4.  The first applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Qormi. The second applicant is a limited liability company incorporated in 1996 and registered in Marsa, Malta. The second applicant is owned by the first applicant.
5.  On 27 July 2011, the Court of Magistrates as a court of criminal judicature found M. (the first applicant’s son, who lives under the same roof as the first applicant) guilty of involuntary grievous bodily harm of two minors, and of driving a Peugeot van with registration number HBD096 (hereinafter referred to as “the Peugeot”) without a licence. The Peugeot was registered in the name of Maxkim Limited (the second applicant). M. was not an employee of the company. The Court of Magistrates sentenced M. to a term of imprisonment and disqualified him from obtaining a driving licence for a period of time. Furthermore, it ordered the confiscation of the Peugeot, in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 (2) (c) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance (hereinafter “the Ordinance”) (see Relevant Domestic Law), since this was more than the third time in which M. was being found guilty of a crime under Article 3 of the Ordinance.
6.  M. appealed the decision.
7.  On 24 October 2011, the Court of Criminal Appeal reversed the first‑instance court judgment in part, namely lowering the disqualification period to six months. The rest of the judgment was confirmed. As to the confiscation of the Peugeot, the Court of Criminal Appeal noted that the confiscation was a result of the above‑mentioned provision of law which provided that both the person as well as the vehicle must be insured.
8.  The authorities eventually took physical possession of the Peugeot. However, by this time, the Peugeot had been returned to the importer following an agreement between him and the second applicant which provided that the latter would not pay any further instalments in connection with the hire purchase agreement with which the car had been acquired. The Government submitted that since this had never happened the vehicle remained owned by the importer, who was in 2018 pursuing proceedings before the domestic courts, and it therefore followed that the second applicant could not be considered to have had a possession.
9.  On 6 January 2012 the Court of Magistrates as a court of criminal judicature found M. guilty under Article 61(1) of the Traffic Regulations Ordinance of driving away, with the intention to use, a vehicle of the make Toyota (Vitz) with registration number KIM324 (hereinafter referred to as “the Toyota”). The Toyota was registered in the name of the first applicant. It is not disputed that the Toyota was owned by him. The Court of Magistrates did not order the confiscation of the Toyota (which had already been seized by the police since 9 November 2011) on the ground that M. had used it without the consent of the owner, and thus ordered its release.
10.  Despite the above finding, the car was not released by the authorities.
11.  The Attorney General (hereinafter referred to as “the AG”) appealed against part of the decision of the Court of Magistrates, requesting the Court of Criminal Appeal to order the confiscation of the Toyota; he also appealed with respect to the punishment imposed.
12.  It appears that during these appeal proceedings the first applicant requested the court to release the Toyota. He argued that there was no reason for the Toyota not to be returned to him, since the first‑instance court had not ordered its confiscation and, according to law, the AG’s appeal did not suspend the execution of the judgment of the first‑instance court (Article 416(4) of the Criminal Code) (See Relevant Domestic Law). The Court of Criminal Appeal rejected this request.
13.  On 26 March 2014 the Court of Criminal Appeal rejected the AG’s appeal in toto.
14.  On 27 March 2014 the Toyota was returned to the first applicant.
15.  In the meantime, on 28 November 2012, the applicants (Mr Ciantar in his name and on behalf of Maxkim Limited) filed proceedings before the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence. They claimed, inter alia, that both the above-mentioned criminal proceedings against M. violated their rights under Articles 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
16.  It was argued, in connection with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that the confiscation of the Peugeot in the first set of criminal proceedings and the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in the second set of criminal proceedings rejecting the request to release the Toyota, pending the appeal proceedings, had been ‘unlawful’.
17.  Under Article 6 the applicants argued that they had never been accused of a crime and had not had the opportunity to defend themselves before a court; however, they had nonetheless suffered the imposition of a penal punishment upon them. Furthermore, the Court of Criminal Appeal had refused to grant back to the first applicant possession of the Toyota in violation of the law.
18.  The applicants requested that the two vehicles be released, and that they be awarded just satisfaction for the violations suffered and the lost use of the two vehicles.
19.  On 23 October 2013 the court rejected the applicants’ claims except for that concerning the release of the Toyota. It ordered the Toyota to be released immediately (since the Court of Magistrates had not ordered its confiscation), at least until the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal on the AG’s appeal, which was still pending at the time.
