Court releases vehicles driven by hit-and-run driver

A Constitutional Court has today ordered the release of two vehicles driven by Maximilian Ciantar, after it ruled that the fundamental human rights of the owner of the vehicles – Ciantar’s father- were breached when a criminal court ordered that the cars be confiscated.

The judgment relates to two cars: a Peugeot Partner registered to Emanuel Ciantar on behalf of Maxkim Limited, and a Toyota Vitz, personally owned by Emanuel Ciantar. In July 2011, a Criminal Court had ordered the confiscation of the Peugeot Partner after the plaintiff’s son Maximilian, ran over two girls in Attard. Ciantar was subsequently sent to jail and banned from driving for causing the accident and of driving without a licence and insurance. He was given a ten-year driving ban but an appeals’ court later reduced this to six months.

Ciantar, 24, of Marsa, is currently out on bail after pleading not guilty to dangerous and negligent driving while under a court ban, and of driving without a licence and insurance on July 8.

In January 2012, a criminal court also found the man guilty of violating a driving ban after he was caught driving a Toyota Vitz in Hamrun. The police had also seized the car pending court proceedings, but the court had not ordered its confiscation.

However, in a case filed before the Constitutional Court, Emanuel Ciantar sought constitutional redress claiming that his right to property was breached because he was not given sufficient opportunity to contest the court’s decision.

In October 2013, the First Hall Civil Court Constitutional Jurisdiction had ruled that the confiscation of the Peugeot Partner was justified because the car was registered on the same address as Maximilian Ciantar’s residence.

 While it agreed with the criminal court’s decision to confiscate the Peugeot Partner, the court had ordered the release of the Toyota Vitz, arguing that its release would not harm ongoing criminal proceedings. A plea for compensation was however dismissed, with the court telling Emanuel Ciantar that these must be requested from the person who drove illegally, namely Maximilian Ciantar.

In his appeal before the Constitutional Court, Ciantar claimed that his right to property was breached since he was not given sufficient opportunity to contest the confiscation of his vehicles. He also claimed that his right to fair trial was breach, and that the court’s decree was retroactive.

On its part, the Attorney General held that the confiscation of vehicles is not a punishment but is a consequence of Maximilian Ciantar’s offence. It also claimed that the release of the Toyota Vitz goes against public interest. 

“Even though the confiscation of the Peugeot was done in line with the law, the decision was not sufficient for the state’s decision to be lawful because the plaintiff was not given sufficient opportunity to contest the confiscation of his vehicles,” the Constitutional Court argued.

Presided by Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri, and Judges Giannino Caruana Demajo and Noel Cuschieri, the constitutional court argued that the seizure of the Toyota Vitz is not sufficient in the police’s investigations. Consequently, the court ruled that there was no balance between society’s general interests and Emanuel Ciantar’s fundamental human rights.

In its decree, the court noted that while Ciantar’s right to fair trial was breached, he was not given sufficient opportunity to contest the seizure of his vehicles. It therefore the confiscation order, and ordered that Ciantar’s Toyota Vitz and Peugeot Partner be released.

Moreover, it ordered that the plaintiff be paid €300 in damages, and ordered the Attorney General to pay 80% of legal costs.