Court refuses to hear police sergeants’ discrimination claim, citing lapsed remedy

The Civil Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, has declined to hear a claim brought by twenty police sergeants who argued they were unfairly overlooked for promotion to major sergeant ranks.

In a preliminary judgment delivered on Thursday, Judge Francesco Depasquale concluded that the applicants had already been afforded an adequate legal remedy but failed to use it within the prescribed time limits, making their constitutional claim inadmissible.

 The officers had alleged that the 2013 promotion process within the police corps was marred by discrimination and irregularity. A circular inviting applications for first and second class major sergeants had initially included a clause stating that “appropriate consideration” would be given to work experience, a clause which was removed within hours.

The applicants maintained that those eventually promoted in November 2013 were less qualified, and that the selection process lacked transparency. They also complained that subsequent rounds of promotion were carried out without a fresh call for applications, and that some successful candidates had faced internal disciplinary action or had been reinstated shortly before being promoted.

The court, however, accepted the State Advocate’s argument that the claim could not be revived through constitutional proceedings. The sergeants had already filed a judicial review action in 2017 contesting the same promotion process, a case which was struck out in 2023 as time-barred under Article 469A of the Civil Code. That ruling was later upheld on appeal in 2024.

In its decision, the court noted that constitutional jurisdiction is an exceptional mechanism, to be used only when no effective ordinary remedy exists. Since the applicants had previously availed themselves of such a remedy but failed to act within the legal deadlines, the court held that it would not exercise its constitutional powers.

The judgment described the constitutional case as an attempt to reopen issues already settled by prescription, observing that both the administrative and constitutional actions sought the same outcome, recognition of alleged discrimination and compensation.

All legal costs were imposed on the applicants jointly and severally.