A judge rejected an appeal filed by NGO Repubblika against the constitutional court's decisions to allow Magistrate Nadine Lia to continue to hear its challenge proceedings against the Police Commissioner over the lack of prosecution against certain Pilatus bank officials.

It will now be taking this case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

A judge, in January, rejected Repubblika's constitutional case over Magistrate Nadine Lia's refusal to recuse herself from the challenge case against the Police Commissioner.

In a statement released by Repubblika, it said that the constitutional court said that in order for Repubblika to have the right to argue that it is not being given a proper hearing, it must show that it has a direct interest in the case being heard.

"As we said when we lost the case before the first court, we are disappointed with the decision of the Constitutional Court today," the NGO said.

Repubblika said that whilst it respects the court, it reiterated that the law states that it should have a right to a fair hearing with an impartial judge.

"Magistrate Nadine Lia is not an impartial judge in the Pilatus Bank case," Repubblika said when noting that Magistrate Lia's father-in-law, Pawlu Lia "is the lawyer of Joseph Muscat (former Prime Minister) who has a direct interest for nothing to be done about Pilatus Bank."

Repubblika pointed out the paradox between the court giving an impartial hearing when the Police Commissioner brings someone to court, but not giving an impartial hearing when the appellant is asking the same Police Commissioner to bring a number of individuals to court.

The challenge case against the Police Commissioner was filed by Repubblika in July accusing the police of not prosecuting Pilatus Bank officials despite the conclusions of a magisterial inquiry.'

Repubblika had asked Magistrate Lia to recuse herself, but the magistrate refused to do so, which led to the filing of a constitutional case asking for her to be removed from the case. An interim measure had been granted, ordering the magistrate to desist from continuing to preside over the case.

Then Magistrate Claire Stafrace Zammit was assigned the case on 14 November. However, one day later Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti issued a directive referring to a decree by the Constitutional Court on 11 November in the case of Repubblika vs the State Advocate, where the court ordered the suspension of the decree given by the First Hall of the Courts for the case to be assigned to a new magistrate, as the assignment had not been formally concluded.

The Chief Justice revoked the assignment of Stafrace Zammit, to leave the issue of reassignment unprejudiced until a final decision was delivered by the Constitutional Court.