Architects take chamber to court over double jeopardy claims

Seven warranted architects have filed an urgent court application seeking to halt the Chamber of Architects and its president, Andre Pizzuto, from reopening disciplinary proceedings against them over the same allegations that were already dismissed by the Court of Appeal in 2023.

In a warrant of prohibitory injunction filed in court, the architects argue that the Chamber is acting illegally by attempting to suspend their warrants again, despite a final court ruling declaring the previous disciplinary action null and void.

The architects, Conrad Thake, Hector Zammit, David Sultana, Carmel Cacopardo, Anthony Galea, Marvienne Camilleri and Edward Scerri, claim they were “surprised” to learn that fresh disciplinary action had been initiated over accusations that had already been challenged and decided by the courts.

They are asking the court to urgently restrain the Chamber and Pizzuto from pursuing what they describe as an unlawful “double jeopardy” process.

The dispute dates back to 2022, when the Kamra tal-Periti issued a directive ordering architects not to submit bids for a government tender issued by the Commissioner for Inland Revenue.

The tender sought technical valuation reports related to property transfers for tax purposes and offered a fee of €25 per report.

The Chamber argued the fee was “undignifiedly” low and sought to organise a boycott to pressure the government into increasing the rate.

However, some architects ignored the directive and submitted bids anyway, arguing that similar services had been provided to the tax authorities at the same rate for 25 years.

In September 2022, the Chamber suspended the warrants of those architects for three months for breaching the directive.

They challenged the decision in court.

In a final ruling delivered in 2023, the Court of Appeal struck down the suspensions, declaring them null and void.

The court had found the Chamber had acted illegally and breached the principles of natural justice by failing to properly notify the architects that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated and by denying them a fair opportunity to defend themselves.

The architects had also argued that the directive itself was unlawful, anti-competitive, and contrary to free market principles.