Maltese man awarded €21,000 by ECHR

A Maltese man has been awarded €21,000 in damages, the European Court of Human Rights having found Malta guilty of breaching his fundamental right to a fair trial.

The applicant, Carmel Saliba, is a Maltese national who was born in 1949 and lives in San Gwann.

The case concerned the fairness of civil proceedings brought against Mr Saliba, that had made him liable to pay damages for his alleged participation in a robbery.

In May 1995, five to seven hooded men conducted a robbery in the home of Mr and Ms Z. A police investigation was launched into the incident, but no criminal prosecution ever ensued because of a lack of evidence indicating who the culprits were.

The applicant and his brother had periodically worked at the Z.s’ house as plumbers, electricians and handymen. Relations between the brothers and Mr Z. broke down, and in 1997 Mr Saliba’s company brought proceedings against Mr Z. for outstanding payments (discontinued after the amount was paid).

In June 2000, five years after the robbery, Mr and Ms Z. sued Mr Saliba in civil proceedings, claiming damages for losses incurred as a result of the robbery.

Mr Z. maintained that, in retrospect, he recognised Mr Saliba as one of the robbers (though he had not made such a claim during the police investigation). He claimed that he had recognised him through his manners and demeanour. Mr Saliba denied that he had been there.

In a judgment of 10 October 2006, the Civil Court (First Hall) upheld Mr Z.’s claim, ordering Mr Saliba to pay damages to be assessed at a later date. Despite finding that Mr Z.’s evidence had been inconsistent, and that his arguments had been far-fetched and banal, the Court held that his identification of Mr Saliba had nevertheless been reliable.

In March 2008, the Civil Court (First Hall) ordered Mr Saliba to pay Mr Z. €130,000. Mr Saliba appealed against the decisions to the Court of Appeal. The appeal was dismissed in October 2009, on the grounds that that there was no reason for the appellate court to question the first-instance court’s assessment of the facts.

Mr Saliba then instituted constitutional redress proceedings, claiming that he had not been given a fair trial. This claim was rejected by both the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence and then on appeal by the Constitutional Court. The final decision was made on 15 October 2012. According to the documents submitted to the Court, following the above judgments Mr Saliba became extremely depressed and unfit for work.

Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Saliba complained that the domestic courts had failed to give proper attention to the validity, credibility and relevance of the evidence in the civil proceedings that had been brought against him.

He was awarded: Violation of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: €10,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and €11,000 (costs and expenses).

The case concerned the fairness of civil proceedings brought against Mr Saliba, that had made him liable to pay damages for his alleged participation in a robbery.