Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1536815
3 maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 25 JUNE 2025 NEWS JAMES DEBONO jdebono@mediatoday.com.mt CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 On 16 September 1980, after vacating the premises, the government handed the property to the Labour Party, who took over and leased it while entering into a contract with the previous owner. The appellants later contested the le- gality of this occupation, asserting a breach of the right to the enjoyment of their property as guaranteed under the Maltese Constitution and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The first Constitutional Court judg- ment noted how the owners at the time were forced to accept this unjust lease. The court recognized the breach but awarded damages that the appellants deemed inadequate since the court re- fused to order eviction of the political entities. In Monday's ruling, the court con- firmed that the appellants' rights un- der Article 1 of the First Protocol of the ECHR had been violated, affirming the constitutional protection of prop- erty ownership. However, the Court re- formed the prior award of damages. The original pecuniary damages of approximately €993,462 were annulled, and €830,000 in damages were awarded. This was based on a detailed valuation of rent determined by Maltese rent laws. Moral damages of €20,000 were also awarded in recognition of the infringe- ment of dignity and peace caused by the unlawful occupation. The court ordered half of the moral damages to be paid jointly by the Attor- ney General and the Housing Authority and the other half payable by the Labour Party. The court was clear in its ruling the compensation is to be paid by both the Maltese Government and by the Labour Party. "The defendant party was complic- it with the public authority in bringing about what led to the violation of the owners' rights. The defendant tenants are equally responsible, along with the state, for the breach of the plaintiffs' rights, and therefore it is appropriate that the remedy be granted against them as well," the court stated. The court also ordered the property be evicted by the Labour Party within two months. The plaintiffs were represented by law- yer Edward DeBono. Constitutional Court rules Labour, state illegally took over Birzebbuga property Superintendence unfavourable to Portelli's Al Fresco development How development will obscure protected chapel THE Superintendence for Cultural Her- itage has concluded it cannot green-light plans to transform the Al Fresco restaurant in Birżebbuġa into two villas . The project is being proposed by a com- pany owned by developer Joseph Portelli. The decision was taken after the company presented a new set of photomontages in line with guidelines for visual assessments approved by the Planning Authority in 2015. Contrary to previous montages, the pro- posed development is compared to the ex- isting situation. One of the photomontages shows that from one angle the new building will ob- scure the scheduled chapel of St Joseph despite the SCH noting an improvement in the proposal. The heritage watchdog said "it remains concerned that the proposal continues to impact the scheduled church, the adjacent historic buildings, and the surrounding Ur- ban Conservation Area". The SCH also noted that the proposed development affects views from the Borg in-Nadur settlement. While concluding that it cannot be fa- vourable to the proposed development, the Superintendence remains open "to review- ing any updated drawings". The proposal made by Portelli's PRA Con- struction involves the development of two villas, each built over a basement, ground floor, and receded first floor, with extensive open areas. One villa will cover 299sq.m and the other 364sq.m, with building foot- prints of 92sq.m and 129sq.m respectively. The application filed by an Indian em- ployee of the company, proposes the dem- olition of the Al Fresco pizzeria, which features an extensive open terrace facing St George's Bay. The restaurant is locat- ed next to a Grade 2 scheduled lodge and chapel. SCH objects to plans after a new set of photomontages in line with official guidelines show the proposed building obscuring a protected chapel