COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2020 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Malta Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2020 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Malta, administrative transparency, coronavirus disease, corruption, democracy, epidemic, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, political rights, rule of law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.9.2020  SWD(2020) 317 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2020 Rule of Law Report  Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Malta Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS  2020 Rule of Law Report       The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2020) 580 final} - {SWD(2020) 300 final} - {SWD(2020) 301 final} - {SWD(2020) 302 final} - {SWD(2020) 303 final} - {SWD(2020) 304 final} - {SWD(2020) 305 final} - {SWD(2020) 306 final} - {SWD(2020) 307 final} - {SWD(2020) 308 final} - {SWD(2020) 309 final} - {SWD(2020) 310 final} - {SWD(2020) 311 final} - {SWD(2020) 312 final} - {SWD(2020) 313 final} - {SWD(2020) 314 final} - {SWD(2020) 315 final} - {SWD(2020) 316 final} - {SWD(2020) 318 final} - {SWD(2020) 319 final} - {SWD(2020) 320 final} - {SWD(2020) 321 final} - {SWD(2020) 322 final} - {SWD(2020) 323 final} - {SWD(2020) 324 final} - {SWD(2020) 325 final} - {SWD(2020) 326 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

A  number  of  significant  reforms  of  the  Maltese  justice  system  have  recently  been 
unanimously  adopted  by  Parliament.  In  particular,  reforms  of  the  system  of  judicial 
appointments and of disciplinary proceedings aim at  improving the checks and balances by 
limiting  the  role  of  the  Prime  Minister  and  Parliament.  These  reforms  aim  at  strengthening 
judicial independence and the system of separation powers and at responding to some of the 
Venice  Commission’s  December  2018  recommendations  and  to  recommendations  from  the 
European  Commission  and  the  Council  in  the  framework  of  the  European  Semester.  The 
Venice  Commission  overall  welcomed  the  plans  for  reforms  and  is  currently  preparing  an 
additional opinion on the legislative texts of these reforms. A Prosecution Service, under the 
authority of the Office of the Attorney General and fully separate from the State Advocate, is 
being set up. As regards the efficiency of the justice system, important concerns remain, with 
judicial proceedings being very long at all levels and in all categories of cases. 

Deep  corruption  patterns  have  been  unveiled  and  have  raised  a  strong  public  demand  for  a 
significantly  strengthened  capacity  to  tackle  corruption  and  wider  rule  of  law  reforms.  A 
track record of securing convictions in high-level corruption cases is lacking. A broad reform 
project  has  been  launched  to  address  gaps  and  strengthen  the  institutional  anti-corruption 
framework,  including  law  enforcement  and  prosecution.  The  reform  includes  new  rules  on 
the  appointment  of  the  Police  Commissioner,  the  transfer  of  prosecution  responsibilities  - 
including for corruption-related cases - from the police to the Attorney General, a reform of 
the Permanent Commission Against Corruption, and new provisions to allow appeals against 
non-prosecution by the Attorney General. The effective implementation of these reforms will 
show the extent to which the recommendations from the Venice Commission and GRECO, in 
addition to those from the European Commission, have been addressed.  

The  Constitution  of  Malta  provides  for  freedom  of  expression  and  media  freedom.  The 
assassination of Malta’s foremost investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia in October 
2017  was  widely  seen  as  an  attack  on  freedom  of  expression  and  triggered  concerns  about 
media  freedom  and  the  safety  of  journalists  in  Malta.  Other  areas  of  concern  include  the 
effective  independence  of  the  media  regulator,  as  well  as  legal  and  online  threats  to 
investigative  journalists.  The  ownership,  control  or  management  by  the  two  main  political 
parties  represented  in  Parliament  of  multiple  Maltese  media  outlets  and  broadcasters 
continues to have a significant bearing on the Maltese media landscape. 

As  regards  checks  and  balances,  a  number  of  reforms  have  recently  been  adopted  by 
Parliament.  In  particular,  new  rules  on  the  election  and  removal  of  the  President  of  the 
Republic  have  been  adopted,  as  well  as  reforms  reinforcing  the  role  of  the  Ombudsman. 
Other  draft  legislation  has  been  tabled  on  limiting  the  role  of  the  Prime  Minister  in  the 
appointment  of  a  number  of  independent  commissions.  These  reforms  aim  at  strengthening 
the  overall  system  of  checks  and  balances,  and  at  responding 
the 
recommendations  made  by  the  Venice  Commission,  which  is  also  preparing  an  additional 
opinion  on  the  legislative  texts  of  these  reforms.  The  need  for  other  possible  constitutional 
reforms  is  being  considered,  including  on  the  functioning  of  Parliament.  Civil  society 
organisations are playing an increasing role in the public debate. 

to  some  of 

1 

 
 
I.  JUSTICE SYSTEM  

The Maltese justice system is influenced by both the continental and the common law legal 
traditions. Courts are divided into Superior and Inferior courts. Superior Courts are composed 
of judges and include the Civil Court, the Criminal Court, the Court of Appeal, the Court of 
Criminal Appeal and the Constitutional Court1. Inferior Courts are composed of magistrates 
and  include  the  Court  of  Magistrates  (Malta)  and  the  Court  of  Magistrates  (Gozo).  The 
judiciary is headed by the Chief Justice who also presides the Constitutional Court. Judicial 
independence  is  enshrined  in  the  Constitution,  which  guarantees  the  security  of  tenure  of 
judges and magistrates. A Commission for the Administration of Justice supervises the work 
of  the  judiciary2.  A  number  of  specialised  tribunals  exist,  adjudicating  in  specific  areas.  A 
fully  separate  Prosecution  Service  is  being  set  up.  The  Bar  Association  (Chamber  of 
Advocates) is the independent and self-regulated professional body of lawyers. In July 2020, 
Parliament adopted a number of constitutional reforms in the justice area3.  

Independence 

The  reform  of  the  system  of  appointments  of  judges  and  magistrates  was  adopted  in 
July  2020.  In  spring  2020,  the  Government  submitted  a  series  of  proposals  for  reforms, 
including  as  regards  the  system  of  judicial  appointments,  with  a  view  to  addressing 
recommendations  issued  by  the  Venice  Commission  in  December  20184.  Draft  legislation 
amending the Constitution was adopted by Parliament on 29 July 2020. All of these proposals 
were  discussed  with  and  assessed  by  the  Venice  Commission5,  whose  Opinion  on  the 
legislative texts is however still pending. Under the previous framework, the appointment of 
judges  and  magistrates  was  done  by  the  President  of  Malta  “acting  in  accordance  with  the 
advice  of  the  Prime  Minister”.  A  Judicial  Appointments  Committee  established  whether 
candidates  fulfilled  the  criteria  for  judicial  appointment,  but  did  not  rank  candidates  or 
express any preference for a candidate. The role of the Judicial Appointments Committee was 
to  identify  a  pool  of  candidates  for  the  judiciary,  from  which  the  Prime  Minister  had 
discretion  to  select  candidates  to  be  appointed  as  judge  or  magistrate,  while  the  role  of  the 
President  was  purely  formal6.  According  to  the  new  legislation  adopted  by  Parliament,  the 
composition  of the Judicial Appointments  Committee has been revised, whereby more than 
half of its members now belong to the judiciary7. Calls for individual vacancies for judicial 
posts will be published.  The Judicial  Appointments  Committee will propose the three most 
suitable candidates for a vacancy directly to the President of the Republic, who will select the 

1   The  Civil  Court  includes  three  different  sections,  the  Family  section,  the  Commercial  section  and  the 

Voluntary Jurisdiction section. 

2   The Commission for the Administration of Justice is a full member of the European Network of Councils for 

the Judiciary. 

3   Act  no.  XLIII  of  2020  to  amend  the  Constitution  of  Malta  relative  to  the  appointment  of  judges  and 
magistrates;  Act  no.  XLV  of  2020  to  provide  for  the  amendment  of  the  Constitution  of  Malta  and  to  the 
Commission for the Administration of Justice Act, Cap. 369, relative to the removal from office of judges 
and magistrates; Act no. XLI of 2020 to continue implementing reforms in the Justice Sector by providing 
for the judicial review of decisions not to prosecute and other decisions of the Attorney General. 

4   Venice Commission opinion (CDL-AD(2018)028).  
5    Venice Commission opinion (CDL-AD(2020)006). 
6   The Prime Minister could also appoint a person who had not passed the vetting by the Judicial Appointments 

Committee, subject to certain requirements of transparency.  

