This popular press article provides a fair amount of detail on a ruling in Malta related to the mesothelioma death of a dockworker. The claims at issue were submitted by surviving family members. The gist of the ruling seems to be that constitutional remedies were not available because other remedies could be pursued. Set out below are key excerpts from the article.
Claims were asserted "against the Malta Shipyards Policy Manager in the Infrastructure, Transport and Communications Ministry, the government’s principal doctor, the Executive Head of the Occupational Health and Safety Authority, the Police Commissioner and the Attorney General."
"The family … argued that a number of Human Rights as outlined in the European Convention had been breached. The right of life protection, the right of not being subject to inhuman and degrading treatment and the right of respect to the individual’s private family life, and the right for information were among the rights claimed to have been breached. The court was consequently asked to quantify the appropriate compensation if it found the rights were breached and order for the amount to be paid.
"In reply to the family’s application, the authorities involved said the allegations made were “manifestly ill-founded”. They argued that according to the European Convention, the family did not qualify as victims because there was no adequate connection between the alleged health damage Mr Attard sustained and the family’s fundamental rights. It also seemed that the family had not exhausted the remedies made possible by law to qualify as victims under Article 34 of the European Convention."