August 31 to make good for any damages that could be sustained in the event that the constitutional case was decided against her or her husband.