COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2021 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Malta Accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2021 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2021-07-20
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, 20.7.2021  SWD(2021) 720 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2021 Rule of Law Report    Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Malta Accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2021 Rule of Law Report    The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2021) 700 final} - {SWD(2021) 701 final} - {SWD(2021) 702 final} - {SWD(2021) 703 final} - {SWD(2021) 704 final} - {SWD(2021) 705 final} - {SWD(2021) 706 final} - {SWD(2021) 707 final} - {SWD(2021) 708 final} - {SWD(2021) 709 final} - {SWD(2021) 710 final} - {SWD(2021) 711 final} - {SWD(2021) 712 final} - {SWD(2021) 713 final} - {SWD(2021) 714 final} - {SWD(2021) 715 final} - {SWD(2021) 716 final} - {SWD(2021) 717 final} - {SWD(2021) 718 final} - {SWD(2021) 719 final} - {SWD(2021) 721 final} - {SWD(2021) 722 final} - {SWD(2021) 723 final} - {SWD(2021) 724 final} - {SWD(2021) 725 final} - {SWD(2021) 726 final} - {SWD(2021) 727 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

The reforms of 2020, in particular the reform of the system of judicial appointments and of 
judicial discipline, have contributed to strengthening the independence of the Maltese justice 
system.  The  perception  of  judicial  independence  has  notably  improved.  Steps  have  been 
taken  to  depoliticise  the  appointment  of  the  Chief  Justice,  while  certain  aspects  of  this 
procedure  require  further  attention.  The  transfer  of  prosecutions  from  the  police  to  the 
Attorney General is progressing. Whereas this transfer needs time, it is important that it also 
covers less serious offences. There are ongoing discussions to enhance the independence of 
specialised  tribunals.  Serious  challenges  remain  as  regards  the  efficiency  of  the  justice 
system, in particular the length of court proceedings, the impact of the low number of judges 
and the digitalisation of justice. 

A new targeted anti-fraud and corruption strategy was approved by the Government. While 
investigative  and  prosecution  bodies  have  improved  their  capacity  to  deal  with  corruption 
cases, as shown by an increase in the number of cases opened, investigations continue to be 
lengthy depending on their complexity and a track record of convictions in high-level cases 
remains  to  be  established.  The  reforms  concerning  the  appointment  of  the  Police 
Commissioner and of the Commissioners of the Permanent Commission against Corruption, 
as  well  as  the  reorganised  cooperation  between  the  Police  and  the  Attorney  General,  are 
recent  and  results  are  yet  to  be  seen.  Concerning  the  rules  on  integrity  for  public  officials, 
including  members  of  Parliament  and  ministers,  further  changes  are  envisaged.  Specific 
guidance  has  been  put  in  place  to  mitigate  the  risks  of  corruption  in  public  procurement 
during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The public inquiry into the assassination of investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia 
continued  to  hear  testimonies  throughout  2020  and  2021,  concluding  its  work  on  15  July 
2021.  There  have  been  developments  in  the  separate  criminal  proceedings  relating  to  this 
case.  Journalists  still  face  obstacles  when  requesting  access  to  information  held  by  public 
authorities  as  well  as  in  the  exercise  of  their  profession  more  generally.  Amendments  to 
Malta’s  Broadcasting  Act  have  not  introduced  any  changes  which  would  enhance  the 
Broadcasting  Authority’s  effective  independence.  In  the  light  of  the  ownership  by  the  two 
main political parties of their own television and radio stations, a constitutional case has been 
lodged  challenging  the  relevant  section  of  the  Maltese  Broadcasting  Act  and  the  media 
regulator’s  application  of  that  provision.  In  2020,  Malta  established  a  support  scheme  for 
news media providers to counteract the adverse effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.  

Further  reforms  have  been  carried  out  to  enhance  checks  and  balances.  Reforms  of  the 
appointment  of  persons  exercising  top  executive  functions  and  appointments  to  certain 
independent  commissions,  proposed  in  2020,  have  been  adopted.  Remaining  concerns 
regarding the appointment process for certain other public bodies will be addressed under the 
Constitutional  Convention.  However,  due  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  the  timing  and 
organisation  of  this  Convention  are  still  to  be  set.  The  Ombudsperson’s  role  has  been 
to  his 
strengthened,  although  he  noted  a 
recommendations. The draft law on the establishment of a national human rights institution is 
still under discussion in Parliament. Challenges remain in relation to the limited use of public 
consultations in the law-making process, including on structural reforms. While civil society 
organisations  continue  to  participate  actively  in  the  public  debate,  they  raised  certain 
concerns on access to funding and actions by the Commissioner for Voluntary Organisations. 

lack  of  consistency 

the  follow-up 

in 

1 

 
I. 

