Evicted tenant claims breach of human rights

A tenant evicted from his house is planning to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights, claiming he was denied the right to a fair hearing.

Cecil Jones lost a court case and an appeal demanding his eviction from the house formerly rented to his late mother, with whom he lived.

Jones says a provisional measure to stop the eviction, after he filed a constitutional case, was revoked on the day of the eviction without his having the opportunity of a fair hearing.

Previously Jones had lost the appeal on the eviction in August 2016, prompting his legal aid lawyer to request a rehearing of the appeal as well as a suspension of the eviction, until the rehearing is decided.

Both requests were heard by the Court of Appeal on 30 January 2017, but the request to suspend the eviction was rejected from the outset. The request for the retrial was adjourned to 3 July 2017.

So Jones next filed a Constitutional application, arguing that the three judges who decided the appeal – where they confirmed the decision to proceed with the eviction – were the same ones who refused to suspend the eviction during the retrial request, and were going to preside on the retrial hearing.

Jones argued that this constituted a violation of his right to fair hearing, and once again requested a provisional measure to stop any action that could violate his human rights until the court takes its decision – namely, to stop the eviction once again.

This provisional measure was actually issued by a civil court in its constitutional jurisdiction on 29 May.

But to Jones’s dismay, both the warrant of eviction as well as the rehearing of his appeal, carried on regardless of the constitutional case.

Indeed on 3 July, the Court of Appeal that was hearing Jones’s request for a retrial went ahead with the eviction, and even questioned why the civil court judge had issued the stay on the eviction without hearing all parties.

On 31st July, the Civil Court issued a note-verbal stating that it had read out the verbale of the Court of Appeal of 3 July, while another Civil Court had issued a warrant of eviction, which was executed the next morning, when court marshals and police went to Jones’s home to execute the eviction warrant, accompanied by his landlord Charles Grech.

Jones argued through his lawyer that a judge had already issued a stay on the eviction pending the outcome of his constitutional case. But that day he found out that that same provisional measure was removed by the same judge on the day of the eviction, in a fresh decree which was made known to his lawyer approx two hours after the eviction had started.

Jones argues that the new court order was given without him being given the opportunity to defend himself.

In fact, a note in the proceedings reveals that the judge who first issued the provisional measure, removed it “without any request, without any hearing and without Jones being given an opportunity to defend his position.”

A renewed effort by Jones to stop the eviction once again proved unsuccessful.

As things stand, Jones is now asking for a retrial of the appeal. His landlord, Charles Grech, claims Jones never lived in the house except after the death of his mother. The landlord in fact said the house was left abandoned for five years prior to her death, after an ARMS representative testified that the water meter had been marked “stopped meter” for five years.

The court concluded that the landlord was right in claiming the property was abandoned, as it was impossible for anyone to reside there without a water supply.

Jones insists that “stopped meter” does not mean that there was no water supply, but that ARMS could not take the reading from the meter either because it was not working properly, or because the meter was too old for ARMS officials to take a reading. An inquiry answered by email from ARMS confirmed that the expression “stopped meter” (‘E’) meant that the meter was malfunctioning and had nothing to do with payment of dues.