The Constitutional Court has overturned a judgment that had awarded €61,000 in damages to former police superintendent Raymond D'Anastas, ruling that the decision of the court of first instance was not properly reasoned and must be reheard.

D'Anastas had challenged the police promotions process after being overlooked for promotion to assistant commissioner, claiming he had been discriminated against. While the court of first instance had upheld his claim and awarded compensation, the Constitutional Court found that the judgement lacked sufficient motivation and could not stand.

The appeal was filed by the State Advocate and the Police Commissioner, who argued that the First Hall of the Civil Court failed to adequately explain how it reached its conclusions and relied on contradictory reasoning. They also contested the finding that D'Anastas' fundamental rights had been breached. D'Anastas, for his part, filed a cross appeal insisting that the damages awarded were insufficient.

D'Anastas joined the Malta Police Force in December 1979, was promoted to inspector in 1990 and later to superintendent in 2006. In August 2016, the police issued a call for applications for assistant commissioner, attracting 20 candidates. Interviews were held in January 2017, after which 10 officers were promoted. A further four appointments were made between 2018 and 2020.

D'Anastas was not selected, having failed the interview. He claimed the process was tainted and that it was already known he would not be promoted. After an unsuccessful complaint before the Public Service Commission, he requested an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Former Ombudsman Anthony Mifsud concluded that the promotions process was flawed and compromised, finding that the then police commissioner, Lawrence Cutajar, had based selections on personal trust rather than objective criteria. Mifsud recommended that a fresh call for promotions be issued and suggested that D'Anastas be awarded €15,000 in moral damages. These recommendations were not taken up by the police.

D'Anastas subsequently instituted constitutional proceedings against the state and the police commissioner. The First Hall of the Civil Court ruled that the evidence showed that several candidates, not just the plaintiff, had been favoured during the selection process and awarded D'Anastas €61,000 in damages.

However, the Constitutional Court held that the lower court failed to explain how it reached the conclusion that D'Anastas had suffered discrimination. It noted that the judgment did not identify the facts that led the court to conclude that candidates had effectively been chosen before the selection process was concluded.

The Constitutional Court stressed that if the lower court relied on the Ombudsman's findings, it was required to explain why it agreed with them. In the absence of such reasoning, the judgment could not be upheld.

While annulling the decision, the Constitutional Court clarified that it was not ruling on the merits of D'Anastas's claims. Instead, it held that the case remains unresolved and must be reconsidered by the First Hall of the Civil Court, which will now have to issue a fresh, fully reasoned judgment.