JUSTICE SYSTEM  

The Maltese justice system is influenced by both the continental and the common law legal 
traditions1.  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  Court.  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  over  the 
Constitutional Court. A Commission for the Administration of Justice supervises the work of 
the judiciary. A number of specialised tribunals exist, adjudicating in specific areas. A fully 
separate Prosecution Service was set  up in 2019. Malta participates in  the European Public 
Prosecutor’s  Office.  The  Bar  Association  (Chamber  of  Advocates)  is  an  independent  and 
self-regulated professional body of lawyers2.  

Independence 

The level of perceived judicial independence has improved and is now high. The fairly or 
very good perception of judicial independence among the general public (69%) has improved 
significantly  since  2020  (52%),  including  as  compared  to  2016  (44%)3.  The  fairly  good  or 
very  good  perception  of  judicial  independence  among  companies  (67%)  has  also  improved 
significantly since 2020 (48%), inverting a previously decreasing trend4.  

The  new  system  of  judicial  appointments  has  contributed  to  strengthening  judicial 
independence.  The  new  system  of  judicial  appointments5,  adopted  in  July  2020,  was 
assessed  by  the  Venice  Commission  in  its  Opinion  of  October  20206.  The  Venice 
Commission welcomed the reform, positively assessing the new composition of the Judicial 
Appointments Committee (‘JAC’), the publication of judicial vacancies, the direct proposals 

1   See 2020 Rule of Law Report: country chapter on the rule of law situation in Malta – Part I. 
2   Act No. XIX of 2021  - Legal Profession (Reform)  Act  was published on 20 April 2021. According to the 
Maltese Government (contribution to the present report), the draft law aims at addressing recommendations 
made  by  the  Council  of  Europe’s  Committee  of  Experts  on  the  Evaluation  of  Anti-Money  Laundering 
Measures and the Financing of Terrorism (Moneyval) relative to the regulation of the legal profession (see 
Moneyval’s  Anti-money  laundering and counter-terrorist financing  measures  in Malta  –  5th Round Mutual 
Evaluation Report). The Chamber of Advocates has raised concerns about this draft law, arguing that it does 
not  address  the  persisting  issues  (such  as  raising  the  standards  of  ethics  and  professionalism  in  the  legal 
profession and regulating market entry measures for legal professionals) (information received in the context 
of the country  visit to Malta). See also Chamber of  Advocates (2021), Malta Financial  Services  Authority 
Consultation on new Company Service Providers Rulebook. Chamber of Advocates Feedback and Position 
Paper. 

3   Figure 48 of the 2021 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%). 

4   Figure 50 of the 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
5   See 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the situation of the rule of law in Malta, p. 2. The Court 
of Justice assessed the compliance of the previous system for judicial appointments, in force between 2016 
and  2020,  in  the  context  of  a  preliminary  reference  procedure  (judgment  of  20  April  2021  in  Case 
C‑ 896/19,  Repubblika).  The  Court  found  that  Article  19(1)  TEU  must  be  interpreted  as  not  precluding 
national provisions which confer on the Prime Minister of the Member State concerned a decisive power in 
the process for appointing members of the judiciary, while providing for the involvement, in that process, of 
an independent body responsible for, inter alia, assessing candidates for judicial office and giving an opinion 
to that Prime Minister. 

6   Venice Commission, CDL-AD(2020)019-e Opinion of 8 October 2020 on Malta - Opinion on ten Acts and 

bills implementing legislative proposals subject of Opinion CDL-AD(2020)006.  

2 

 
                                                 
by the JAC of judicial candidates to the President of Malta, the submission of detailed reports 
on  candidates  by  the  JAC  and  the  presentation  by  the  JAC  of  the  three  most  suitable 
candidates  for  appointments7.  These  reforms,  which  take  into  account  Council  of  Europe 
recommendations,  contribute  to  strengthening  judicial  independence8.  The  Chamber  of 
Advocates9  and  civil  society  organisations10  have  welcomed  the  reforms.  However,  the 
Venice  Commission  regretted  the  procedure  followed  by  the  Maltese  Government  for  its 
adoption,  which  did  not  allow  for  a  wider  consultation  of  civil  society  or  a  wider  public 
debate11, as also highlighted by civil society12. It also pointed out that, in light of its previous 
recommendations, the names of the three candidates proposed by the Judicial Appointments 
Committee should be made public before the President of Malta decides on the appointment, 
so as to ensure the transparency of the process, as this was not part of the adopted reform13. 
The new procedure for judicial appointments was applied for the recruitment of four judges 
and four magistrates in April and June 2021 respectively.  

