The legal soap-opera about the 92-year-old former Labour Prime Minister Dom Mintoff’s compensation claims for the construction of the power station five metres away from his residence at Delimara, which had been ongoing since 1994, finally came to an end when the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) dismissed his claims as “manifestly unfounded.”
The 13-page decision on the admissibility of Dominic Mintoff’s case was delivered by the seven-judge Fourth Section of the ECHR presided by Sir Nicolas Bratza on 26 June 2007.
Reconstructing the case, the ECHR said that in 1987 the Nationalist Government ordered the construction of a new power station. “Consequently, it selected and legally expropriated a site in Delimara, approximately 5 metres from the applicants' property.
“At the relevant time, the first applicant objected to the proposed power station on the ground that it would pollute his property and render it unusable.
“Unsuccessfully, he submitted to the authorities proposals for a number of alternative locations and suggestions as to how the power station could be constructed in order to minimise the damage to his property,” the ECHR explained.
In 1992/1993 the power station began operating. “Due to the resulting noise and pollution the applicants had to leave their residence and move to their other house in Tarxien.
"The abandonment of the property meant that it became subject to a number of break-ins during which movables and furniture were stolen,” the ECHR said.
When presenting their case in the ECHR on 23 January 2007, Dom Mintoff and his two daughters, Anna Mckenna and Jana Mintoff Bland, who lives in the US State of Texas, claimed that “both their houses remain uninhabitable.
“Moreover, according to their communication, dated 9 April 2007, the first applicant (Dom Mintoff) has ongoing problems with his telephone line and does not receive regular post.”
Dom Mintoff claimed that “as a result, his Telecare telephone service - which he alleges is being tampered with - his correspondence with banks and his receipt of payments due and timely court notifications are adversely affected”.
Lastly, the Mintoffs claimed “that the garden of the Tarxien property has been invaded by wild cats and that the local council has not taken any steps to resolve this problem”.
Invoking Article 13 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No.1, the applicants alleged that the violation of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property found in their case was not redressed in an effective manner, as the Constitutional Court had awarded only EUR 864,000 (Lm 360,000) by way of just satisfaction.
They further argued that the domestic courts had discriminated against them on political grounds, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, in so far as this award was much lower than that awarded in a similar case.
With respect to the applicants’ complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the ECHR, the Court observed “that the entire value of the property was evidently covered in the award made to the applicants and was exceeded by approximately EUR 336,000 (approximately Lm 140,000), which would appear from the Constitutional Court's judgment to have included, among other things, just satisfaction for the inconvenience caused to the applicants since 1992 and an increase in value due to the fact that the first applicant had rendered the property historical in using it in the exercise of his duties”.
Moreover, the Court noted that the first applicant had already been paid EUR 511,080 (Lm 212,950), that is, more than half of the total compensation, before the actual amount had been established. “The amounts paid could also have accrued interest as from 1998, the date when the first payment had been made.
“The Court is of the view that this must have mitigated the effects of the delay in making the final payment (…) which, moreover, as found by the Constitutional Court was partly due to the applicants' irrelevant submissions,” the ECHR said in its decision.
Apart from this, the Court noted that part of the delay had also been due to the negotiation procedures, which, “though ultimately not successful had not been futile and that the time element had not been unreasonable”.
“Furthermore, it had to be kept in mind that even though it was unfit for habitation and its value had diminished immensely, the property remained in the applicants' possession,” the Court observed.
As to the damage caused to movables kept in the property and other damage suffered, the Court noted “that it was open to the applicants to bring an action in tort against the relevant parties”.
In so far as the applicant expected the sum to include the damage to the property in Tarxien, the Court noted that “these were the subject of another set of concurrent proceedings.
“It further considers that the conditions created in the Tarxien property were not related to the de facto expropriation of the Delimara residence.
“The first applicant's decision not to pay the relevant bills, which resulted in further damage to his current residence, could have no bearing on the compensation awarded by the Constitutional Court.
“Moreover, in so far as the Tarxien property could be the subject of a separate complaint, the Court reiterates that Article 35 Subarticle 1 provides that the six-month period runs from the final decision in the process of exhaustion (….) which in relation to the Tarxien property was delivered on 20 June 2006 and therefore more than six months before the lodging of this application with the Court.
“No other evidence has been provided in respect of any new proceedings which might have been undertaken in this connection. It follows that this complaint would be inadmissible for non-compliance with the six-month rule set out in Article 35 Subarticle 1 of the Convention, and would be rejected pursuant to Article 35 Subarticle 4.
“Having regard to all the foregoing factors, the Court concludes that the compensation awarded to the applicants did not upset the fair balance between the opposing interests as they did not have to bear a disproportionate or excessive burden.
“It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 Subarticle 3 of the Convention,” the ECHR ruled.
The ECHR also dismissed the Mintoffs’ claim of political discrimination under Article 14 of the Convention as “manifestly ill-founded”.
“The applicants have failed to substantiate their submission that any treatment they have been subjected to was influenced in any way by the fact that the first applicant was a former Prime Minister.
“The Court therefore concludes that the applicants have failed to substantiate their allegation that they were discriminated against,” the ECHR said in its decision.

czahra@mediatoday.com.mt