Litigants must use all available legal remedies to ensure justice

By Jodie Darmanin

Justice delayed is justice denied. This axiom underlines the need for a timely remedy, enshrined in both the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights, which provide that individuals have the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time.

Nevertheless, it is imperative that litigants ensure that legal proceedings are not unnecessarily prolonged by their actions or errors. In the recent case of Mark Micallef v. The State Advocate, the plaintiff alleged that his fundamental human rights were violated as a result of an inordinate delay of 18 years.

Mr Micallef was prosecuted in 2002 to pay an amount owed under a private letter. In 2020, the case was finally decided, with him having incurred up to €50,000 in statutory interest, as well as the damages he suffered as a result of his bank account being frozen by the plaintiff in that case. Mr Micallef filed a constitutional case before the First Hall of the Civil Court in his constitutional jurisdiction, where he was awarded damages of €35,432. The state lawyer appealed to the Constitutional Court, arguing that there was no violation of human rights and that the amount of damages awarded to Mr Micallef was too high.

The Constitutional Court ruled that such a delay was unjustified and amounted to a violation of fundamental human rights, agreeing with the Civil Court. In particular, the Constitutional Court agreed that such a lengthy delay, especially in a case arising from a simple private agreement, constituted a flagrant violation of the right to timely justice.

The State Attorney has argued that the State cannot be held liable for the delay, as the plaintiff has not used all options to expedite the procedure. Reference was made to Article 195(5)(b) of the Code of Organization and Civil Procedure, which allows a party to request the Chief Justice to transfer the case to another judge if it continues for more than 18 months. However, the Constitutional Court reasoned that the primary responsibility for ensuring timely justice lies with the legal system, and that the plaintiff’s failure to invoke this provision could not absolve the state of its obligations. Nevertheless, the Court recognized that the plaintiff’s inaction in requesting a transfer was a mitigating factor in assessing the damages suffered.

Furthermore, when assessing the damages owed to Mr Micallef, the Constitutional Court took into account several factors that could reduce the amount of damage suffered. It took into account the fact that despite his bank account being frozen, interest of 2% per annum accrued on the amount owed during the lengthy trial period. The Court further adjusted inflation by referring to the cost of living index in the Housing (Decontrol) Ordinance. The Constitutional Court further tempered the damages award on the grounds that the case concerned civil matters and not criminal matters and was therefore of a less serious nature. Despite the fact that the Constitutional Court found the State responsible for the delay, it reduced the amount of damages payable to Mr Micallef to €4,000, together with the payment of three quarters of the costs incurred in bringing the constitutional case tension.

Notwithstanding the fact that the State is obliged and legally responsible to ensure that justice is served within a reasonable time, the parties to a case cannot ignore their legal rights and must take all necessary steps to actively pursue the case to ensure that a legal remedy is provided. delivered on time.

Furthermore, when calculating the amount of damage suffered by a victim of premature judicial proceedings, the Constitutional Court will take into account several factors in order to calculate the actual damage suffered as a result of the extension of a case.