The  reform  of  the  procedure  for  dismissal  of  magistrates  and  judges  has  also 
strengthened judicial independence. Changes have been introduced to the procedure for the 
dismissal  of  magistrates  and  judges.  Under  the  new  system14,  the  dismissal  procedure  is 
under the remit of the Commission for the Administration of Justice, composed in majority of 
members of the judiciary, as opposed to the previous system where Parliament was in charge 
of  this  procedure.  In  its  October  2020  Opinion,  the  Venice  Commission  considered  the 
reform to be generally in line with existing standards15. 

Steps have been taken to depoliticise the appointment of the Chief Justice. In its October 
2020 Opinion, the Venice Commission reiterated the need for depoliticising the appointment 
of the Chief Justice as much as possible16. The same opinion considered that the requirement 
of a two-thirds majority in Parliament for the appointment of the Chief Justice would lead to 
such a depoliticisation17, but it regretted that no anti-deadlock mechanism has been provided 
in that respect18. More generally, the appointment of the Chief Justice by Parliament, without 
the involvement of the judiciary, considered together with the possibility that a person from 
outside the judiciary could be appointed as Chief Justice, will require further attention19. The 

7   Ibid, paras. 24-40.  
8  Venice  Commission  opinion  CDL-AD(2020)019-e  and  Council  of  Europe  –  Committee  of  Ministers 

Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities. 

9   Chamber of Advocates, press release of 14 May 2020. 
10   See Repubblika, Press Release n. 52/2021. 
11   Venice Commission, CDL-AD(2020)019-e, para. 13.  
12   See Repubblika, Press Release n.117/2020. 
13   Venice Commission, CDL-AD(2020)019-e, para. 31. 
14   Details regarding the adoption process are set out in 2020 Rule of Law Report: Chapter for Malta  – Part I 

pp. 2-3. 

15   Venice Commission, CDL-AD(2020)019-e, para. 48.  
16   Venice Commission, CDL-AD(2020)019-e, para. 41. 
17   Venice Commission, CDL-AD(2020)019-e, para. 42.  
18   Venice Commission, CDL-AD(2020)019-e, para. 43. In particular, the Venice Commission considers that an 
election  of  the  Chief  Justice  by  the  Supreme  Court  judges  would  be  preferable.  In  its  observations  to  the 
Venice Commission, the Government pointed out that no agreement on an anti-deadlock mechanism could 
be reached in Parliament. 

19   It  is  noted  that  the  appointment  of  the  Chief  Justice  by  Parliament  without  involvement  of  the  judiciary 
retains a strong political element. This issue is of particular importance in view of many roles played by the 
Chief Justice in the Maltese justice system (see also the 2020 Rule of Law Report: country chapter on the 
rule  of  law  situation  in  Malta  –  Part  I).  As  regards  the  standards  applicable  to  court  presidents,  see 
Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), Opinion n° 19 (2016), the Role of Court Presidents, para. 

3 

 
                                                 
 
Chamber of Advocates expressed the view that the appointment of the Chief Justice should 
be made from among senior judges, thus eliminating the possibility that persons from outside 
the judiciary could be appointed directly as Chief Justice, and that the appointment should be 
made by members of the judiciary themselves, without intervention of any political power20.  

The transfer of certain types of prosecutions from the police to the Attorney General is 
progressing according to a timeline, but there is no timeline for the transfer of the less 
serious  offences.  Until  recently,  all  prosecutions  before  the  inferior  courts  (Courts  of 
Magistrates)  were  carried  out  by  the  police,  while  the  office  of  the  Attorney  General 
prosecuted cases before the Superior Courts (Criminal Court and Court of Criminal Appeal 
both  in  its  inferior  and  superior  jurisdiction)21.  The  implementation  of  the  transfer  started 
early in 2020 with a recruitment of 20 new lawyers to the Office of the Attorney General in 
order to enable the Office to handle the additional workload more efficiently. On 1 October 
2020, the first phase of the transitory period ended22 and the Attorney General had taken over 
the  decisions  to  prosecute  and  the  initiation  of  prosecution  concerning  specified  serious 
crimes, including corruption23. The Government’s plan is to continue, until 1 October 2024, 
transferring  annually  an  additional  number  of  offences  to  the  Attorney  General.  However, 
this plan does not include the transfer of contraventions or crimes punishable with a fine or a 
maximum of two years’ imprisonment or less (summary cases). Currently, no clear indication 
exists  as  to  whether  these  cases  would  also  be  subject  to  the  transfer.  While  this  transfer 
needs  appropriate  time24,  it  would  be  important  to  transfer  all  prosecutions,  including  for 
summary offences, to the Attorney General and to do so as soon as possible25.  

