Malta / Court of Criminal Appeal / 712/2015/1 and 712/2015/2
-
Malta / Court of Criminal Appeal / 712/2015/1 and 712/2015/2
Key facts of the case:
The case concerns an appeal filed by two defendants that challenged their previous conviction and fines imposed by the Court of Magistrates (Criminal judicature) for evading excise duties and VAT. Whilst the Court of Appeal confirmed the conviction, it questioned whether the prison sentence and the additional fines imposed by the first-instance court was proportionate to the crime committed. The Court of Appeal referred the matter to the Civil Courts in their Constitutional jurisdiction to determine whether the provisions imposing these penalties under three national laws, namely the Customs Ordinance, the Excise Duty Act and the VAT Act, breached Article 49 and 52 of the Charter, together with Article 3 of the ECHR, Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 1 of the Fourth Protocol of the ECHR. The procedure is pending.
Key legal question raised by the court:
The Court of Appeal held that as the matter related to proceedings connected with the evasion of excise duties and VAT, it involved the implementation of European Union law. The Court proceeded to determine whether the punishment imposed could have breached Article 49 and 52 of the Charter. In its initial assessment the Court considered that the punishment imposed, which included imprisonment and exorbitant fines amounting to over 6million euros per defendant, was severe although it was a punishment that was imposed by law and could not be derogated from. Finally, the Court of Appeal considered that it did not have the competence to determine whether there was a breach of the Charter or the ECHR and it referred the matter to the Civil Courts in their Constitutional jurisdiction.
Outcome of the case:
The Court highlighted the application of the Charter in cases relating to the implementation of European Union Law in criminal cases. It further highlighted the relationship between the Charter and the ECHR and their complementarity. Lastly, it confirmed that it was not the correct forum to determine whether national laws breach the Charter and the ECHR and that such matters, even those relating to the Charter, can be referred by the courts that do not have the competence to the Civil Courts in their constitutional jurisdiction.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter
That, the remaining grievance subject to the judgement of this court is regarding the penalty imposed, whereby although this grievance is brought forward only by the appellant Malcolm Zammit, with the appellant Christopher Calleja not bringing forward any formal grievance in connection with the penalty nor a subsidiary demand for variation of the same, it appears that the defence collectively brought forward submissions linked to the quantum of the penalty which they contest is not only excessive but also disproportionate when compared to the gravity of the crimes of which they were found guilty. That the Court heard submissions on the plea that the penalty imposed was disproportionate to the crime and that this penalty not only violated the Charter of Fundamental Rights, but is also in violation of the rights guaranteed both in the Constitution and in the European Convention on Human Rights. The appellant Zammit also complains that the effective prison sentence of three years is excessive.
…
That the concept of proportionality of the penalty goes hand in hand with the principles of justice to achieve the correct balance between the restriction of liberty brought about by the corrective act and the severity of the violation of the law, and that this means that the penalty imposed should be balanced with the gravity of the crime. European laws and also laws protecting fundamental human rights, including national and European3 and international norms, seek to uphold this principle.
…
That as regards the complaint raised by the appellants that the penalty imposed by the court of first-instance breaches Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union it has been established several times by the courts that this Article is applicable only when the complaint is directed towards the application of Union law.
…
For these reasons the Court partially rejects the appeal brought by the appellants Malcolm Zammit and Christopher Calleja. It thus confirms the judgement appealed in the part where it found the said appellants guilty of the imputations brought against them. However as regards the grievances raised regarding the punishment, after considering Article 46 (3) of the Constitution of Malta, as well as Article 4 (3) of Chapter 319 of the Laws of Malta, it refers the constitutional question to the First Hall Civil Court (constitutional jurisdiction) for the purpose of determining whether Articles 62 (a)(c)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)(k) and the First Schedule of the Customs Ordinance, Chapter 37 of the Laws of Malta, Article 16 (1)(j)(n) of the Excise Duty Act, Chapter 382 of the Laws of Malta and Article 80 of the Value Added Tax Act, Chapter 406 of the Laws of Malta, violate the fundamental rights enshrined in sub-Article three (3) of Article forty-nine (49) and Article fifty-two (52) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights as the severity of the punishment prescribed in these laws and regulations is not proportionate to the offence committed in the particular circumstances of this case; and this in addition to Article 3, Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights (First Schedule Chapter 319 of the Laws of Malta) due to the punishment being severe and disproportionate in relation to the nature of the offences for which they are declared guilty, besides the fact that part of the punishment is considered as a civil debt which if not paid can be converted into a custodial punishment. And consequently give the appellants all those other remedies that it deems fit and opportune in the particular circumstances of this case.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)
Illi, il-gravam rimanenti sottopost għal ġudizzju ta’ din il-Qorti huwa dwar il-piena erogata, fejn għalkemm dan l-aggravju huma mressaq biss mill-appellant Malcolm Zammit, bl-appellant Christopher Calleja ma jressaq ebda aggravju formali in konnessjoni mal-piena u lanqas talba sussidjarja għal varjazzjoni ta’l-istess, madanakollu jidher illi d-difiża kolleġġjalment ressqet sottomissjonijiet marbuta mal-quantum tal-piena li jikkontendu hija mhux biss waħda eċċessiva iżda ukoll sproporzjonata meta imqabbel mal-gravita’ tar-reati li dwarhom huma kienu misjuba ħatja. Illi l-Qorti għaddiet biex semgħet sottomissjonijiet illi l-isproporzjonalita’ tal-piena mar-reat wassal sabiex b’hekk din il-piena mhux biss tmur kontra il-Karta tad-Drittijiet Fondamentali, iżda ukoll hija bi ksur tal-jeddijiet garantiti kemm fil-Kostituzzjoni kif ukoll fil-Konvenzjoni Ewropeja dwar id-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem. L-appellant Zammit jilmenta ukoll illi l-piena karċerarja effettiva ta’ tlett snin priġunerija kienet waħda ukoll eċċessiva.
