Repubblika to take recusal case of magistrate presiding Pilatus challenge to Strasbourg

Repubblika will be taking its case over Magistrate Nadine Lia’s refusal to abstain from hearing challenge proceedings filed by the NGO in connection with Pilatus Bank to the European Court of Human Rights.

The move comes after the Constitutional Court rejected the NGO’s claim of a fair hearing rights breach.

Repubblika had appealed a decision handed down last January by the First Hall of the Civil Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction in which it ruled that Repubblika had no juridical interest in the case, nor did it have victim status. 

In the judgement handed down today, the Constitutional Court presided by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, Mr Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo and Mr Justice Anthony Ellul, ruled that because the challenge proceedings did not deal with the appellant’s civil rights or obligations, the NGO could not complain of a breach or potential breach of its fair hearing rights in this case.

The NGO had filed the challenge proceedings in a bid to compel the Police Commissioner and the Attorney General to file charges against Pilatus Bank officials who were earmarked for prosecution by a magisterial inquiry. The challenge proceedings were presided over by Magistrate Nadine Lia, who refused Repubblika’s request that she recuses herself in view of a family link to lawyer Pawlu Lia, who was Joseph Muscat's lawyer.

Repubblika’s request for an interim measure that would involve the replacement of the magistrate hearing the challenge proceedings had been upheld by the First Hall of the Civil Court last October. The State Advocate had filed an appeal the following month.

The State Advocate had described Repubblika’s action as an attempt at forum shopping and an abuse of the judicial process. 

In its decision this morning, the Constitutional Court ruled “The allegation of a breach [of fair hearing rights], made by the appellant is not sufficient to endow it with the juridical interest to file and participate in this case,” ruled the judges. 

“If as a result of the decision which the Court of Magistrates has yet to give, there will be no change to the appellants’ civil rights, its complaint about a breach of fair hearing rights cannot be considered on the merits.”