Stephen Galli claimed his right not to be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment had been violated during his detention at the Corradino Correctional Facility.

The European Court of Human Rights has expressed “concerns” about “the acts and omissions” of lawyers appointed under the legal aid system in Malta.

The situation, the court noted in a decision last week, “could result in a hindrance by the State of the effective exercise of an applicant’s right” to claim a violation of the European Human Rights Convention.

Maltese-American Stephen Galli filed an application in July 2015 claiming that his right not to be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment had been violated during his detention at the Corradino Correctional Facility.

The European court – which included Chief Justice Emeritus Vincent De Gaetano – noted in its decision that Mr Galli was initially assisted by a legal aid lawyer but was later unrepresented.

The court noted that “various problems arose” when Mr Galli was asked to appoint a lawyer and return the relevant forms. The court was informed by the applicant that both the prison authorities and his lawyer had made it difficult for him to obtain the authority form.

In late 2016, the human rights court contacted the legal aid lawyer and asked them to make submissions on the case, but no reply reached Strasbourg. The court sent a letter by registered mail to the legal aid lawyer noting that the period for the submission of observations had expired and no extension had been requested.

In view of “the repeated failings of the applicant’s legal representative from the legal aid office in Malta”, the president of the European court’s section to which the case had been allocated decided the applicant’s legal aid lawyer should no longer represent or assist him and Mr Galli should be allowed to represent himself.

The government was also asked to comment on whether “the acts and omissions” of Mr Galli’s legal aid lawyer were attributable to the State and, if so, whether Malta had hindered the applicant from effectively exercising his right to seek redress. The court also drew the government’s attention to the fact that various similar problems had been encountered in cases before it, in which the applicants were represented by Malta’s legal aid lawyers.

The government submitted its observations, but they were not listed in the European Court of Human Rights decision.

Finally, the court decided that, notwithstanding its concerns about “the acts and omissions” of lawyers appointed by Malta’s legal aid system, both in this case and others before it, in view of Mr Galli’s lack of response, it considered that he was no longer interested in pursuing his application.

Mr Galli’s case was therefore struck off the court’s list.