…
Illi l-kunċett ta’ proporzjonalità tal-piena jimxi id f’id mal-prinċipji tal-ġustizzja sabiex jintlaħaq il-bilanċ korrett bejn ir-restrizzjoni għal-libertà li jġib miegħu l-att korrettiv u s-severità tal-att vjolattiv tal-liġi kommess, u għalhekk ifisser illi l-piena imposta fuq il-ġudikabbli għandha timxi id f’id mal-gravita’ tar-reat. Kemm id-dritt Ewropew kif ukoll dak li jitkellem dwar il-jeddijiet fondamentali tal-bniedem, kemm nazzjonali kif ukoll Ewropew3 u internazzjonali jfittxu biex iħarsu dan il-prinċipju.
…
Illi dwar l-ilment imqanqal mill-appellanti illi l-piena erogata mill-Ewwel Qorti hija vjolattiva ta’l-Artikolu 49(3) tal-Karta tad-Drittijiet tal-Unjoni Ewropea jingħad illi kif diversi drabi ribadit mill-qrati dan l-artikolu isib applikazzjoni biss meta l-ilment jkun dirett lejn it-tħaddim ta’ liġi tal-Unjoni.
…
Għal dawn il-motivi il-Qorti taqta’ u tiddeċiedi billi tiċħad parzjalment l-appell imressaq mill-appellanti Malcolm Zammit u Christopher Calleja. Tgħaddi għalhekk biex tikkonferma s-sentenza appellata fil-parti fejn sabet lill-imsemmija appellanti ħatja tal-imputazzjonijiet miġjuba fil-konfront tagħhom, madanakollu fir-rigward tal-aggravji imqanqla dwar il-piena, wara li rat l-artikoli 46(3) tal-Kostituzzjoni ta’ Malta, kif ukoll l-artikolu 4(3) tal-Kapitolu 319 tal-Liġijiet ta’ Malta, tirreferi il-vertenza kostituzzjonali lil Prim’Awla tal-Qorti Ċivili (sede kostituzzjonali) sabiex dik l-Qorti taqta’ u tiddeċiedi jekk l-artikoli 62(a)(c)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)(k) u l-Ewwel Skeda tal-Ordinanza tad-Dwana, Kapitolu 37 tal-Liġijiet ta’ Malta, l-artikolu 16(1)(j)(n) tal-Att dwar Dazju tas-Sisa, Kapitolu 382 tal-Liġijiet ta’ Malta u l-artikolu 80 tal-Att Dwar it-Taxxa Fuq il-Valur Miżjud, Kapitolu 406 tal-Liġijiet ta’ Malta, jmorrux kontra id-drittijiet fundamentali mħaddna fis-sub-artikolu tlieta (3) tal-artikolu disgħa u erbgħin (49) u l-artikolu tnejn u ħamsin (52) tal-Karta tad-Drittijiet Fundamentali tal-Bniedem, ċioe' li f’dawn l-liġijiet u regolamenti msemmija s-severita' tal-piena ma hijiex proporzjonata mar-reat kommess fiċ-ċirkostanzi partikolari ta’ dan il-każ, u ukoll tal-Artikolu 3, l-artikolu 1 tal-Ewwel Protokoll u l-artikolu 1 tar-Raba’ Protokoll tal-Konvenzjoni Ewropea tad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem (l-Ewwel Skeda Kapitolu 319 tal-Liġijiet ta’ Malta) għaliex il-piena hija ħarxa u sproporzjonata meta mqabbla man-natura tar-reati li dwarhom huma ddikjarati ħatja, oltre għal fatt illi parti mill-piena hija meqjusa bħala dejn ċivili li jekk ma titħallasx tista’ tiġi konvertita f’piena karċerarja. U konsegwentement tagħti lill-appellanti dawk r-rimedji l-oħra kollha li jidhrilha li huma xierqa u opportuni fiċ-ċirkostanzi partikolari ta’ dan il-każ.