7   According to the reforms, the Judicial Appointments Committee will be composed of the Chief Justice, two 
Judges and a Magistrate elected by their peers, the Auditor General, the Ombudsman and the President of the 
Chamber of Advocates. 

2 

 
                                                 
judges  or  magistrates  from  the  names  of  the  candidates  referred  to  him8.  The  evaluation 
criteria  have  been  enshrined  in  the  Constitution.  These  reforms  contribute  to  strengthening 
judicial independence, taking into account Council of Europe recommendations9. This issue 
had  also  been  raised  by  the  European  Commission  and  the  Council  in  a  country-specific 
recommendation  in  the  framework  of  the  2020  European  Semester10,  as  well  as  by  the 
European  Parliament11.  In  its  Opinion  of  19  June  2020,  the  Venice  Commission  overall 
welcomed  the  plans  for  reforms  on  judicial  appointments12,  while  recalling  the  need  for 
further  steps  to  achieve  an  adequate  overall  system  of  checks  and  balances  in  line  with  its 
December  2018  Opinion.  Moreover,  the  Venice  Commission  is  currently  preparing  an 
additional  opinion  on  the  legislative  texts  of  these  reforms13.  As  regards  the  Chief  Justice, 
according to the reform, the appointment is to take place with the support of two-thirds of the 
members  of  Parliament14,  without  the  involvement  of  the  judiciary  or  of  the  Judicial 
Appointments  Committee15.  Given  the  various  roles  of  the  Chief  Justice  (President  of  the 
Constitutional Court, President of the Court of Appeal,  presiding in  both  appeal  panels), as 
well as the important responsibilities of the Chief Justice in the administration of the justice 
system (Chair of the Judicial Appointments Committee, member of the Commission for the 
Administration  of  Justice  responsible  for  judicial  discipline),  the  Venice  Commission 
underlined  the  importance  of  the  appointment  of  the  Chief  Justice  being  depoliticised  as 
much as possible16.  

Parliament  also  adopted  the  reform  as  regards  the  procedure  for  dismissal  of  judges 
and magistrates. Under the previous framework, decisions on removal from office of judges 
and  magistrates  were  in  the  hands  of  Parliament.  The  Venice  Commission  recommended  a 
depoliticisation  of  the  procedure17.  According  to  the  reforms,  decisions  on  removal  from 
office  of  judges  and  magistrates  will  be  the  prerogative  of  the  Commission  for  the 
Administration of Justice, in majority composed of members of the judiciary. The Parliament 

8   The names of the three qualiﬁed candidates will be made public. There will no longer be a role for the Prime 

Minister in the appointment procedure. 

9   Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, para. 47. The 

tabled draft legislation includes changes of the Constitution. 

10   Council of the European Union Recommendation of 20 July 2020 on the 2020 National Reform Programme 
of  Malta  and  delivering  a  Council  opinion  on  the  2020  Stability  Programme  of  Malta,  p.  13.  The 
recommendation calls i.a. to complete the reforms addressing current shortcomings in institutional capacity 
and governance to enhance judicial independence. 

11  European  Parliament  resolution  of  18  December  2019  on  the  rule  of  law  in  Malta  following  the  recent 
revelations surrounding the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia; European Parliament resolution of 28 March 
2019 on the situation of the rule of law and the fight against corruption in the EU, specifically in Malta and 
Slovakia;  European  Parliament  resolution  of  15  November  2017  on  the  rule  of  law  in  Malta.  These 
resolutions  not  only  raise  concerns  as  regards  the  justice  system  in  Malta,  but  also  as  regards  the  anti-
corruption  framework,  media  pluralism  and  other  institutional  issues  related  to  checks  and  balances,  dealt 
with in Sections II, III and IV of the present country chapter. 

12   Venice Commission opinion (CDL-AD(2020)006). 
13   This opinion is expected to be adopted in October 2020. 
14   Under the previous regime, the Chief Justice was appointed by the President, in accordance with the advice 
of the Prime Minister, with no role for the Judicial Appointments Committee. However, even though there 
was no legal obligation to do so because the new legal provisions had not yet entered into force, the current 
Chief  Justice  of  Malta  was  elected  upon  agreement  with  the  opposition  and  was  approved  by  Parliament 
unanimously. 

15   According to the new rules, as long as no two-thirds majority in Parliament is reached, the person occupying 
the  office  of  Chief  Justice  shall,  in  any  circumstance,  remain  in  office  even  if  such  person  would  have 
reached the age of 65.  

16   In particular, the Venice Commission had recommended appointing the Chief Justice in the same manner as 

other judges, or to revert to a neutral body in case of deadlock in Parliament.  

17   Venice Commission opinion (CDL-AD(2018)028), paras. 52-53. 

3 

 
                                                 
will  no  longer  be  involved  in  decisions  on  removal  from  office  of  judges  or  magistrates. 
Moreover,  the  reforms  provide  for  appeals  against  dismissals  to  the  Constitutional  Court18. 
These reforms strengthen judicial independence, taking into account the Council of Europe’s 
Recommendations19.  In  its  opinion  of  June  2020,  the  Venice  Commission  welcomed  the 
plans for reforms20 and it is currently preparing an additional opinion on the legislative texts 
of these reforms21. 

The level of perceived judicial independence is around average.  This applies both to the 
perception of judicial independence among the general public (52% fairly or very good), and 
to the perception among companies (48% fairly good or very good)22. 

A  fully  separate  Prosecution  Service  is  being  set  up.  Until  recently,  the  majority  of 
prosecutions  was  carried  out  by  the  police,  while  the  office  of  the  Attorney  General  was 
prosecuting  directly  only  the  most  serious  crimes23.  Moreover,  the  Attorney  General  was 
combining  prosecutorial  functions  with  the  role  of  legal  adviser  to  the  Government, 
representing the State in judicial proceedings, which raised concerns regarding the separation 
of  powers24.  In  2019,  the  Government  announced  its  intention  to  create  a  separate 
Prosecution Service, responding to  Venice Commission recommendations25. As a first  step, 
the Office of State Advocate was created to take over the non-prosecutorial functions that the 
Attorney General performed in the past. The State Advocate acts as the legal adviser of the 
Government.  The  Attorney  General  will  be  responsible  for  the  prosecution  of  all  offences. 
The  Government  is  planning  to  table  a  Bill  in  Parliament  in  October  2020  to  extend  the 
prosecutorial functions of the Attorney General to less serious offences as well. The transfer 
of cases from the police to the Prosecution Service will take place progressively, starting with 
the  summer  of  202026,  and  should  eventually  result  in  a  shift  of  all  prosecutions  to  the 
Attorney  General27.  Therefore,  it  will  still  take  time  before  the  reforms  of  the  Prosecution 

18   The European Court of Human Rights has stressed that courts reviewing the dismissals of members of the 
judiciary must have jurisdiction to examine all questions of fact and law relevant to the dispute before them., 
Chamber  judgment  of  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  of  5  May  2020,  Kövesi  v.  Romania,  no. 
3594/19),  and  Grand  Chamber  judgment  of  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  of  6  November  2018, 
Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal, applications nos. 55391/13, 57728/13 and 74041/13. 

19   Venice  Commission,  Rule  of  Law  Checklist  (CDL-AD(2016)017),  para.  78.  See  also  Recommendation 
CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, para. 69 and Venice Commission 
Report (CDL-AD(2010)004), para. 43. According  to the case law of  the  Court of Justice (Judgment of 25 
July 2018, LM, C‑ 216/18 PPU, para. 67) the requirement of independence also means that the disciplinary 
regime governing those who have the task of adjudicating in a dispute must display the necessary guarantees 
in  order  to  prevent  any  risk  of  its  being  used  as  a  system  of  political  control  of  the  content  of  judicial 
decisions.  Rules  which  define,  in  particular,  both  conduct  amounting  to  disciplinary  offences  and  the 
penalties actually applicable, which provide for the involvement of an independent body in accordance with 
a  procedure  which  fully safeguards the rights enshrined in  Art.  47 and 48 of the  Charter, in particular the 
rights  of  the  defence,  and  which  lay  down  the  possibility  of  bringing  legal  proceedings  challenging  the 
disciplinary  bodies’  decisions  constitute  a  set  of  guarantees  that  are  essential  for  safeguarding  the 
independence of the judiciary. 

