The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that a 20-year wait for a decision for compensation by the Maltese government over expropriation of land way back in 1961 was in violation of Article 6 of the European Convention for Human Rights.
The complainants – Francis Bezzina Wettinger, Emanuel Zammit, Nicholas Parnis England, Stephen Parnis England, Robin Parnis England, Joanna Parnis England and W.J. Parnis England Ltd were awarded €6,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage and €1,200 jointly for costs.
The seven-judge panel included Maltese judge Giovanni Bonello.
The applicants, represented by lawyer Therese Comodini Cachia, complained that their land – a 23,606 sq.m. plot in Tal-Hriereb within the limits of Birkirkara and Msida – had been expropriated in 1961 and that the final decision granting compensation by the Land Arbitration Board (LAB) was delivered only 20 years later, on 22 September 1981.
Moreover, this final decision had not identified the amount due to the different interested parties, thus leaving them in a situation of uncertainty.
They submitted that under domestic law, as lessors they retained only a right of recognition, namely that of receiving the yearly ground rent. The applicants said the competence of the LAB was restricted to disputes relating to the rights held over the expropriated property. “Consequently, the only issue that could be discussed before the LAB was the amount of compensation.”
Because the law places the responsibility for advancing any claims on the Commissioner of Lands, the applicants could not take any action to expedite the proceedings.
If they took an action in court to determine the shares of the interested parties, it would have signalled their acceptance of the compensation, prejudicing their right to seek appropriate compensation.
“The period of 20 years taken up by these proceedings had been unjustifiable and unreasonable in view of the period of inactivity totalling twelve years and ten months,” the applicants said.
On its part, the government said the applicants had waited nine years before one of them asked for the case to be resumed; the applicants' lawyers had often asked for adjournments; the applicants and their lawyers had often failed to attend sittings and on-site inspections; and the applicants had not made themselves available to receive service of the notice of the reinstatement of the case.
In its decision, the ECHR considered “that the time taken for the case to be resumed after it had been adjourned was mainly due to the applicants' fault”, but that the government, the only party having the authority and duty to institute these proceedings, "waited three years before doing so... the Court considers that the applicants cannot be criticised for lack of diligence in the period before the institution of the proceedings and from the reinstatement of the case to the adoption of the first judgment."
It found the government had failed to act with due diligence and that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.