Safeguards regarding the procedure for the appointment and removal of the Attorney 
General  leave  room  for  strengthening.  Following  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
adopted in July 2020, the removal of the Attorney-General can be carried out by the President 
of  Malta  following  a  resolution  adopted  by  a  two-thirds  majority  in  Parliament.  Similar 
changes  have  been  introduced  for  the  State  Advocate26.  In  its  October  2020  Opinion,  the 
Venice  Commission  recommended  that  an  expert  body  should  decide  on  the  grounds  for 
removal, or that an appeal to the Constitutional Court should be possible against a decision of 
a parliamentary committee, before the plenary of Parliament  takes the final  decision on the 
removal27. As regards the procedure for appointment, while safeguards were added following 

53. The current Chief justice, who was already a  senior judge, was appointed in April 2020 in accordance 
with the procedure based on a two-third majority in Parliament (before it became a legal obligation).  

20   Chamber of Advocates, press release of 14 May 2020.  
21   As noted in the 2020 Rule of Law Report: country chapter on the rule of law situation in Malta (Part I). 
22   By virtue of the Prosecution of Offences (Transitory Provisions) Regulations, 2020 (L.N. 378 of 2020). 
23   These  concern  also  wilful  homicide,  terrorism,  money-laundering,  bribery,  fraud  and  misappropriation 
where the financial loss caused is at least fifty thousand euro (€50,000), as well as evasion of customs duties. 

24   Venice Commission, CDL-AD(2020)019-e, para. 57.  
25   See  also  Venice  Commission,  CDL-AD(2020)019-e,  para.  98.  In  this  context,  Standard  Operating 
Procedures  between  the  Police  and  the  Attorney  General’s  Office  are  in  place  between  the  two  entities  to 
ensure the smooth taking over of these duties by prosecutors at the Office of the Attorney General. 

26   See  Article  91A(5)  of  the  constitution  of  Malta.  It  is  noted,  however,  that  modalities  applicable  to  the 
removal  of  the  State  Advocate  are  not  entrenched  by  the  constitution  and  can  be  amended  by  an  absolute 
majority of Parliament. It is also noted that the removal of the Attorney General and the State Advocate can 
only be effectuated in case of “proved inability to perform the functions of his office (whether arising from 
infirmity of body or mind or any other cause) or proved misbehaviour”. 

27   Venice Commission, CDL-AD(2020)019-e, paras. 49-50. The Office of the Attorney General indicated that 
the Constitutional Court could be seized in case the removal decision was such as to give rise to a violation 
of  human  rights  (information  received  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Malta).  It  is  noted  that  the 

4 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
 
a  reform  in  2019,  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  significant  number  of  specialised  tribunals  continue  to  operate.  Many  of  these 
tribunals29  are  appointed  through  a  procedure  involving  the  executive  power.  The  Venice 
Commission  has  raised  concerns  regarding  the  operation  of  these  specialised  tribunals30, 
considering  that  they  do  not  enjoy  the  same  level  of  independence  as  that  of  the  ordinary 
judiciary, and reiterated in October 2020 its recommendations in that respect31. Stakeholders, 
including  the  Chamber  of  Advocates,  have  also  expressed  concerns32.  There  are  ongoing 
discussions  in  the  context  of  the  Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility  about  the  review  of  the 
independence of these specialised tribunals.  

