|
The communications coordinator of the Ministry for Justice and Home Affairs tried to question my ability to read the judgment of the Constitutional Court of 8 January 2007, and stated that the judgment “did not hold that the premises in question are not being used for a ‘public purpose’”.
May I suggest that the communications coordinator of the Ministry for Justice and Home Affairs take a closer look at the ruling, which confirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance and stated verbatim:
“Ghar-ragunijiet fuq moghtija din il-Qorti tipprovdi dwar il-vertenza billi: 1. tiddikjara li l-uzu li qed isir mill-fond 115, Triq it-Teatru kantuniera ma 69 Triq l-Ifran Valletta ma jissodisfax ir-rekwiziti tal-Ewwel Artikolu tal-Ewwel Protokol tal-konvenzjoni Ewropea billi ma jirrizultax l-interess pubbliku u ghalhekk tiddikjara li l-esproprjazzjoni li sehhet bid-dikjarazzjoni tal-Gvernatur pubblikata fil-Gazzetta tal-Gvern fil-25 ta’ Frar 1958 bhala nulla u bla effett u konsegwentement tordna li l-fond imsemmi jigi rilaxxat favur ir-rikorrenti.”
In other words, the Constitutional Court concluded that the use of the premises was not in accordance with Article One of the First Protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights, declared that the expropriation was not for public use, pronounced such expropriation to be null and void, and ordered the Government to give back the premises to the owners.
The rest is history. I will leave it to your readers to judge who is trying to fool whom.
Dr Anna Mallia
Valletta |
