7.  The applicant is a private company located in the town of Hal Kirkop, Malta. 8.  On 30 December 1986 the Housing Secretary of Malta issued a requisition order in respect of a tenement in Hal Kirkop. The applicant company occupied the tenement in question. The requisition order had the effect of protecting its occupation. 9.  On 16 October 1987 the owners of the tenement, the V. brothers, instituted civil proceedings before the First Hall of the Civil Court against the Housing Secretary and the applicant company. They requested that the requisition order of 30 December 1986 be declared null and void as being contrary to section 4 of the 1949 Housing Act, and sought to regain possession of the tenement. They also requested compensation for the damage allegedly sustained. 10.  In a judgment of 9 October 1991, the First Hall of the Civil Court rejected the plaintiffs’ claim. 11.  The V. brothers appealed against that decision. 12.  In a judgment of 30 December 1993, the Court of Appeal declared that the requisition order was null and void and ordered that the appellants be given possession of the premises within six months. It sent the case back to the First Hall of the Civil Court regarding compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the appellants. 13.  On 21 March 1994 the applicant company lodged an application with the Court of Appeal for a new trial. It alleged that the judgment of 30 December 1993 had been based on a wrong application of the law, as the requisition order had been issued in the public interest and the powers of the Housing Secretary in this field could not be reviewed by the Court of Appeal. 14.  The V. brothers intervened in the proceedings, requesting that the application be rejected. They argued that the law had in fact been duly applied and interpreted and that the applicant company was trying to lodge another appeal, inadmissible under Maltese law, against the judgment of 9 October 1991. 15.  On 14 December 1994 the Court of Appeal invited the parties to file written submissions and adjourned the case to 6 February 1995. 16.  The applicant company filed a note of submissions in which it requested, inter alia, that the judges of the Court of Appeal examining the request for a retrial withdraw from the case, as they were the same judges who had sat on the bench when the impugned judgment of 30 December 1993 had been delivered. 17.  On 13 March 1995 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant company’s plea challenging the judges. It also observed that, under Article 816 of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta – “the COCP”), where the ground for a judicial request was the wrong application of the law, the relevant party should make reference to the law which should have been applied. As the applicant company had failed to do so, its submissions were manifestly defective. 18.  In a judgment of 17 January 1996, the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant company’s request for a new trial. 19.  In the meantime, on 19 April 1995, the applicant company had initiated proceedings in the First Hall of the Civil Court sitting in its constitutional capacity. It alleged that the decision taken by the three judges composing the Court of Appeal rejecting the plea for their withdrawal had violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, as the court in question could not be considered an “impartial tribunal” within the meaning of that provision. 20.  In a judgment of 22 April 1997, the Civil Court found for the applicant company and declared that the failure to withdraw by the judges composing the Court of Appeal had violated Article 6 of the Convention. It observed that the same judges had been called upon to rule twice on a case concerning the same facts and the same parties. Moreover, in a judgment given on 10 October 1991 in Frank Cachia v. the Honourable Prime Minister, the Constitutional Court had held that Article 814 of the COCP (in accordance with which the same judges may sit when the request for a new trial is based on an alleged wrong application of the law) was contrary to Article 6 of the Convention. 21.  The V. brothers appealed to the Constitutional Court. They alleged, in particular, that the question dealt with by the Court of Appeal when examining the request for a retrial, namely whether there had been a wrong application of the law, was not in any way connected with the merits previously dealt with by the same court. 22.  In a judgment of 31 July 2000, the Constitutional Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of 22 April 1997 and rejected all the pleas raised by the applicant company. 23.  The Constitutional Court observed that the possibility of a new trial provided the remedy of revision of a final judgment in order to rectify evident and gross errors leading to a miscarriage of justice. However, Maltese law restricted the application of this remedy to specific situations. As a retrial was an extraordinary remedy which entailed a derogation from the principle that res judicata decisions were legally binding between the parties, the relevant legal provisions had always been interpreted restrictively. 24.  Under Maltese law, a new trial could be conducted by the same court that had pronounced the judgment complained of, and the same judges could sit. This meant that the judges were given the option of deciding whether to hear the case or not. In the Constitutional Court’s view, this rule was consistent with the Convention and justified by the fact that a retrial was not a third-instance procedure and that the court that had pronounced the judgment was in the best position to identify any mistake and to grant expeditiously an appropriate and fast remedy. 25.  The Constitutional Court noted that, when a request for a new trial appeared unfounded and was accompanied by a dubious demand that the judges withdraw, it was likely that an abuse of the judicial system might occur. This would be prejudicial to the other party, who had the right to have his or her case heard within a reasonable time. After the delivery of its judgment in Frank Cachia (cited above), the Constitutional Court had observed a systematic abuse of the remedy of retrial. In particular, some parties had been attempting to obtain a third-instance appeal in cases in which a final decision had already been made. 26.  In order to avoid such abuses, the Maltese courts had interpreted the judgment in Frank Cachia to mean that the judges who had previously adjudicated the case should examine the admissibility of the request for a retrial in order to determine whether it met the requirements laid down in domestic law. If it did, they should withdraw; if it did not, they should simply reject the request. The Constitutional Court considered that these principles were correct and in conformity with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 27.  In the particular circumstances of the case before it, the Constitutional Court found that there were reasons to believe that the applicant company was trying to prolong the proceedings in order to delay vacating the premises for as long as possible and that its request for a retrial was procedurally inadmissible. In particular, the request did not correctly quote the section of law which, according to the applicant company, had been wrongly applied, it did not indicate which provision ought to have been applied, and it was essentially based on the assumption that the Court of Appeal had given a wrong interpretation of the notion of “public interest”. The admissibility examination by the three judges of the Court of Appeal had dealt merely with points of fact and had therefore been different in nature from the examination by the same judges previously. 28.  Finally, there were no grounds to believe that the judges in question had some personal or real interest in the outcome of the case other than that of ensuring that justice was done.