The Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction ruled this afternoon that Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco's human rights and rights to a fair hearing were not breached when the Commission for the Administration of Justice filed its report on the second impeachment motion moved against him in Parliament.

Neither was there a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The judgement was handed down by Madam Justice Lorraine Schembri Orland.

Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco filed the case against Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, the Attorney General, the Commission for the Administration of Justice and Opposition leader Simon Busuttil after the second impeachment motion was moved against him in Parliament when the Speaker ruled that the first one was extinguished because of the change of legislature.

In its report to the Speaker after the second impeachment motion was filed, the commission had said its position remained unchanged, meaning there was prima facie proven misbehaviour by the judge when he stayed on as president of the Malta Olympic Committee. (He had subsequently decided not to run for office again.)

The judge argued that the commission had not given him a fair hearing and did not even allow him to produce witnesses in his defence before producing its second report.

He insisted that the commission had failed to notify him before it considered the motion and that a second decision by the watchdog confirming its original decision to impeach him without giving him a fair hearing was in breach of the principle of natural justice. 

In her judgement, Madam Justice Schembri Orland said that the court's role was not that of passing judgment on the merits of the case filed by the Commission for the Administration of Justice against the judge. The court's role was that of establishing whether the judge's fundamental human right to a fair hearing as protected by both the Constitution and the European Convention of Human Rights had been violated.

The principal fact which ahd given rise to these constitutional proceedings was the General Election of 2013. As former prime minister Lawrence Gonzi was no longer a member of parliament it was felt that the motion for the removal of Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco as a judge had to be once more placed before the House of Representatives.

The fact that the Commission did not investigate the facts as laid out in the second motion did not in itself, in the light of the particular circumstances of this case, constitute a violation of the right to a fair hearing.

It would have been different had the judge not been allowed to present his case before the Commission when the first motion was being investigated.

Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco had submitted that once there was a second motion against him, then the Commission had to recommence its investigations in his regard. He also submitted that the Commission had to be formed with different members to those who had investigated the first motion.

These submissions were dismissed by Madam Justice Schembri Orland. There was no doubt,said the court, that the second motion did not call for the investigation of any facts which were different to the first motion. The current prime minister had stated, when moving the second motion, that he was referring to the first motion.

The court added that the Commission had submitted that the judge's complaint of violation of his human rights was premature, for the proceedings against him had not been concluded. The case would have to be heard and decided upon by the House of Representatives. The proceedings before the Commission were of a preliminary, prima facie and investigative nature and the Commission could not remove a judge from office.

The judge had complained that he had not been given any hearing, let alone a fair one, on the second motion. But the court declared that as the substance of the two motions was identical, it could only conclude that the judge was expecting to be heard twice on the same motion. The judge was also expecting a rehearing of his case by a differently composed Commission.

The court also dismissed the judge's allegation that the Commission had been given carte blanche to do as it wished. This was not the case. The workings of the Commission were subject to judicial review.

When referring to the ruling delivered by the Speaker of the House on the first motion, the court declared that the Speaker had declared that the motion was "dead". At no time had the Speaker ruled that the first motion was null.

The Commission's report on the first motion remained valid as it referred to the facts it had investigated. As the motion had not been declared null, the Commission had no need to re-investigate the facts.

PRIME MINISTER'S REACTION

Asked what actions would the government be taking now that the Court had taken its decision, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat said the government had to see how the judgement was written and the reactions it would receive.

The government had already declared its commitment and it now had to see how to proceed.

Dr Muscat said there were measures the judge could use and he had to be given the opportunity to use them. Once these procedures were exhausted the government would go ahead as announced.