20   Venice Commission opinion (CDL-AD(2020)006), paras. 46-52. 
21   This opinion is expected to be adopted in October 2020. 
22   Figures 44 and 46, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. The level of perceived judicial independence is categorised 
as  follows:  very  low  (below  30%  of  respondents  perceive  judicial  independence  as  fairly  good  and  very 
good); low (between 30-39%), average (between 40-59%), high (between 60-75%), very high (above 75%). 
23   Prosecutions  before  the  Inferior  Courts  were  carried  out  by  the  police,  while  prosecutions  before  the 

Superior Courts were carried out by the Attorney General.  

24   Venice Commission opinion (CDL-AD(2018)028), paras. 54-73.  
25   See previous note. 
26   A procedure of recruitment of new staff for the Prosecution Service is ongoing. 
27   Venice Commission opinion (CDL-AD(2020)006), para. 56. 

4 

 
                                                 
Service  can  become  fully  effective.  As  regards  the  Attorney  General,  in  July  2019, 
Parliament enacted a law which provides for a new appointment procedure. The law requires 
the  Prime  Minister  to  give  due  consideration  to  the  recommendations  of  an  Appointment 
Commission in deciding upon his recommendation to the President in terms of Article 91 of 
the Constitution for the appointment of the Attorney General. In line with the new procedure, 
on  8  September  2020,  the  Prime  Minister  accepted  the  candidate  recommended  by  the 
Appointments  Commission  as  Malta’s  Attorney  General.  These  changes  add  checks  and 
balances compared to the previous appointment procedure. In practice, the appointment of the 
Attorney General still remains predominantly under the power of the Prime Minister, which 
has been raised as an issue28.  

A high number of specialised tribunals operate in different areas. These tribunals include 
the  Refugee  Appeals  Board,  Environment  and  Planning  Review  Tribunal,  the  Consumer 
Claims  Tribunal,  the  Competition  and  Consumer  Appeals  Tribunal,  the  Industrial  Tribunal, 
the Information and Data Protection Appeals Tribunal, the Mental Health Review Tribunal, 
the  Patent  Tribunal,  the  Police  Licences  Appeals  Tribunal,  the  Panels  of  Administrative 
Review  Tribunals  and  the  Prison  Appeals  Tribunal.  The  Venice  Commission  has  raised 
concerns  regarding  these  specialised  tribunals,  considering  that  they  do  not  enjoy  the  same 
level of independence as that of the ordinary judiciary29.  

Quality 

Some  measures  to  improve  the  quality  of  the  justice  system  have  been  adopted.  In 
particular,  the  following  measures  aimed  at  further  improving  the  use  of  IT  tools  in  courts 
have  been  taken:  (i)  e-filing  and  the  electronic  payment  of  fees  is  being  extended  to  more 
civil  courts;  (ii)  free  online  access  is  granted  to  citizens  and  legal  professionals  in  order  to 
view the  acts  related to  their cases;  and (iii) the  e-Courts platform has been created, which 
offers a host of justice-related services to the general public and legal professionals. A digital 
strategy  and  an  action  plan  are  being  prepared  by  the  Government  to  strengthen  the  use  of 
technology  in  the  justice  system30.  As  regards  judicial  training,  the  budget  for  the  Judicial 
Studies  Committee  has  been  increased31,  which  would  allow  for  expanding  the  range  and 
quality of training services. No judicial trainings were registered in 2018 as regards a number 
of important judicial skills32. The lack of training on judicial ethics remains an issue33.  

The  system  of  allocation  of  cases  is  under  review.  Under  the  current  framework,  the 
registrar  assigns  cases  as  directed  by  the  Chief  Justice.  The  objective  of  the  review  is  to 
establish a new system that reflects the complexity of registered cases, allowing for a better 
distribution of the caseload and increasing the level of efficiency.  

28   European Commission, Country Report Malta 2020, SWD(2020) 517 final, p. 41. On 15 August 2020, the 
incumbent  Attorney  General  submitted  his  resignation,  effective  as  of  9  September  2020.  Following  the 
resignation,  an  Appointment  Commission  was  established  as  per  Art.  2(2)(a)  of  the  Attorney  General 
Ordinance (Chapter 90). 

29   Venice Commission opinion (CDL-AD(2020)006), paras. 97-98.  
30   An  EU  funded  public  consultation  was  launched  in  July  2020  and  will  be  overseen  by  the  European 

Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). 

31   Figures 32 and 33, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard, show that the total Government expenditure  on law courts 
remains  at  an  average  level  as  compared  to  other  Member  States.  The  budget  for  the  Judicial  Studies 
Committee has been increased from EUR 9,000 a year to EUR 20,000 according to the input of the Maltese 
authorities. 

32   Figure 38, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
33   GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round - Second Compliance Report on Malta, recommendation vi.  

5 

 
                                                 
Efficiency  

The duration of court proceedings remains among the longest in the EU. Despite some 
improvements in the last years, the length of proceedings at all levels and in all categories of 
cases remains very long34. For litigious civil and commercial cases in first instance, courts in 
2018 required 440 days to complete a case on average, which is among the longest case times 
in the EU35. This is further aggravated by lengthy proceedings in second instance (1,120 days 
on average)36. Similarly, the length of proceedings in administrative courts remains a concern 
(1,057 days on average), despite some improvements in  the last  years. Clearance rates also 
indicate that courts are currently operating at the limit of their capacities37, with Malta being 
among the Member States with the lowest number of judges per capita38. The average length 
of first-instance money laundering cases (more than 2000 days) is also  a particular concern 
and  continued  to  deteriorate  in  201839.  Courts  were  closed  and  time  limits  were  suspended 
from  16  March  2020  by  order  of  the  Superintendent  of  Public  Health  as  part  of  the 
emergency  measures  to  face  the  COVID-19  pandemic40.  On  5  June  2020,  this  order  was 
repealed41.  

II.  ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK 

The  anti-corruption  institutional  framework  consists  of  several  authorities.  The  Permanent 
Commission  Against  Corruption  is  responsible  for  corruption  prevention  and  carrying  out 
administrative  investigations  into  corrupt  practices.  The  Commissioner  for  Standards  in 
Public  Life  can  consider  whether  Ministers,  Parliamentary  Secretaries  or  other  members  of 
Parliament have acted in ways that are against the law, in breach of any ethical or other duty, 
or constitute an abuse of power. Investigation and prosecution of corruption offences have so 
far  been  predominantly  under  the  responsibility  of  the  Police  (the  Economic  Crimes  Unit); 
however, as  a result of the ongoing  reforms  (see Section  I), the Attorney General  will take 
over  the  prosecution  of  all  offences  carrying  a  conviction  of  more  than  two  years 
imprisonment,  including  economic  crime,  corruption  and  money-laundering.  Other  bodies 
involved in the fight against corruption are the Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit (FIAU) 
and the Internal Audit and Investigations Department. The latter conducts internal audits and 
investigations  within  all  governmental  departments  and  agencies.  Corruption  offences  are 

34   Since  2018,  the  European  Commission  has  provided  support  to  Malta  for  reforms  in  the  judicial  sector 
through  the  Structural  Reforms  Support  Programme,  on  (i)  improving  the  efficiency  and  quality  of  the 
justice  system  by  reducing  the  length  of  proceedings  before  the  Court  of  Magistrates,  assessing  the 
functioning  of  the  Court  of  Appeal,  and  providing  support  for  the  development  of  a  human  resources 
strategy; (ii) establishing a digital strategy for the Maltese justice system; (iii) supporting the reorganisation 
of the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the State Advocate. 

35   Figure 6, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
36   Figure 7, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
37   Figure 8, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
38   Figure 35, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
39   Figure 21, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
40   During the period of closure of the courts, the Chamber of Advocates called at several occasions for virtual 
hearings  to  be  introduced,  including  in  a  report  published  on  20  April  2020,  entitled  ‘Report  on  how  the 
Court can function in the current situation due to the COVID-19 pandemic’.  

41   All Courts have been reopened, including the superior and the inferior courts, appellate courts irrespective of 
their competence or jurisdiction, any tribunal established by law, and any boards, commissions, committees 
or other entities before which any proceedings are heard or procedures undertaken which are subject to legal 
or administrative time limits for filing any claims, defences or other acts. 