Quality  

Important  gaps  exist 
in  the  digitalisation  of  the  justice  system,  which  the 
implementation of a forthcoming digital strategy could contribute to address. In 2020, a 
public consultation was announced on a digital strategy and an action plan, to be overseen by 
the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) of the Council of Europe and 
funded by the Structural Reform Support Programme. Following the consultation process, a 
draft digital strategy and action plan will be presented around mid-2021 to the Ministry for 
Justice. The implementation of the strategy is needed to address the current important gaps in 
the digitalisation of the justice system, as highlighted by stakeholders in particular as regards 
the limited possibility to file and follow a procedure by electronic means33. Areas that could 
be  further  strengthened  include  the  use  of  digital  technology  by  courts  and  prosecution 
services34,  the  use  of  electronic  communication  tools  by  courts35  and  by  the  prosecution 
service36, and digital solutions to conduct and follow court proceedings in criminal cases37. A 
law adopted in February 2021 allows the Minister for Justice to enact regulations that would 
allow for electronic filing of criminal judicial acts, to submit electronically notifications, and 
to  conduct  criminal  court  proceedings  online38.  In  order  to  face  the  COVID-19  pandemic, 

Commission for the Administration of Justice acts as the responsible body for investigating allegations for 
such removal. 

28   In practice the appointment of the Attorney General is made by the President acting upon a recommendation 
by  the  Prime  Minister  after  his  giving  due  consideration  to  the  recommendations  of  the  Appointment 
Commission. See also the 2020 Rule of Law Report: country chapter on the rule of law situation in Malta  – 
Part I, p. 5. 

29   See also 2020 Rule of Law Report: country chapter on the rule of law situation in Malta – Part I. 
30  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. 

31   Venice  Commission, CDL-AD(2020)019-e, para.  98; see also CDL-AD(2020)006 paras. 97-98; and CDL-

AD(2018)028 paras. 80-83.  

32   These concerns relate i.a. to the method of appointment of members of the tribunals. Information received 

from the Chamber of Advocates in the context of the country visit to Malta. 

33   Information received from the Chamber of Advocates in the context of the country visit to Malta. 
34   Figure 41, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
35   Figure 42, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
36   Figure 43, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
37   Figure 45, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
38   Act No. III of 2021.  

5 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
amendments  to  the  Code  of  Organization  and  Civil  Procedure  were  adopted  in  November 
2020 to allow civil proceedings to be held online39.  

Amendments  have  been  proposed  that  would  empower  administrative  authorities  to 
impose sanctions for violations currently decided by courts. In February 2021, legislative 
amendments40 were proposed that would regulate types of violations that could be considered 
to  be  of  criminal  nature  in  situations  where  a  public  authority  imposes  a  civil  penalty,  an 
administrative  fine,  or  other  civil  or  administrative  sanctions  or  measures41.  The  draft 
amendments  would  empower  administrative  authorities  to  impose  certain  sanctions  for 
violations  of  criminal  nature  that  currently  can  only  be  decided  by  judicial  authorities. 
Stakeholders have raised concerns in that respect, considering that these amendments might 
lead to violations of the right to fair trial, as they would lead to an increase in cases dealt with 
by  administrative  authorities  instead  of  by  courts,  and  because  the  amendments  proposed 
could  only  be  introduced  through  a  constitutional  amendment  and  not  through  statutory 
legislation  as  proposed  by  the  Government42.  In  its  Urgent  Opinion  of  1  June  2021,  the 
Venice  Commission  considered  that  the  proposed  reform  should  be  achieved  through  an 
amendment  of  the  constitution,  whilst  ensuring  further  clarification  as  regards  its  relations 
with Article 6 European Charter of Human Rights43. 

Efficiency 

The length of proceedings remains a serious concern44. The duration of litigious civil and 
commercial  cases  at  first  instance,  in  2019,  remained  very  long  (465  days),  showing  an 
increasing trend since 201745. The duration of these proceedings in appeal was also very long 
(875  days)  in  201946.  The  average  length  of  money  laundering  cases  remained  particularly 
long in 2019 (over 1350 days), even if with  a decreasing trend47. While the time needed to 
resolve  administrative  cases  at  first  instance  remained  lengthy,  it  has  shown  a  decreasing 
trend since 201748. The clearance rate for civil, commercial, administrative and other cases in 
2019 was below 100% and continued to decrease49. Serious concerns about the efficiency of 

39   Act No. LIII of 2020. 
40   Bill No. 198 An act to amend the interpretation act, cap. 249. In October 2020, legislative amendments (Bill 
166  of  2020)  were  proposed  to  Article  39  of  the  Constitution  to  affirm  that  regulatory  authorities  may 
impose  administrative  penalties  of  a  criminal  nature,  as  long  as,  the  decision  to  impose  such  penalties  is 
subject to the right of appeal before an independent and impartial court or tribunal established by law. The 
parliamentary two-thirds majority required to amend Article 39 was, however, not obtained. 