20.  In regard to the alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the court held that the confiscation of the Peugeot had been ordered by a final judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal in the first set of criminal proceedings and therefore there could be no doubt that the confiscation was in compliance with the law (Article 3 of the Ordinance). It noted that Article 3 was aimed at protecting innocent citizens from abuse by people who broke the law by driving vehicles without a licence or without insurance. The fact that the provision ordered the confiscation of a vehicle used by a person caught driving without a licence or without insurance, even if the vehicle belonged to a company the perpetrator worked for, or the vehicle belonged to a family member with whom that perpetrator lived, struck the necessary balance and was an appropriate deterrent to the commission of crime. It followed that it was not in violation of the invoked provisions.
21.  Regarding the claim for damages, the court concluded that the applicants must demand them from M., since M. was the one who had violated the law leading to the institution of the criminal proceedings with the ensuing consequences.
22.  On 7 November 2013 the applicants filed an appeal before the Constitutional Court. It was argued that in both sets of criminal proceedings the applicants had been unlawfully deprived of their property. According to the applicants, Article 3 was inapplicable to the confiscation of the Peugeot, which could only be possible if, differently from M., the accused had been an employee of Maxkim Limited. The applicants further contended that the withholding of the Toyota by the Court of Criminal Appeal in the second set of criminal proceedings lacked a legal basis, which had not been remedied by the temporary order of the first‑instance constitutional jurisdiction. Further, the latter court had failed to effectively consider their complaints under Article 6 of the Convention.
23.  The AG also filed an appeal.
24.  On 11 August 2014 the Constitutional Court rejected the AG’s appeal and declared that the applicants had suffered a violation of their rights as protected under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In connection with both vehicles, the court found that Article 3 of the Ordinance violated the same right in so far it permitted the confiscation of a vehicle, without the owner of the vehicle being given the opportunity to effectively contest the confiscation. Article 3 of the Ordinance was therefore declared null and void in regard to such consequences. The Constitutional Court ordered the release of both vehicles, and the payment of non‑pecuniary damages in the sum of 300 euros (EUR) to each of the applicants. The rest of the applicants’ claims were rejected. The cost of the appeal proceedings before the Constitutional Court filed by the applicants were to be borne in the proportion of one fifth by the applicants and four fifths by the AG, and the costs of the appeal proceedings before the Constitutional Court filed by the AG were to be borne by him. The applicants’ share of costs amounted to EUR 1,129.46 (of which 425.79 were registry fees).
25.  The Constitutional Court noted that, simply because the courts in the first set of criminal proceedings had applied the law did not necessarily mean that there had not been a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. While the confiscation of the Peugeot had been lawful, it had however placed a disproportionate and excessive burden upon the applicant [company] thereby leading to a violation of its rights (especially since the applicants had no possibility of defending themselves in order to prevent the confiscation of the vehicle which was mandatory). Furthermore, there existed no adequate or effective remedy to prevent the confiscation of the Peugeot, and third parties were not protected by any procedural safeguards.
26.  As for the Toyota, the same last‑mentioned considerations applied. Furthermore, as a result of the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in the second set of criminal proceedings, the Constitutional Court concluded that the seizure of that vehicle had been unnecessary and could not be justified as having been done in the interests of justice since no third party had suffered any damage.
27.  The confiscation/seizure of both vehicles amounted to, according to the Constitutional Court, a lack of balance between the interests of the general community and the rights of the applicants. Therefore a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had occurred.
28.  In regard to the alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention, the court noted that the fact that measures resulting from an act for which a third party (in this case M.) was prosecuted, affecting in an adverse manner the property rights of the applicants, could not in themselves lead to the conclusion that, during the course of the criminal proceedings complained of, any “criminal charge”, for the purpose of Article 6, was brought against the applicants. Therefore, the court concluded that Article 6 in its criminal head was inapplicable and the applicants had not invoked this provision under its civil head. Thus, the claim of a lack of access to court had been unfounded. Furthermore, the court concluded that Article 3 of the Ordinance did not create any presumption of guilt and the applicants had not been found guilty of a crime.
29.  In the meantime on 15 October 2012 the importer of the Peugeot started civil proceedings against the applicants for fraudulent behaviour and bad faith when they agreed to return the Peugeot which was potentially subject to a confiscation order. The importer also started proceedings against the Commissioner of Police, as a result of which the above‑mentioned civil proceedings were adjourned sine die.
30.  On an unspecified date following the constitutional redress proceedings, the Peugeot was released but remained under the authority of the court due to the above-mentioned issues, and payment of the award of EUR 300 was made to each applicant. On 9 January 2017 the Government paid their share of expenses of the constitutional redress proceedings.