6 

 
 
                                                 
included  in  the  Criminal  Code42.  In  July  2020,  Parliament  adopted  a  number  of  reforms  as 
regards  the  anti-corruption  framework43.  The  ongoing  investigation  and  separate  public 
inquiry  into  the  assassination  of  investigative  journalist  Daphne  Caruana  Galizia  have 
unveiled  deep  corruption  patterns  and  raised  a  strong  societal  demand  for  significantly 
strengthening the capacity to tackle corruption and wider rule of law reform. 

Malta  scores  54/100  in  the  Transparency  International  Corruption  Perception  Index 
and  ranks  14th  in  the  EU  and  50th  globally44.  89%  of  Maltese  respondents  to  a 
Eurobarometer survey perceive corruption in Malta to be widespread (EU average 71%) and 
54% of people feel personally affected by corruption in their daily lives (EU average: 26%)45. 
As regards businesses, 76% of companies consider corruption to be widespread (EU average 
63%),  while  60%  of  companies  consider  that  corruption  is  a  problem  when  doing  business 
(EU  average:  37%).  At  the  same  time,  37%  of  respondents  find  that  there  are  enough 
successful prosecutions to deter people from corrupt practices (EU average: 36%) while 45% 
of  companies  consider  that  people  and  businesses  caught  for  bribing  a  senior  official  are 
appropriately punished (EU average: 31%)46.  

Changes have been adopted as regards the Permanent Commission Against Corruption 
(PCAC)  addressing  structural  weaknesses,  and  reducing  the  Prime  Minister’s  role  in 
appointing  its  members.  The  PCAC  is  responsible  for  corruption  prevention  and 
administrative inquiries into corruption-related reports. It conducts investigations on its own 
initiative or following reports it receives. Under the previous system, the PCAC reported its 
investigation  findings  to  the  Minister  of  Justice  and  the  law  did  not  require  follow-up 
enforcement or prosecution. Transparency as to what cases the PCAC investigated and what 
recommendations had been made was also raised as a concern47. The European Commission, 
the  Venice  Commission  and  GRECO  raised  concerns  regarding  its  limited  effectiveness  as 
regards  investigations,  as  well  as  regarding  the  dependency  of  the  PCAC  members’ 
appointment on the Prime Minister48. The Government presented in spring 2020 proposals to 
change the appointment procedure. These proposals were adopted by Parliament on 29 July 
2020. According to the new procedure, the chairperson of the PCAC is to be appointed by the 
President  of  the  Republic,  acting  in  accordance  with  a  two-thirds  majority  resolution  by 
Parliament49.  The  other  two  remaining  members  of  the  PCAC  are  to  be  appointed  by  the 
President, acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister, and with the advice of 
the  Leader  of  the  Opposition,  respectively.  Under  the  new  rules,  the  investigative 
competences of the PCAC are extended to cover a wider scope of corrupt practices. Notably, 
the new legislation foresees that, where in the opinion of the PCAC, the conduct investigated 
is corrupt or connected with or conducive to corrupt practices, the report of the results of the 

42   Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta.  
43   Act no. XLVI of 2020 to amend various laws aimed at reforming the procedure by which appointments to 
the  Permanent  Commission  Against  Corruption  are  made.  Act  no.  XLI  of  2020  to  continue  implementing 
reforms  in  the  Justice  Sector  by  providing  for  the  judicial  review  of  decisions  not  to  prosecute  and  other 
decisions of the Attorney General. 

44   Transparency International (2020), 2019 Corruption Perceptions Index. 
45   Special Eurobarometer 502.  
46   Flash Eurobarometer 482 (2019).  
47   European Commission, Country Report for Malta 2019, SWD(2019) 1017 final, p. 41.  
48   European Commission, Country Report for Malta 2019, SWD(2019) 1017 final, p. 41; GRECO (2019), Fifth 

Evaluation Round - Evaluation Report; Venice Commission opinion (CDL-AD(2018)028), para 72. 

49   According  to  the  new  procedure,  as  long  as  no  two-thirds  majority  in  Parliament  is  reached,  the  person 

occupying the office of chairperson shall, in any circumstance, remain in office. 

7 

 
                                                 
investigation shall be transmitted to the Attorney General50. Through the changes, the PCAC 
along with the Ombudsman, the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life and the Auditor 
General, will be able to appeal against a decision by the Attorney General not to prosecute. 
However,  the  means51  of  the  PCAC  remain  limited,  putting  into  question  its  capacity  to 
conduct impactful inquiries. The Venice Commission welcomed the plans for reforms in its 
June 2020 Opinion and is currently preparing an additional opinion on the legislative texts of 
the reforms52. 

The  treatment  of  high-level  corruption  cases  presents  shortcomings.  In  particular, 
criminal files against holders of top executive functions reportedly remain in the early stages 
of  criminal  proceedings.  Despite  the  provision  of  new  evidence  in  such  cases,  it  remains 
unclear whether the relevant investigative processes have been initiated53. Prosecutions with 
regard to crimes related to corruption are conducted by the officers of the Economic Crimes 
Unit within the Executive Police of Malta. As noted in the 2020 European Semester Country 
Report54  and  the  European  Parliament  resolutions55,  investigations  by  the  Police  have  been 
considered  fragmentary  and  crimes  related  to  corruption  and  abuse  of  power  were  not 
effectively  prosecuted.  According  to  the  authorities,  in  2019,  seven  ongoing  investigations 
into corruption involving public officials have been reported, two of which concerned high-
level corruption cases. While an appeal against non-prosecution by the Police already exists, 
a new provision has been introduced to  allow such appeals also against non-prosecution by 
the Attorney General56. 

The  selection  and  the  appointment  process  of  the  Police  Commissioner  has  been 
reformed57,  an  issue  also  highlighted  by  the  Venice  Commission  in  its  December  2018 
Opinion.  On  1  April  2020,  Parliament  agreed  on  a  bill  which  modifies  the  selection  and 
appointment process for the Police Commissioner58. The Public Service Commission will be 
required  to  conduct  a  public  call  in  a  fully  independent  and  autonomous  manner  and  will 
propose  two  candidates  to  the  Cabinet  of  Ministers.  The  Cabinet  must  then  select  a  single 

50   Similar provisions have been adopted for the Ombudsman on 29 July 2020.  In particular, if during or after 
any investigation, the Ombudsman is of the opinion that there is evidence of any corrupt practice as defined 
in  the  Permanent  Commission  Against  Corruption  Act,  he  may  refer  his  findings  directly  to  the  Attorney 
General.  Similar  provisions  as  regards  the  Commissioner  for  Standards  in  Public  Life  and  the  Auditor 
General have been tabled in Parliament in July 2020. 

51   So far, the PCAC is staffed with three members and a full time secretary. 
52   This opinion is expected to be adopted in October 2020. 
53   GRECO (2019), Fifth Evaluation Round, Evaluation Report, para 107. 
54   European Commission, Country Report for Malta 2020, SWD(2020) 517 final, p. 40-41. 
55   European  Parliament  resolution  of  18  December  2019  on  the  rule  of  law  in  Malta  following  the  recent 
revelations surrounding the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia. European Parliament resolution of 28 March 
2019 on the situation of the rule of law and the fight against corruption in the EU, specifically in Malta and 
Slovakia.  

56   Part of the reform includes the introduction of an action for judicial review from decisions of the Attorney 
General not to prosecute. The action will enable the injured party (victim) to have the possibility to judicially 
challenge such decision before a court. Prior to such a challenge, the injured party will be able to request the 
public prosecutor to reconsider the decision taken and if the public prosecutor does not change his decision, 
the injured party may accede to the court to request the judicial review of the Attorney General’s decision 
not  to  prosecute  on  the  ground  of  illegality  or  unreasonableness.  As  part  of  the  reform,  also  the  Auditor 
General, the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life, the Permanent Commission Against Corruption and 
the  Ombudsman  shall  be  entitled  to  request  judicial  review  of  a  decision  of  the  Attorney  General  not  to 
prosecute  in  case  they  reported  any  corrupt  practice  as  defined  in  the  Permanent  Commission  Against 
Corruption Act to the Attorney General. 

57   It is noted that in the last 7 years, 5 successive Police Commissioners were appointed. 
58   On 23 June 2020, a new Police Commissioner was appointed in accordance with the new rules. 

8 

 
                                                 
candidate out of the two short-listed candidates. The newly proposed method also envisages 
that  the  eventually  short-listed  nominees  would  go  before  the  Parliaments’  Public 
Appointments Committee in order to undergo parliamentary scrutiny.  