41   See Article 2 of Bill No. 198.  
42   Press Release of the Chamber of Advocates of 10 March 2021. Information received from the Chamber of 
Advocates and in the context of the country visit to Malta. According to the information received, the draft 
legislation could circumvent Article 39 of the constitution as interpreted by the Constitutional Court and, as 
such, it would warrant a constitutional amendment. 

43   Venice  Commission,  CDL-PI(2021)009,  paras.  96  –  104.  According  to  the  information  received  from  the 
Maltese  authorities,  the  Government  intends  to  propose  amendments  to  Bill  166  of  2020  and  resume  the 
parliamentary  debate  on  this  (i.e.  the  constitutional  amendment),  in  line  with  the  Urgent  Opinion  of  the 
Venice Commission. 

44   See also 2020 Rule of Law Report: country chapter on the rule of law situation in Malta – Part I. 
45   Figure 7, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
46   Figure 8, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
47   Figure 22, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
48   Figure 9, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
49   Figure 11, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 

6 

 
                                                 
the Maltese justice system were raised by stakeholders50. These concerns are exacerbated by 
the  COVID-19  pandemic  that  led  to  the  suspension  of  the  work  of  courts  for  a  period  in 
202051 and continues to hamper the activity of courts. In relation to criminal proceedings, in 
November  2020,  the  Minister  for  Justice  announced  amendments  to  speed  up  magisterial 
inquiries and criminal proceedings as well as to reduce the backlog in the Court of Appeal52. 
Moreover, a new law53 in the field of civil procedure has been enacted that would provide for 
a  shortening  of  the  compilation  of  evidence.  The  law  also  appears  to  aim  at  reducing  the 
backlog  of  cases  before  the  Court  of  Appeal  by  providing  the  possibility  for  the  appellate 
court to grant a hearing only when necessary. 

A  relatively  low  number  of  judges  and  magistrates  might  affect  the  efficiency  of  the 
justice system. The number of judges per capita is among the lowest in the EU54. While four 
judges were appointed in April 2021 to fill in existing vacancies, and four magistrates were 
appointed  in  June  2021, this  would  amount  to  an  increase  by  one  of  the  overall  number  of 
judges  and  magistrates,  as  most  vacancies  were  opened  to  replace  the  retired  or  promoted 
judges  and  magistrates55.  The  Association  of  Judges  and  Magistrates  has  called  on  the 
Government  to  appoint  at  least  six  new  magistrates  in  order  to  ensure  the  efficiency  of  the 
Maltese justice system56. 

II. 

ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK  

The  institutional  anti-corruption  framework  comprises  several  authorities.  The  Permanent 
Commission against Corruption is responsible for corruption prevention and for carrying out 
administrative  investigations  into  corrupt  practices.  The  Commissioner  for  Standards  in 
Public  Life  monitors  the  ethics  of  ministers,  parliamentary  secretaries  and  members  of 
Parliament.  Investigation and prosecution of economic crime, including corruption offences 
and  money  laundering,  are  under  the  competence  of  the  Police  (the  Financial  Crimes 
Investigation  Department)  and  the  Attorney  General  respectively.  The  latter  will,  during  a 
transition period between 2021 and 2024, take over the prosecution of all offences carrying a 
conviction of more than two years imprisonment. 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.  As  stated  in  the  2020  Rule  of  Law  Report,  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 carrying 
out wider rule of law reform57.  

50   Information  received  from  the  Chamber  of  Advocates  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Malta  and 

contribution received from Aditus Foundation following the country visit. 

51   See 2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Malta, p. 6. 
52   See  input  from  Malta  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  23  (submitted  following  the  country  visit).  In 
particular,  a  Bill  detailing  the  reform  of  the  compilation  of  evidence  proceedings  has  been  drafted  and  is 
expected to be presented to the Cabinet of Ministers soon. 
53   Act No. XXXII of 2021 - Justice Reform (Civil Procedure) Act. 
54   Figure 31, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. Malta had 8,7 judges per 100.000 inhabitants in 2019. 
55   Press Release of the Association of Judges and Magistrates of Malta, 22 April 2021. 
56   Ibid. 
57   2020 Rule of Law Report: country chapter on the rule of law situation in Malta – Part II. 

7 

 
                                                 
The perception among experts and business executives is that the level of corruption in 
the  public  sector  remains  relatively  high.  In  the  2020  Corruption  Perceptions  Index  by 
Transparency  International,  Malta  scores  53/100  and  ranks  15th  in  the  European  Union  and 
52th globally58. This perception has significantly decreased59 over the past five years60. 

