Trapani Galea et al. vs Lands Authority — Expropriation Compensation Dispute

Whether agricultural land compulsorily acquired under the 1983 Development Areas Act attracted constitutional rights to higher compensation after subsequent residential development.

Constitutional Court · Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, Hon. Judge Anthony Ellul, Hon. Judge Robert G. Mangion · 4 May 2026

This case concerned a plot of land in Attard, known as 'tal-Marġ sive tal-Fuklar', which was compulsorily acquired by the Government under the Development Areas Act (Act I of 1983). The landowners — members of the Trapani Galea Feriol and Bianchi families — received compensation of €39,827.50 as assessed by the Land Arbitration Board in June 2014, a figure based on the land's agricultural classification at the time of acquisition. The applicants complained that despite the land being classified as agricultural at the time of taking, the Government subsequently developed it as a housing estate and commercial enterprise, dramatically increasing its value. They argued that the statutory framework which limited compensation to agricultural land values — regardless of subsequent development — violated their fundamental rights under Article 37 of the Constitution and Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protect the right to property. They also complained of unreasonable delay in the proceedings before the Land Arbitration Board and the Court of Appeal, which concluded only on 14 March 2019. The First Hall, Civil Court (sitting as a Constitutional Court) had previously found a breach of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time under Article 39 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the ECHR, awarding €10,000 in non-pecuniary damages. However, it found no violation of the property rights provisions under Article 37 of the Constitution or Article 1 of the First Protocol. Both sides appealed: the applicants challenged the rejection of their property rights claim, while the Attorney General contested the finding of unreasonable delay and the quantum of compensation. The Constitutional Court was called upon to decide both appeals, examining whether the legislative mechanism that pegged compensation to agricultural values at the date of acquisition — irrespective of the State's own subsequent development decisions — struck a fair balance between public interest and individual property rights, and whether the duration of the arbitration and appellate proceedings amounted to a breach of the reasonable time guarantee.

The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants' appeal in full and partially upheld the Attorney General's incidental appeal, reducing non-pecuniary compensation from €10,000 to €6,000. Pecuniary compensation as awarded by the lower court was otherwise confirmed. Costs charged against the applicants.

• Under Maltese constitutional law, expropriation must comply with Article 37 of the Constitution, which requires that any compulsory acquisition of property be for a public purpose and accompanied by adequate compensation — compensation based solely on agricultural value at the date of taking may be challenged where the State itself later develops the land at much higher value.
• The 1983 Development Areas Act excluded developable land from its scope, meaning that land already holding a valid development permit could not be acquired under that Act — owners of purely agricultural land had significantly weaker compensation rights.
• Article 39 of the Constitution and Article 6(1) ECHR guarantee a fair hearing within a reasonable time — prolonged arbitration and appellate proceedings concerning land compensation can constitute a fundamental rights violation entitling victims to non-pecuniary damages.
• Constitutional proceedings cannot generally be used to re-litigate issues already decided by a final court judgment (res iudicata), but they can address whether the legislative framework governing compensation itself breaches fundamental rights.
• The margin of appreciation afforded to the Maltese State in determining what measures serve the general interest in property regulation is wide, but is not unlimited — courts must assess whether a fair balance was struck between public interest and individual property rights.

Constitution of Malta, Article 37 (Protection from deprivation of property) and Article 39 (Right to fair hearing); European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6(1) (Right to fair trial within reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Protection of property); Development Areas Act (Act I of 1983), particularly Articles 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7