The  resources  and  capacity  of  the  Economic  Crime  Unit  of  the  Police  have  been 
increased.  Between  December  2019  and  September  2020,  the  Economic  and  Crime  Unit 
witnessed a substantial increase in the number of police officers: from 58 to 98. The focus is 
on  areas  which  the  Police  did  not  have  the  capacity  to  deal  with  in  the  past,  including 
economic  and  financial  crimes.  Other  areas  where  capacity  is  expected  to  be  increased  are 
block chain analysis capabilities, enhancement of the intelligence analysis tool and access to 
additional databases59.  

The Protection of the Whistleblower Act came into force in 2013. It entails provisions for 
procedures,  in  both  the  private  sector  and  in  the  public  administration,  to  report  improper 
practices60.  Every  employer,  including  all  Ministries,  must  identify  a  whistleblowing 
reporting  officer  to  receive  reports  from  employees  who  would  like  to  make  a  protected 
disclosure  of  an  improper  practice.  In  turn,  the  whistleblowing  reporting  officer  is  to  take 
action or – in the case of actions amounting to criminal offences – report to the Police within 
reasonable time. Whistleblowing can be exercised on matters  which took place both  before 
and after the law entered into force. This legislation gives protection to those who act in good 
faith. However, the number of whistle-blower complaints is so far rather limited.  

Proposals  have  been  tabled  as  regards  the  appointment  of  persons  exercising  top 
executive  functions.  Amendments  were  tabled  in  order  to  ensure  that  the  Public  Service 
Commission,  which  is  an  independent  constitutional  body,  makes  recommendations  to  the 
President of the Republic for the appointment and removal of permanent  secretaries, on the 
basis  of  clear  and  pre-established  requirements.  As  concerns  persons  of  trust,  amendments 
were  tabled  in  the  Public  Administration  Act  and  the  Standards  in  Public  Life  Act61, 
establishing  a  clear  legal  basis  for  their  appointment.  This  follows  recommendations  of  the 
Venice  Commission  and  GRECO62  on  permanent  secretaries63  and  persons  of  trust64.  The 
Venice  Commission  is  preparing  an  additional  opinion  on  the  legislative  texts  submitted  to 
Parliament65. 

A  public  consultation  was  launched  with  a  view  to  introducing  lobbying  regulation, 
which  is  currently  missing.  The  Commissioner  for  Standards  in  Public  Life  published  a 

59   The Malta Police Force is in the process of purchasing a software that would enable to cross check different 
data  into  a  centralised  database  and  will  also  make  it  easier  for  the  Police  force  to  coordinate  with  other 
Maltese entities. The project is financed by the Hercule III European Funding.  

60   Chapter 527 of the Laws of Malta. 
61   Chapter 595 of the Laws of Malta. 
62   Venice  Commission  Opinion  (CDL-AD(2020)006),  paras  115-129;  GRECO  (2019),  Fifth  Evaluation 

Round, Evaluation Report, paras 24-26.  

63   Permanent  secretaries  are  the  highest  civil  servants.  According  to  the  current  rules,  Art.  92(3)  of  the 
Constitution provides that the power to appoint permanent secretaries and the power to remove them from 
office is vested in the President acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister given after the 
Prime Minister has consulted with the Public Service Commission. 

64   According to the current rules, under the Standards in Public Life Act, enacted on 30 October 2018, a person 
of  trust  is  defined  as  any  employee  or  person  engaged  in  the  private  secretariat  of  a  minister  or  of  a 
parliamentary secretary who acts as an adviser or consultant to a minister or to a parliamentary secretary, or 
acts in an executive role in a Ministry or parliamentary secretariat, and has not been engaged according to 
the procedure of Art. 110 of the Constitution.  

65   This opinion is expected to be adopted in October 2020. 

9 

 
                                                 
consultation paper with proposals for the regulation of lobbying66. The Commissioner intends 
to  issue  recommendations  for  changes  to  the  codes  of  ethics  for  Ministers  and  members  of 
Parliament,  as  set  out  in  the  Standards  in  Public  Life  Act67.  The  Ministry  for  the 
Environment, Climate Change and Planning has established a transparency register platform, 
which is already operational, as a pilot project. 

The  Commissioner  for  Standards  in  Public  Life  raised  concerns  about  conflicts  of 
interests of members of Parliament. Since the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life 
started  functioning  in  2018,  declarations  of  assets  of  members  of  Parliament  are  being 
scrutinised. This is the result of the Standards in Public Life Act, which entered into force on 
30 October 2018. The Commissioner will examine the declarations and  will also  propose a 
revision  of  the  details  to  be  submitted.  However,  declarations  are  not  made  public,  except 
those that belong to Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries. As regards conflicts of interests, 
the Commissioner issued a decision on a complaint submitted by a member of Parliament in 
July  2019  relating  to  the  potential  conflict  of  interest  of  members  of  Parliament  who  hold 
positions within or provide contractual services to the public sector. In his case report68, the 
Commissioner found that two thirds of backbench members of Parliament hold appointments 
in, or contracts with, the public sector and concluded that the engagement of backbenchers by 
the Government is fundamentally wrong, calling for an end to this practice. A possible reform 
of the statute of the members of Parliament is considered in the context of the constitutional 
reform  process69.  As  regards  persons  entrusted  with  top  executive  functions,  such  as 
permanent  secretaries  and  persons  of  trust,  they  are  not  subject  to  the  same  declaratory 
obligations  as  members  of  Parliament.  They  are  required  to  submit  the  basic  information 
under the Code of ethics for public employees appended to the Public Administration Act70. 
Persons  of  trust  are  subject  to  the  scrutiny  of  the  Commissioner  for  Standards  in  Public 
Life71. 

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM 

Freedom of expression is enshrined in the Constitution of Malta72, as well as in the European 
Convention Act  (Chapter 319 of the laws of Malta). The Media  and  Defamation  Act  of 14 
May 2018 repealed the 1974 Press Act, bringing about an overhaul of defamation laws. The 
independence  of  the  Broadcasting  Authority  is  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution.  The 
ownership of or editorial control over multiple media outlets by the two main political parties 
continues to shape the Maltese media landscape. The assassination of investigative journalist 
Daphne  Caruana  Galizia  in  October  2017  was  widely  seen  as  an  attack  on  freedom  of 
expression  and  triggered  concerns  about  media  freedom  and  the  safety  of  journalists  in 
Malta73.  

66   Towards  the  Regulation  of  Lobbying  in  Malta’,  Commissioner  for  Standards  in  Public  Life,  28  February 

2020. 

67   The recommendations of the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life are not binding for the Government. 
68   Case Report, No. K/002, decided on 5 July 2019, Commissioner for Standards in Public Life.  
69   See Section IV.  
70   GRECO issued a recommendation on extending the declaratory obligations for members of Parliaments to 
also  persons  entrusted  with  top  executive  functions.  See  GRECO  Fifth  Evaluation  Round,  Evaluation 
Report, para. 94-95.  

71   Input from Malta for the Rule of Law Report, p. 42. 
72   Art. 41 of the Constitution.  
73   Between 2019 and 2020, Malta fell four more places in the Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom 

Index, now registering at the 81st position worldwide.  

10 

 
                                                 
The independence of the Broadcasting Authority is enshrined in the Constitution74. The 
Constitution  establishes  the  eligibility  and  exclusionary  criteria  for  members  of  the 
Broadcasting  Authority  and  the  manner  of  their  appointment.  As  further  specified  in 
secondary  legislation,  the  Authority  is  a  corporate  body  having  a  distinct  legal  personality, 
legally  and  functionally  independent  of  the  Government  and  any  other  private  or  public 
body75. Decisions of the Authority may be challenged before the Court of Appeal as well as 
before the Constitutional Court. The Authority is funded from the State’s Consolidated Fund, 
which covers employees’ salaries76. Beyond that, the Authority finances its expenses from the 
collection of license fees and fines imposed on broadcasters.  

The  members of the Broadcasting Authority are appointed by the President, acting in 
accordance  with  the  advice  of  the  Prime  Minister  given  after  consultation  with  the 
Leader  of  the  Opposition.  The  Media  Pluralism  Monitor  2020  (‘MPM  2020’)  scores  the 
independence and the effectiveness of the Broadcasting Authority at medium risk, given that 
all five members of the board are, in effect, political appointees. They have been selected by 
Malta’s  two  main  political  parties,  while  the  chairperson  is  generally  chosen  by  mutual 
agreement  of  those  two  parties.  MPM  2020  points  out  that,  in  effect,  the  Authority  mainly 
monitors and regulates public service media (i.e. Public Broadcasting Services (PBS)) while 
de facto allowing the two other main broadcasting outlets - owned by the Labour Party and 
the  Nationalist  Party  respectively  -  “to  balance  themselves  out  editorially”.  The  revised 
Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD)77 sets out a range of specific guarantees for 
the  independence  and  effectiveness  of  national  media  regulators.  A  bill  transposing  this 
Directive is currently being discussed in Parliament78. 