A targeted National Anti-Fraud and Corruption Strategy for the period 2021-2024 was 
approved  by  the  Government  in  March  202161.  The  Cabinet  of  Ministers  approved  the 
strategy, which was notified publicly to the Parliament62 in May 2021. Its pillars are training 
and  education,  sharing  of 
institutional  cooperation  (domestically  and 
internationally),  as  well  as  accountability  on  public  financing63.  The  implementation  of  the 
strategy  is  coordinated  by  a  committee  chaired  by  the  Internal  Audit  and  Investigations 
Department  (IAID).  Representatives  of  the  Ombudsman  office,  the  private  sector,  civil 
society  and  non-governmental  organisations  regretted  not  having  been  invited  or  consulted 
prior to the adoption of the strategy64.  

information, 

While  investigative  and  prosecution  bodies  have  improved  their  capacity  to  deal  with 
corruption cases, as shown by an increase in the number of cases opened, investigations 
continue to be lengthy depending on their complexity and a track record of convictions 
in high-level cases remains to be established65. Since October 2020, the Attorney General 
has taken over the prosecution of certain serious crimes66, including high-level corruption. A 
total  of  14  prosecutors  are  dedicated  to  financial  crimes  and,  since  the  second  quarter  of 
2020, a task force on complex financial crimes has been in place67. The number of financial 

58  Transparency  International,  Corruption  Perceptions  Index  2020  (2021),  pp.  2-3.  The  level  of  perceived 
corruption is categorised as  follows: low (the perception among experts and business executives of public 
sector  corruption scores  above  79);  relatively  low  (scores  between  79-60),  relatively  high  (scores  between 
59-50), high (scores below 50). 

59   In 2015 the score was 60, while, in 2020, the score is 53. The score significantly increases/decreases when it 
changes  more  than  five  points;  improves/deteriorates  (changes  between  4-5  points);  is  relatively  stable 
(changes from 1-3 points) in the last five years. 

60   The Eurobarometer data on corruption perception and experience of citizens and businesses as reported last 
year is updated every second year. The latest data set is the Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020) and the Flash 
Eurobarometer 482 (2019). 

investigation 

61   The  strategy  aims  at  having  a  “normative,  institutional  and  operational  framework  for  the  effective  and 
efficient fight against irregularities, fraud and corruption in Malta” and “to reduce irregularities, fraud and 
corruption  to  the  barest  minimum,  and  to  enable  a  framework  that  facilitates  deterrence,  detection, 
corruption” 
identification, 
(https://parlament.mt/media/112504/06624.pdf).  The  strategy  is  the  result  of  discussions  held  by  a 
Coordinating Committee set-up in terms of the Internal Audit and Financial Investigations Act, (Chapter 461 
of  the  Laws  of  Malta),  consisting  of  several  institutional  representatives  (namely  the  Office  of  the  Prime 
Minister; the Ministry for Justice, Equality and Governance; the Ministry for Finance and Employment; the 
Ministry  for  Home  Affairs,  National  Security  and  Law  Enforcement;  and  the  Principal  Permanent 
Secretary). Information received in the context of the country visit to Malta.  

prosecution 

instances 

fraud 

62   Parliament of Malta (2021), Paper Laid No. 6624, National Anti-Fraud and corruption Strategy, published 

and 

and 

of 

of 

by the Office of the Prime Minister, dated May 2021 (https://parlament.mt/en/paper-laid/?id=34616).  

63   Maltese Government (2021), National Anti-Fraud and Corruption Strategy. 
64   Information received in the context of the country visit to Malta. 
65   2020 Rule of Law Report: country chapter on the rule of law situation in Malta – Part II. 
66   In  accordance  with  the  Prosecution  of  Offences  (Transitory  Provisions)  Regulations,  2020  (L.N.  378  of 
2020),  this  includes  terrorism,  money-laundering,  bribery,  corruption,  fraud  and  misappropriation,  and 
evasion of customs duty. 

67   Information received in the context of the country visit to Malta. 

8 

 
                                                 
crimes  cases  investigated  and  solved  has  increased  substantially68,  following  the  recent 
increase of resources and capacity of the financial crimes investigations department (FCID) 
that  took  place  between  2019  and  September  202069.  However,  the  investigation  and 
prosecution  of  corruption  remains  a  lengthy  process,  especially  in  those  cases  that  require 
large  financial  data  analysis  or  that  are  considered  complex70.  There  are  currently  several 
high-level corruption cases that remain pending before the court. 

