Judge throws out Constitutional case

Mr Justice Joseph R. Micallef ruled that the Constitutional Court desists from taking any further consideration of a claim filed by a former Malta Drydocks employee who was diagnosed with cancer, because the applicant had failed to seek ordinary redress prior to complaining at the Constitutional Court.

In October last year, a former pattern maker at the Malta Drydocks, was diagnosed with cancer. He argued that the cause of his illness was his exposure to asbestos over the years when he worked at the docks.

“Not only has my illness affected my way of life, but also that of my family”, the retired man said.

Together with his wife and children, he filed a constitutional case against the Commissioner of Police, the OHSA, the Attorney General and the Principal Medical Officer, claiming their rights to enjoy life, to a healthy life, and right to privacy had been violated.

The family also claimed they were subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment.

The defendants replied that the former employee had not sought compensation in any other forum prior to seeking Constitutional redress.

Furthermore the wife and children had no legal claim as they did not legally qualify as victims. The four defendants also argued that none of them was responsible for the employee’s exposure to asbestos.

The court noted that it is conceivable that an individual may experience a personal injury owing to a violation of the Convention against another person.

Under certain circumstances a person may file a claim on his own account without the applicant having himself suffered any violation. In such cases the applicant must have a so close a link with the direct victim that he himself is also to be considered a victim. The court ruled that the wife and children of the former employee related to this description.

However, Mr Justice Joseph R. Micallef, upheld the argument of the defendants that the Constitutional Court should not hear the case as the applicants did not seek any other remedy prior to filing a constitutional case.

The court ruled that as decreed in other similar cases, the applicants could have sought ordinary remedies in other fora.

“While noting that each case has its own aspects, the court has to keep a level of consistency in cases where the arguments are practically the same”, the judge said.

Judge Micallef upheld the exceptions argued by the defendants regarding the applicants not having sought ordinary redress and ruled that the Constitutional Court desists from taking any further consideration of the claim.

The applicants were ordered to pay all court expenses.