Court orders immediate release of man arrested over financial debt

Nazzareno Bartolo was in prison after creditors filed a warrant in factum against Bartolo over a debt which is understood to be less than €11,000.

A court has this morning ordered the immediate release from arrest of a man who had been detained over a monetary debt.

This morning, magistrate Joseph Mifsud heard an urgent application for habeas corpus - a complaint of illegal arrest-  filed by lawyers Franco Galea and Stefan Balzan on behalf of  Nazzareno Bartolo, who is in prison after creditors filed a warrant in factum, detaining Bartolo over a debt which is understood to be less than €11,000.

Bartolo’s lawyers are arguing that his arrest is illegal.

Under the Civil Code a creditor can file such a warrant, requesting a court order a debtor to be arrested until he performs an act which he is contractually obliged to perform - but not for the payment of a financial debt, as was the case here.  In spite of this, the warrant was issued by Mr. Justice Silvio Meli, presiding the First Hall of the Civil Court some two weeks ago.

Lawyers Franco Galea and Stefan Balzan, for the applicant, requested that their client be released on bail from detention. They would then be file a civil action to impugn the decree of the first hall of the civil court which upheld the request for the mandat in factum. within the time period provided by the court. 

Lawyer Kevin Valletta, for the Office of the Attorney General, did not object to the debtor’s request to be released on bail.

Magistrate Mifsud pointed to the European Convention Act which states that no person is to be deprived of his liberty solely due to his incapability to fulfil a contractual obligation. It also noted that it could not deal with the merits of the case, as it was a court of criminal jurisdiction and the debt was one of a civil nature, the validity of which had not yet been questioned.

Magistrate Mifsud granted Bartolo bail and gave his lawyers a week to file the appropriate civil action. The court made it clear that if, in future, it emerged that the warrant had been applied for abusively, that request was “highly censurable.”