The European Court of Human Rights has dismissed the application filed by former Chief Justice Noel Arrigo and former judge Patrick Vella, who claimed that their right to a fair hearing had been breached when the then Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami made a public declaration that they were being interrogated by the police for having allegedly accepted a sum of money in order to neglect their duties as public officials.
This press conference was given wide coverage by the local media and some time later Dr Arrigo and Dr Vella, from Siggiewi and Naxxar respectively, were charged in court with having accepting bribes in connection with a drug-trafficking case. In court, on 4 August 2002, they were charged with accepting thousands of liri to reduce the prison sentence of inmate drug dealer Mario Camilleri from 16 years to 12 years.
The former judges claimed that Dr Fenech Adami’s press conference informing the public about the matter breached their fundamental human right to be tried by an impartial and independent tribunal. They also complained that their presumption of innocence, guaranteed by the European Convention, had not been respected and also that the violations of Article 6 found in their case were not redressed in an effective manner.
In its judgement, handed down following the sitting held in Strasbourg on 10 May, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the former judges’ complaints were “manifestly unfounded” and had to be rejected and therefore the court unanimously declared the application inadmissible.
The European Court was presided over by Sir Nicolas Bratza as President with Mr J. Casadevall, Mr M. Pellonpää, Mr R. Maruste, Mr S. Pavlovschi, Mr L. Garlicki and Mr J Borrego Borrego as judges.
In its 10-page judgement, the European Court gave all the background to the case, starting from the Prime Minister’s press conference and its transcript translated into English. It said that on 26 August 2002, the Maltese Court of Criminal Inquiry said that the applicants’ claim as far as the press conference was concerned was not frivolous and referred the case to the Civil Court. However, this court rejected the claims that they had been prejudiced because of publicity given to the Prime Minister’s statements.
Before the Civil Court, the former judges and their team of lawyers produced several newspaper articles which allegedly treated them as guilty. They alleged that, as there had been a breach of the presumption of innocence, no fair hearing was possible in their case. In a judgement handed down in December 2002, the Civil Court held that the declarations made in the press conference could not be considered as statements of guilt and therefore declared that their fundamental rights had not been breached. It directed the first court to continue the criminal proceedings.
The European Court quoted the Civil Court judgement as saying that the facts of the case were extraordinary and rather unique for Malta and that it was justified for the Prime Minister to call the press conference in order to inform the public and to avoid an institutional crisis.
It said the presumption of innocence could not prevent the Maltese authorities from informing the public about the investigations in criminal matters.
The former judges appealed against the Civil Court judgement before the Constitutional Court. On 29 October 2003, the Constitutional Court revoked the decision and declared that there had been a violation of the applicants’ right to a fair trial and to be presumed innocent. The matter was taken before the European Court of Human Rights.
“According to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the presumption of innocence was violated if a statement of a public official concerning a person charged with a criminal offence reflected an opinion that he was guilty before he had been proved so according to law. Even in the absence of a formal finding, it was sufficient that there was some reasoning suggesting that the official regarded the accused as guilty,” the European Court judgement said.
The European Court said the article of the convention under which the former judges are complaining, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “In the determination of... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
The European Court, noting that the criminal proceedings in question have not yet been completed, found that the applicants’ submissions do not disclose any such circumstances and therefore dismissed this complaint.
On the second complaint – that their presumption of innocence had been violated – the European Court said the article of the Convention reads as follows: “Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law.”
It said that this provision cannot prevent the authorities from informing the public about criminal investigations in progress. Moreover, the European Court said that, in a democratic society, it is inevitable that information is imparted when a serious charge of misconduct in office is brought against two high-ranking members of the judiciary.
In its judgement the European Court said the fact that the applicants had important duties in the national judicial system at the time of the alleged offence required the highest state officials, including the Prime Minister, to keep the public informed of the alleged offence and the ensuing criminal proceedings.
It said this complaint was incompatible with the provision of the Convention and rejected it.
The former judges also complained that they had not been provided with an effective domestic remedy for the violation of their rights to a fair trial and to be presumed innocent.
They invoked Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in (the) Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” This complaint was also rejected by the European Court.