The  Institute  of  Maltese  Journalists  (IGM)  was  founded  in  1989  as  an  association 
grouping  together  media  practitioners.  The  IGM  enacted  a  Code  of  Journalistic  Ethics79 
and  oversaw  the  setting  up  of  a  Press  Ethics  Commission  (PEC)  to  deal  with  complaints 
against  journalists  arising  from  this  Code.  The  IGM  was  instrumental  in  the  adoption  of 
amendments to the Malta Press Act which today incorporates the confidentiality of sources, 
qualified privilege, the right to information and the right of reply. MPM 2020 points out that 
the Institute of Maltese Journalists, which is the only professional journalists’ organisation in 
the  country,  is  generally  not  considered  as  being  effective  in  safeguarding  editorial 
independence, and does not seem to have a strong enough voice in ensuring the overall well-
being of its members80. 

The Broadcasting Authority gathers ownership information of media outlets, but there 
are  no  obligations  to  make  this  easily  accessible  to  the  public.  This  includes  radio  and 
television  stations  owned  by  the  political  parties,  which  are  treated  as  commercial 
broadcasters. In cases of a change in the shareholding of the media company, the Authority 

74   Art.  119(1)  of  the  Constitution  stipulates  that  in  the  exercise  of  its  functions,  the  Broadcasting  Authority 
shall  not  be  subject  to  the  direction  or  control  of  any  other  person  or  authority,  and  that  it  shall  be  the 
function of the Broadcasting Authority to ensure that, due impartiality is preserved in respect of matters of 
political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy and that broadcasting facilities and time 
are fairly apportioned between persons belonging to different political parties.  

75   Art. 4(1) of the Broadcasting Act of 1 June 1991. 
76   Art. 24(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act. 
77   Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 amending 

Directive 2010/13/EU. 

78   The  Broadcasting  (Amendment)  Bill  (No.145)  is  pending  discussion  in  the  Consideration  of  Bills 

Committee. 

79   Code of Journalistic Ethics: https://igm.org.mt/resources/code-of-journalistic-ethics/. 
80   2020 Media Pluralism Monitor, Country Report on Malta, p. 11. 

11 

 
                                                 
must be informed, following which the Authority performs a due diligence examination. The 
registration of the companies and the ownership information is available through the online 
register  held  by  the  Malta  Business  Register.  No  specific  legal  obligations  exist  for  media 
companies  to  publish  their  ownership  structures  in  a  manner  that  would  make  this 
information  easily  accessible  to  the  public.  Furthermore,  while  the  Broadcasting  Authority 
has the right to obtain any type of information it considers necessary from the license holders, 
the Authority does not publish this information. Consequently, although it states that by and 
large the public is aware of who owns media companies in the country, MPM 2020 registers 
medium risk in terms of media ownership transparency81.  

Political parties are expressly permitted to own, control or be editorially responsible for 
nationwide  television  and  radio  services.  This  is  enshrined  in  the  Broadcasting  Act.  The 
two  main  political  parties  represented  in  Parliament  effectively  own,  control  or  manage 
multiple Maltese media outlets and broadcasters. This leads MPM 2020 to consider political 
independence of the media to be at acute high risk, while also indicating that “there are no 
common  regulatory  safeguards  when  it  comes  to  appointing  or  dismissing  editors,  and  it 
follows  that,  since  political  parties  own  multiple  media  outlets,  political  influence  in  such 
appointments or dismissals is inevitable”82.  

There  is  no  legal  framework  regulating  state  advertising.  This  creates  certain  risks  of 
abuse both  by the Government as well as by individual politicians83. The  Government  uses 
state  advertising  throughout  the  year,  but  especially  during  the  months  leading  up  to  an 
election,  as  a  form  of  indirect  political  advertising.  A  recent  inquiry  by  Malta’s 
Commissioner  for  Standards  in  Public  Life  concluded  that  it  is  widespread  practice  for 
Ministers to use public resources in the generation of content for their personal social media 
pages.  The  Commissioner  therefore  proposed  guidelines  on  the  use  of  social  media  by 
Ministers  and  Parliamentary  Secretaries  to  which,  his  report  states,  the  government  has 
agreed to be bound to 84. Based on these factors, MPM 2020 points to medium risk as regards 
State regulation of resources and support for the media sector. 

The  Freedom  of  Information  Act  establishes  the  legal  framework  for  access  to 
information  held  by  public  authorities.  The  Act  establishes  that  Maltese  citizens,  EU 
citizens and people who have resided in Malta for a period of at least five years are eligible to 
request  access  to  such  information85.  Any  refusal  to  provide  access  must  be  motivated  and 
can  be  appealed.  However,  the  broad  definition  of  the  grounds  for  refusal,  as  well  as  the 
administrative costs of the procedure often hinder access to public information86. Journalists 
have reported instances where they encountered difficulties when requesting such access, due 
to  significant  delays  and  absence  of  reply87.  For  these  reasons,  MPM  2020  rates  access  to 
information at medium risk. Given the importance of this right, this is of particular concern. 
The Government is currently considering a possible way forward for eliminating the narrow 
interpretation  given  to  public  interest  disclosure,  in  order  to  respond  to  GRECO 
Recommendations.  

81   2020 Media Pluralism Monitor, Country Report: Malta, p. 12. 
82   2020 Media Pluralism Monitor, Country Report: Malta, p. 13-16. 
83   See previous note. 
84   Commissioner for Standards in Public Life, Case Report of 7 May 2020, No. K/010. 
85   Freedom and Information Act of 2008, as amended in 2012 (Chapter 496 of the Laws of Malta). 
86   GRECO (2019), Fifth Evaluation Round - Evaluation Report. 
87   2020 Media Pluralism Monitor, Country Report: Malta, p.11, notes that one particular  newsroom reported 

that 80% of requests made to Government entities remained unanswered. 

12 

 
                                                 
A  public  inquiry  led  by  a  former  judge  is  ongoing  regarding  the  assassination  of 
journalist  Daphne  Caruana  Galizia.  Following  significant  pressure  from  the  journalist’s 
family,  as  well  as  from  Maltese  civil  society  and  from  European  and  international  press 
associations,  a  public  inquiry  was  set  up  in  September  2019.  A  resolution  by  the 
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe specifically called for the opening of such 
inquiry88.  This  Public  Inquiry  is  to  determine  whether  the  State  has  fulfilled  its  positive 
obligations to take preventive operational measures to protect individuals whose lives are at 
risk from criminal acts, in particular in the case of journalists and to specifically investigate 
all  the  circumstances  surrounding  the  assassination  of  Ms  Caruana  Galizia.  The  public 
inquiry  has  so  far  brought  to  light  a  series  of  elements  that  have  been  qualified  by  press 
freedom organisations as “disturbing revelations of state corruption and impunity related to 
the case […] underscoring the weaknesses in Malta’s rule of law, and entrenched impunity 
for  both  the  murder  of  Caruana  Galizia  and  the  high-level  abuses  of  power  she 
investigated”89. MPM 2020, scoring the journalistic profession, standards and protection area 
at medium risk, points out that “given ongoing developments and revelations in connection 
with  the  Caruana  Galizia  case,  as  well  as  continuing  investigations  by  independent 
journalists  into  high  level  corruption,  it  is  safe  to  say  that  those  in  the  profession  feel 
threatened”. MPM 2020 refers to a series of hate campaigns against investigative journalists 
critical of the State, revealed following an investigation by an independent online platform.90 
The  European  Commission  has  repeatedly  stressed  the  need  for  those  responsible  for  Ms 
Caruana Galizia’s assassination to be brought to justice, without any political interference91.  

