Bastjan Dalli claims rights’ breach over 12-year asset freeze

Sebastian Dalli is demanding compensation from the State, arguing that a still-in-force freezing order imposed on him over a drug trafficking case dating back to 2009 is breaching his fundamental rights.

Dalli, brother of former minister and disgraced EU commissioner John Dalli, filed the Constitutional proceedings late last May.

He had been arraigned in court in February 2009, accused of conspiracy to import cannabis.

Dalli had been arrested the day after a police operation at Miġra l-Ferħa intercepted suspects taking delivery of what was thought to be a consignment of cannabis – but which turned out to be soap. Dalli was arrested the next day over calls he had with one of the persons intercepted.

During his arraignment, the Court of Magistrates ordered a freeze over his assets. As the law stood at the time, the accused could never oppose the request for a freezing order and neither did the court have the power to deny the prosecutor’s request.

It was only after five years from Dalli’s arraignment, in 2014, that the law changed to allow the request for a freezing order to be challenged or turned down by the court in such cases.

Dalli is claiming a breach of his right of peaceful possession of property and that the “unchallengeable” freezing order was inflicting harsh punishment on a person who was still presumed innocent.

Dalli’s lawyer, Arthur Azzopardi, argued that the new law of 2014 still did not offer the possibility for persons in Dalli’s position to make a request for the revocation of freezing orders to the Criminal Court.

Despite this, and in order to exhaust all local remedies before taking the case to the European Courts, Dalli had tabled a request in this vein in December 2020. The Attorney General had opposed the request.

In January 2021, the Criminal Court refused to rescind the freezing order, saying it should remain in force until final judgment is handed down.

However, the Criminal Court also invited Dalli to file a Constitutional case about the excessive duration of the proceedings against him. This he did and the Constitutional reference is currently still pending.

Dalli’s lawyer complained that the freezing order was a draconian measure that had “completely paralyzed” all of Dalli’s personal dealings, in particular his relationship with his bank. Azzopardi argued that the measure was disproportionate, in that it wasn’t limited to the alleged amounts Dalli would have gained through the crime, but covered all of his past and present assets.

He said the freezing order as applied in this case was breaching his right to protection form the deprivation of property without compensation, as enshrined in both the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Dalli’s lawyer argued that any interference with the right to enjoyment of private property had to create a balanced between the public interest and the fundamental human rights of the individual.

It was the domestic courts’ duty to satisfy themselves that the freezing of the applicant’s assets would not cause him more damage than that which inevitably flows from such measures, said the lawyer.