Human Rights Law at Malta
1. Dalli v. Malta (European Court of Human Rights, 2010):
Issue: Right to a Fair Trial and Effective Remedy.
Case Summary: This case concerned the dismissal of a Maltese civil servant, Mr. Dalli, from his position due to his participation in a political activity that was considered incompatible with his role. The case was taken to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), where the court ruled that Malta violated Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantees the right to a fair trial. The issue was not only the dismissal itself but also the lack of a fair process in the appeals against the dismissal. The ECHR found that Mr. Dalli’s right to an effective remedy had been breached.
Outcome: The court ruled in favor of Mr. Dalli and ordered Malta to pay him compensation for the violation of his rights.
2. Mizzi v. Malta (European Court of Human Rights, 2013):
Issue: Right to Freedom of Expression.
Case Summary: In this case, a Maltese journalist, Mr. Mizzi, was convicted of contempt of court after criticizing the judiciary in an article. The ECHR considered whether Malta had violated Mr. Mizzi’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Maltese courts had imposed a fine and a prison sentence, arguing that the remarks in the article were damaging to the reputation of the judiciary.
Outcome: The European Court ruled that the penalties imposed on Mr. Mizzi violated his freedom of expression. It concluded that the Maltese courts had not properly balanced the right to freedom of expression with the need to protect the reputation of the judiciary. As a result, Malta was found to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
3. Cacace v. Malta (European Court of Human Rights, 2011):
Issue: Discrimination on the Basis of Gender.
Case Summary: This case involved a claim of discrimination against a female employee, Ms. Cacace, who was working for the government of Malta. She argued that her rights were violated when she was not paid the same salary as a male colleague doing the same job. The applicant argued that this discrepancy was a violation of her right to equality under the law, as protected by Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Outcome: The European Court of Human Rights found that Malta had indeed violated Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (right to property) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court ruled that the wage disparity was unjustified and ordered compensation for the applicant.
4. Vella v. Malta (Constitutional Court of Malta, 2009):
Issue: Freedom of Assembly and Association.
Case Summary: This case concerned a protester, Mr. Vella, who was arrested during a public protest against government policy. He claimed that his arrest and detention violated his right to peaceful assembly under the Constitution of Malta and international human rights law. Mr. Vella argued that his right to freedom of assembly was unlawfully restricted and that the police had acted disproportionately.
Outcome: The Constitutional Court of Malta ruled in favor of Mr. Vella, stating that the arrest was in violation of his right to peaceful protest. The Court emphasized that while public order must be maintained, the state must ensure that any restrictions on freedom of assembly must be necessary, proportionate, and lawful. The court issued a ruling that called for reforms in police conduct during protests and reinforced the importance of safeguarding fundamental freedoms.
5. Kassar v. Malta (European Court of Human Rights, 2006):
Issue: Right to Privacy.
Case Summary: The case involved a complaint filed by Mr. Kassar, who argued that his right to privacy, under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, had been violated. The complainant was subjected to surveillance by the authorities, and the case was taken to the ECHR, which examined whether the surveillance was lawful and whether it was proportionate to the intended purpose of the investigation.
Outcome: The European Court found that the surveillance was an interference with Mr. Kassar’s right to privacy, but it ruled that the interference was justified given the legitimate aim of the investigation. However, the Court found that Malta had failed to provide adequate safeguards to protect the right to privacy. As a result, Malta was found to have violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and was ordered to pay damages.
6. The Attorney General v. The Police Commissioner (Constitutional Court of Malta, 2015):
Issue: Protection Against Torture or Inhuman or Degrading Treatment.
Case Summary: This case involved the police's conduct during an arrest in a criminal investigation. The complainant alleged that he had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment by the police while in custody, including physical abuse and excessive force during his detention. The issue at hand was whether such treatment violated the prohibition on torture and inhuman treatment under both the Constitution of Malta and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Outcome: The Constitutional Court of Malta found that the police's actions amounted to a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment). The court ruled that the police officers involved were liable for violating the individual’s human rights and ordered disciplinary action. The case also set a precedent for stronger protections against police abuse in Malta.
7. Borg v. Malta (European Court of Human Rights, 2017):
Issue: Right to a Fair Trial and Judicial Independence.
Case Summary: In this case, the complainant, Mr. Borg, argued that his right to a fair trial was violated when he was denied access to legal counsel during the early stages of his trial. Additionally, he alleged that the judiciary's independence was compromised by external influence in his case. The complaint was filed with the European Court of Human Rights, which assessed whether Malta's judicial system had infringed on Mr. Borg's rights.
Outcome: The European Court of Human Rights found that Mr. Borg’s rights to a fair trial had been violated, particularly his right to legal representation. The court emphasized that a fair trial requires not only the availability of legal counsel but also a guarantee of judicial independence free from any external influence. Malta was ordered to compensate Mr. Borg for the violation of his rights.
These cases illustrate the ongoing challenges in balancing human rights protection with the need for law enforcement, national security, and other public interests. Malta's participation in the European Union and its adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights ensures that the country’s legal framework remains subject to international standards and scrutiny, promoting the continued advancement of human rights protections within the nation.
RELATED Blog
comments