The impact of the assassination of Malta’s foremost investigative journalist continues to 
be  felt  in  Malta.  The  Council  of  Europe  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism 
and the safety of journalists reported three alerts in 201992, which are yet to be resolved. The 
State  replied  with  regard  to  two  alerts.  The  first  alert  relates  to  a  cyberattack  on  the 
independent, investigative online media platform The Shift News. The second and third alert 
concerned legal intimidation against three journalists researching a book on the assassination 
of Ms Caruana Galizia, and the treatment of journalists following a press conference held at 
the  office  of  the  Prime  Minister,  respectively93.  The  Platform  reported  one  alert  in  2020 
relating to a SLAPP-like measure94 lodged by a businessman against The Shift News.  

88   Resolution 2293 (2019) adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on 26 June 2019, 
following the report by Rapporteur Pieter Omtzigt entitled ‘Daphne Caruana Galizia’s assassination and the 
rule of law in Malta and beyond: ensuring that the whole truth emerges’. 

89   Statement  signed  by  ARTICLE  19,  Association  of  European  Journalists  (AEJ),  Committee  to  Protect 
Journalists  (CPJ),  European  Centre  for  Press  and  Media  Freedom  (ECPMF),  European  Federation  of 
Journalists  (EFJ),  Free  Press  Unlimited,  Index  on  Censorship,  International  Freedom  of  Expression 
Exchange (IFEX), International Press Institute (IPI), Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT), 
PEN 
International. 
Scottish 
https://www.article19.org/resources/malta-renewed-call-for-justice-1000-days-after-the-assassination-of-
daphne-caruana-galizia/. 

Transparency 

International, 

America, 

PEN 

PEN 

and 

90   2020 Media Pluralism Monitor, Country Report: Malta, p.11. 
91   Joint statement by First Vice-President Timmermans, Vice-President Ansip and Commissioners Jourová and 
Gabriel one year after the assassination of Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, 16 October 2018. See 
also the European Parliament resolutions referred to in the previous Sections. 

92   Council  of  Europe,  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists, 
https://www.coe.int/en/web/media-freedom.  As  indicated  by  Council  of  Europe  Recommendation  2016/4, 
Member States should put in place a comprehensive legislative framework that enables journalists and other 
media actors to contribute to public debate effectively and without fear. 

93   The Maltese authorities replied to this latter alert.  
94   Strategic lawsuit against public participation. 

13 

 
                                                 
IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

Malta  is  a  parliamentary  republic  where  legislative  power  is  vested  in  the  House  of 
Representatives,  a  unicameral  Parliament  elected  for  a  five-year  term.  The  executive 
authority is vested in the President, who is elected by Parliament, and in the Cabinet headed 
by  the  Prime  Minister.  All  Government  ministers,  including  the  Prime  Minister,  must  be 
members  of  Parliament.  Constitutional  cases  are  heard  by  the  Constitutional  Court.  The 
Constitution  establishes  a  number  of  independent  authorities,  including  the  Office  of  the 
Ombudsman. In July 2020, Parliament adopted a number of constitutional reforms95. 

A constitutional reform of the election procedure of the President of Malta was adopted. 
The reform, which was adopted on 29 July 2020, provides that the President of Malta will be 
elected by a two-thirds majority in Parliament, instead of by simple majority, in line with the 
opinion of the Venice Commission of June 2020. According to the new rules, as long as no 
two-thirds  majority  in  Parliament  is  reached,  the  person  occupying  the  office  of  President 
shall  remain  in  office.  In  addition,  a  removal  of  the  President  will  require  a  two-thirds 
majority in Parliament. A procedure of election and removal of the President by a two-thirds 
Parliamentary majority was recommended by the Venice Commission96 and could contribute 
to  strengthening  the  role  of  the  President  in  controlling  the  Government.  The  Venice 
Commission  is  currently  preparing  an  additional  opinion  on  the  legislative  text  of  this 
reform97. 

A  constitutional  reform  to  strengthen  the  role  of  the  Ombudsman  has  also  been 
approved, while a proposal to establish a human rights institution is under discussion in 
Parliament.  The  Ombudsman  has  the  function  to  investigate  actions  taken  by  the 
Government or any other authority as provided by law, and may conduct investigations on his 
own initiative or on the basis of a complaint. The reform, which was adopted by Parliament 
on 29 July 2020, inserts into the Constitution the method of appointment and removal of the 
Ombudsman98,  as  well  as  his  right  to  access  information.  The  reform  also  provides  that  if, 
during or after any investigation, the Ombudsman is of the opinion that there is evidence of 
any  corrupt  practice  as  defined  in  the  Permanent  Commission  Against  Corruption  Act,  the 
Ombudsman  may  refer  his  findings  directly  to  the  Attorney  General.  The  reform  aims  at 
responding  to  the  Venice  Commission’s  recommendations99.  It  is  noted  that  the  United 
Nations also recommended to strengthen the independence of the Office of the Commissioner 
for  Children,  by  ensuring  adequate  specific  and  separate  human,  technical,  and  financial 
resources as well as the immunities required for it to effectively carry out its function100. A 
proposal to establish a human rights institution was presented to Parliament in 2019. The Bill 

95   Act  no.  XLIV  of  2020,  to  further  amend  the  Constitution  of  Malta  relative  to  the  appointment  of  the 
President of Malta; Act no. XLII of 2020; to amend laws which regulate the Office of the Ombudsman. 
96   Venice  Commission  opinion  (CDL-AD(2020)006),  paras.  86-91.  The  Venice  Commission  had  also 

recommended providing for a staggered anti-deadlock mechanism. 

97   This opinion is expected to be adopted in October 2020. 
98   The  reform  also  stipulates  that  as  long  as  no  two-thirds  majority  in  Parliament  is  reached,  the  person 

occupying the office of Ombudsman shall, in any circumstance, remain in office. 

99   Venice  Commission  opinion  (CDL-AD(2020)006),  paras.  61-64.  The  Venice  Commission  is  currently 
preparing  an  additional  opinion  on  the  legislative  text.  This  opinion  is  expected  to  be  adopted  in  October 
2020. 

100  United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (2019). 

14 

 
                                                 
concerning the establishment of a Human Rights and Equality Commission is being discussed 
before the relevant Parliamentary Committees101.  

A  constitutional  reform  concerning  the  appointments  to  certain 
independent 
commissions  has  been  tabled  to  Parliament.  The  Government  proposed  that  powers 
relating  to  the  appointment  of  a  number  of  independent  commissions  would  shift  from  the 
Prime Minister to  the Cabinet of Ministers, including as regards the Central  Bank of Malta 
and the Information and Data Protection Commissioner. In its June 2020 Opinion, the Venice 
Commission welcomed the intention of the Government to further discuss the appointment of 
other  independent  authorities  such  as  the  Electoral  Commission,  the  Public  Service 
Commission,  and  the  Broadcasting  Authority  in  the  framework  of  the  President-led 
Constitutional Convention102.  

A  reflection  process  on  the  role  of  Parliament  has  also  been  initiated.  Reforms  are 
considered concerning the statute of the members of Parliament, even if no concrete measures 
have been proposed yet103. The Venice Commission found that the Maltese Parliament needs 
to  be  strengthened  in  order  to  be  an  effective  check  on  Government104,  and  recommended 
changing  the  system  in  order  to  provide  for  full-time  work  and  payment  of  members.  In 
addition,  it  recommended  that  members  should  benefit  from  non-partisan  research  capacity 
and/or  from  a  senior  consultative  body.  Furthermore,  extensive  use  of  delegated  legislation 
should be avoided.  

Judgments  of  the  Constitutional  Court  do  not  have  erga  omnes  effect.  It  is  up  to  the 
Parliament to repeal or amend laws in case a judgment of the Constitutional Court has ruled 
one or more provisions thereof unconstitutional. The Venice Commission has noted that, in 
practice,  this  seems  not  to  happen  in  all  cases,  which  leads  to  continued  application  of 
provisions found unconstitutional105.  

Challenges  remain  as  regards  the  limited  use  of  evidence-based  instruments  and 
effectiveness  of  public  consultations  in  the  law-making  process.  Although  various 
channels  of  consulting  the  public  exist,  there  is  a  certain  discretion  of  whether  or  not  to 
initiate large-scale public consultations and a large number of  exceptions. The outcomes of 
public  consultation  procedures  are  not  always  published  online  in  a  timely  and  easily 
accessible manner106. Moreover, according to the OECD, Malta lacks a systematic approach 
towards  reviewing  whether  laws  and  regulations  achieved  the  intended  policy  goals107. 
Initiatives are being planned in relation to online consultation and an e-Participation platform, 
as part of the Strategic Plan for the Digital Transformation of the Public Administration 2019 
– 2021. 

