The State pays when a joint prosecution stalls for 12 years

The Civil Court, First Hall (Constitutional Jurisdiction) held on 2 June 2026 that a prosecution lasting from 2009 to 2021 breached the right to a hearing within a reasonable time. Mr Justice Francesco Depasquale found that the court and the prosecution caused most of the delay, because three co-accused were never brought before the court together. The court awarded €2,000 in non-pecuniary damages to the heir of the applicant, who died while the case was pending.

The facts

J.B. vs Avukat Generali concerned a prosecution that ended without a decision on the facts. The applicant was charged in July 2009, with two others, with forgery, use of false documents and customs and VAT offences linked to an import declaration made in 2007. He had given a statement to the police in May 2007.

The case was heard summarily before the Court of Magistrates (Malta), sitting as a Court of Criminal Judicature. On 14 April 2021 that court declared the proceedings null, because the magistrate had not signed the record of the examination of the accused. The applicant was freed.

He filed this constitutional application in September 2021 against the Attorney General and the State Advocate. He died while it was pending, and his sole heir took over the case.

What the court held

The respondents argued that the heir had no standing to pursue a complaint about the dead man's rights. The court rejected the argument. It adopted a ruling of the Constitutional Court that fundamental rights pass to another person only by universal title on death.

The court quoted that ruling: “Id-drittijiet fundamentali iżda ma humiex res in commercio u ma jistgħux jgħaddu minn persuna għal oħra jekk mhux b’titolu universali mortis causa.” (Fundamental rights, however, are not things in commerce and cannot pass from one person to another except by universal title on death.)

The applicant's affidavit described losing work and a licence his work depended on while the prosecution was pending. The court held that this financial effect on his estate gave the heir the victim status needed to continue.

On the merits, the court applied article 39(1) of the Constitution of Malta and article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, given effect by the European Convention Act (Chapter 319). It weighed four factors: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the accused, the conduct of the authorities and the court, and what was at stake for the accused.

The court found that the case was not complex, since it was heard summarily and needed only several witnesses and one expert. The accused missed some sittings after being notified, and others because he was not notified. From about 2014 he could not attend for a long period, for reasons the court held were neither his fault nor the court's.

The conduct of the court and the prosecution weighed most. The court adopted the magistrate's own finding: “Minn dak inhar sal-4 ta’ Ġunju 2013 inżammew tnax-il udjenza li fihom ma sar xejn għaliex qatt ma dehru t-tlett imputati flimkien.” (From that day until 4 June 2013, 12 sittings were held in which nothing was done, because the three accused never appeared together.)

A separation of trials was recorded on 19 June 2013 but never carried out. One file was kept for all three accused, and the separation had to be requested again in January 2019. Minutes for 2015 to 2017 were missing from the record.

The court found no proof of financial loss and awarded no pecuniary damages. It set non-pecuniary damages at €2,000, taking into account the sittings the accused missed and his long absence. It ordered the State Advocate to pay the sum and all costs, and it released the Attorney General from the case.

Why it matters

Defence lawyers acting for one of several co-accused should ask early for a separation of trials and check that the order is carried out. A court cannot leave a joint case idle because co-accused fail to appear; that delay falls on the State. An heir can continue a pending delay claim where the delay affected the estate, but the award will be modest without proof of loss.

Where it sits

The case applies the guarantee of a hearing within a reasonable time, which in criminal matters protects an accused from remaining too long under a charge. Reasonableness is judged on the proceedings as a whole, by the complexity of the case, the conduct of the accused and the conduct of the authorities, with what was at stake as a fourth factor. An acquittal does not remove victim status for a delay complaint.

On the passing of rights to heirs, the court followed the Constitutional Court (13 October 2025) and the European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber (15 October 2009), in a Maltese case on a relative's standing to continue proceedings. On the criteria, it cited the Civil Court, First Hall (Constitutional Jurisdiction) (27 February 2009 and 2 December 2024) and the Constitutional Court (15 December 2015).

On the court's own duty to prevent needless adjournments, it relied on the Constitutional Court (24 February 2025). It also cited the European Court of Human Rights (22 September 1992), on the overall assessment of length, and (11 June 2015), which places the non-attendance of co-accused and witnesses on the domestic courts.

Source

Civil Court, First Hall (Constitutional Jurisdiction), 2 June 2026, 593/2021