101  Contribution from the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions for the 2020 Rule of Law 

Report.  

102  Venice Commission opinion (CDL-AD(2020)006), paras. 65-69. 
103  The  process  is  steered  by  a  Committee  comprising  the  two  main  political  parties  and  chaired  by  the 
President. A public consultation was carried out at the beginning of 2020. The Commissioner for Standards 
in Public  Life  made proposals to strengthen the role of Parliament:  Commissioner for Standards in Public 
Life, Towards Higher Standards in Public Life, Proposals to Modernise the Provisions of the Constitution on 
Parliament, the Judiciary and Public Administration, 30 October 2019.  

104  Venice Commission opinion (CDL-AD(2020)006), paras. 92-94.  
105  Venice  Commission  opinion  (CDL-AD(2020)006),  paras.  80-84.  Venice  Commission  Opinion  (CDL-

AD(2018)028) , paras. 74-79.  

106  GRECO (2019) Fifth Evaluation Round - Evaluation report.  
107  OECD (2019), Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance – Malta.  

15 

 
                                                 
Measures  to  face  the  pandemic  were  adopted  under  the  State  of  Public  Health 
Emergency. The Public Health Act vests the Superintendent of Public Health with the power 
to make, vary or revoke orders in cases of epidemics and infectious diseases, while judicial 
review  is  possible108.  The  State  of  Public  Health  Emergency  was  declared  by  the 
Superintendant on 1 April 2020 with retroactive effect from 7 March 2020109, and was lifted 
on 30 June 2020. 

Civil society organisations are playing an increasing role in the public debate. The civic 
space is considered as narrowed in view of the conditions for journalists referred to above110. 
At the same time, civil  society organisations participate more  actively in  the public debate, 
following the assassination of investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia. The main law 
regulating  the  framework  for  Civil  Society  is  the  Voluntary  Organisations  Act111,  which 
provides  that  civil  society  organisations  are  voluntary  organisations  independent  and 
autonomous of the Government and shall have their status respected by the Government at all 
times.  While  structures  for  the  involvement  and  participation  of  civil  society  could  be 
improved, civil society organisations have become increasingly engaged in the last few years 
in discussions on rule of law related issues, including on the need for reforms relating to the 
organisation  of  the  justice  system  and  the  fight  against  corruption112.  The  Government 
expressed  its  commitment  to  amending  various  pieces  of  legislation  to  ensure  that  the 
vulnerability of Voluntary Organisations is addressed113. 

108  On 29 May 2020, the First Hall, Civil Court ruled in a case that the right to protection from arbitrary arrest 
or detention was breached by the order issued by the Superintendent of Public Health, which suspended legal 
time-limits indefinitely. 

109  During the public health emergency, the Superintendent could order measures to reduce, remove or eliminate 
the  threat  to  public  health  including  the  segregation  or  isolation  of  any  person,  evacuations,  preventing 
access to any area. 

110  Ratings  given  by  CIVICUS.  Ratings  are  on  a  five-category  scale  defined  as:  open,  narrowed,  obstructed, 

repressed and closed. 

111  Chapter 492 of the Laws of Malta.   
112  Contributions from civil society organisations Repubblika and the Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation for 

the 2020 Rule of Law Report. 

113  Input from Malta for the 2020 Rule of Law Report. Legislation amending the Voluntary Organisations Act 

and the Civil Code and the Trusts and Trustees Act was adopted on 29 July 2020.  

16 

 
                                                 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order*. 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2020 Rule of Law report 

can be found at (COM website). 

Centre 

for  Media  Pluralism  and  Media  Freedom,  2020  Media  pluralism  monitor. 

https://cmpf.eui.eu/media-pluralism-monitor/mpm-2020.   

CIVICUS, Monitor tracking civic space, Malta. https://monitor.civicus.org/country/malta/. 

Commissioner for Standards in Public Life (2020), Towards the Regulation of Lobbying in Malta. 

Commissioner for Standards in Public Life, Case Report No. K/002, 2019. 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2010),  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2010)12  of  the 
Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities. 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2016),  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2016)4  of  the 
Committee of Ministers to member states on the protection of journalism and safety of journalists 
and other media actors. 

Council  of  Europe:  Parliamentary  Assembly  (2019),  Resolution  2293  (2019)  of  the  Parliamentary 
Assembly:  Daphne  Caruana  Galizia’s  assassination  and  the  rule  of  law  in  Malta  and  beyond: 
ensuring that the whole truth emerges. 

Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists – Malta. 

https://www.coe.int/en/web/media-freedom/malta. 

Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2010), Report on the Independence of the Judicial System 

Part I: The Independence of Judges (CDL-AD(2010)004). 

Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2016), Rule of Law Checklist (CDL-AD(2016)017). 

Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2018), Malta – Opinion on constitutional arrangements and 
separation  of  powers  and  the  independence  of  the  judiciary  and  law  enforcement  (CDL-
AD(2018)028). 

Council  of  Europe:  Venice  Commission  (2020)  –  Malta  –  Opinion  on  proposed  legislative  changes 

(CDL-AD(2020)006). 

Council  of  the  European  Union,  Council  Recommendation  of  20  July  2020  on  the  2020  National 
Reform Programme of Malta and delivering a Council opinion on the 2020 Stability Programme of 
Malta. 

Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation, contribution for the 2020 Rule of Law Report.  

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2019),  Flash  Eurobarometer  482:  Businesses'  attitudes 

towards corruption in the EU. 

Directorate-General for Communication (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: corruption. 

European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber judgment of 6 November 2018, Ramos Nunes de 

Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal, applications nos. 55391/13, 57728/13 and 74041/13. 

European Court of Human Rights, Chamber judgment of 5 May 2020, Kövesi v. Romania, application 

no. 3594/19. 

Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 25 July 2018, LM, C‑ 216/18 PPU. 

European Commission, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 

European Commission (2019), Country Report Malta, SWD(2019) 1017 final. 

European Commission (2020), Country Report Malta, SWD(2020) 517 final. 

European Commission (2019), Business Eurobarometer Survey.  

17 

 
European  Network  of  National  Human  Rights  Institutions  (2020),  Contribution  from  the  European 
Network of National Human Rights Institutions for the stakeholder consultation for the 2020 Rule 
of Law Report.   

European Parliament resolution of 18 December 2019 on the rule of law in Malta following the recent 

revelations surrounding the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia. 

European  Parliament  resolution  of  28  March  2019  on  the  situation  of  the  rule  of  law  and  the  fight 

against corruption in the EU, specifically in Malta and Slovakia. 

European Parliament resolution of 15 November 2017 on the rule of law in Malta. 

GRECO  (2019),  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  -  Second  Compliance  Report  on  Malta  on  corruption 

prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors.  

GRECO (2019), Fifth Evaluation round  - Evaluation Report  on Malta on preventing corruption and 

promoting integrity in central governments and law enforcement agencies. 

Maltese Government (2020), input from Malta for the 2020 Rule of Law Report.  

OECD (2019), Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance – Malta. 

Transparency 

(2020), 
https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/malta 

International 

Country 

Data 

– 

Malta. 

Reporters without Borders, Malta. https://rsf.org/en/taxonomy/term/150.  

Repubblika, contribution for the 2020 Rule of Law Report.  

United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (2019). 

Virtual country visit to Malta in the context of the 2020 Rule of Law Report. 

18 

 
 
 
Annex II: Country visit to Malta 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in June 2020 with: 

  Association of Judges 
  Association of Magistrates  
  Attorney General 
  Broadcasting Authority Malta 
  Chamber of Advocates 
  Commissioner for Standards in Public Life 
  Ministry of Justice 
  Permanent Commission Against Corruption (PCAC)  
  Police: Economic Crime Unit 
  Republikka NGO 
  State Advocate 

* The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings:  

  Amnesty International 
  Civil Liberties Union for Europe 
  Civil Society Europe 
  Conference of European Churches  
  EuroCommerce 
  European Center for Not-for-Profit Law  
  European Centre for Press and Media Freedom 
  European Civic Forum  
  Free Press Unlimited 
  Front Line Defenders 
 
ILGA-Europe 
 
International Commission of Jurists 
 
International Federation for Human Rights  
 
International Press Institute  
  Lifelong learning Platform  
  Open Society Justice Initiative/Open Society European Policy Institute 
  Reporters without Borders  
  Transparency International EU  

19