New  measures  were  introduced  to  improve  integrity  in  the  Police.  In  September  2020, 
under  the  lead  of  the  newly  appointed  Police  Commissioner71,  the  Police  launched  a 
Transformation  Strategy  for  the  years  2020-202572,  aimed  at  strengthening  anti-corruption 
measures73.  The  Police  has  implemented  a  policy  regulating  Business  Interests  and 
Additional Occupations, whose monitoring is the mandate of the Evaluation Board, appointed 
by  the  Police  Commissioner74.  In  2020,  the  Police  Act75  was  amended  in  order  to  allow 
police officers to make anonymous reports on breach of integrity within the police. However, 
the effectiveness of this measure will depend on its actual implementation. 

Although the independence of the Permanent Commission against Corruption has been 
strengthened,  clear  results  of  recent  reforms  are  still  missing.  The  Permanent 
Commission against Corruption (PCAC) is responsible for the prevention of corruption in the 
public administration and can conduct administrative investigations. As reported in 2020, the 
PCAC underwent a structural reform76 aimed at improving the appointment procedure of its 
three  commissioners  and  extending  the  scope  of  its  investigative  competences.  While  the 
PCAC  may  request  the  assistance  of  the  Police in  the  conduct  of  investigations,  the  PCAC 
has  no  in-house  investigators  nor  data  analysts;  its  resources  remain  limited,  and  concerns 
regarding its capacity to conduct impactful inquiries therefore persist77. Police investigations 

68   In terms of investigations (about 245% increase), cases solved (about 280% increase), number of cases and 
persons  prosecuted  (about  50%  and  173%  increase,  respectively).  Input  from  Malta  for  the  2021  Rule  of 
Law Report. 

69   See 2020 Rule of Law Report: Chapter for Malta – Part II.  
70   Complexity  due  to  the  extraterritoriality  of  some  suspects  or  the  facts  occurred  that  may  demand  a  joint-
action or collaboration with foreign jurisdictions. Information received in the context of the country visit to 
Malta. 

71   In 2020, the Police Commissioner  was appointed in accordance  with the recently amended procedure. For 
further details, see the 2020 Rule of Law Report: country chapter on the rule of law situation in Malta – Part 
II.  

72   Input from Malta for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. The desired outcomes are as follows: i) increase in trust, 
confidence, legitimacy and responsiveness externally from the perspective of the community, and  internally 
from  that  of  police  officers  and  staff;  ii)  transformation  of  the  current  police  organisation  into  a  flexible, 
efficient, data-driven, community centric, outcome focused and modern Police Force; and iii) innovation and 
sustainment of the positive changes resulting from reform through leadership and management practices that 
are both effective and efficient. Eleven strategic objectives have been identified based on the three desired 
outcomes.  

73   The implementation of this strategy is monitored by the Police Governance Board. Input from Malta for the 

2021 Rule of Law Report. 

74   The Evaluation Board assesses whether or not a business interest or employment may be allowed as it could 
conflict with work of police officers, or negatively affect the reputation of the Police or the officer’s ability 
to execute his/her duties impartially. This Policy also provides a definition of a business interest as well as 
the procedure which an officer must follow to be granted leave to pursue such business interest.  In case of 
breach of policy, the officer will be liable to disciplinary action. 
75   The Police Act (Amendment of Second Schedule) Regulations, 2020. 
76   Act No. XLVI of 2020 - Permanent Commission Against Corruption (Amendment) Act. 
77   See the 2020 Rule of Law Report: Chapter for Malta – Part II. 

9 

 
                                                 
and PCAC assessments can moreover be very lengthy78. In 2020, the PCAC examined four 
cases  of  corruption,  and  two  cases  at  the  beginning  of  2021.  However,  there  is  no  detailed 
information  on  the  workload  of  the  PCAC79.  To  date,  very  few  whistleblowers  have 
addressed their complaints to the PCAC80. Once the examination of a file is concluded, the 
PCAC  can  close  the  case,  or  forward  it  to  the  Attorney  General81.  In  case  the  Attorney 
General  decides  not  to  prosecute,  the  PCAC  may  challenge  that  decision82.  Since  August 
202083, the PCAC has forwarded two cases to the Attorney General’s office84. 

New provisions allow the Auditor General to notify its findings to the prosecution. The 
Internal  Audit  and  Investigations  Department  (IAID)  is  responsible  for  auditing  all 
governmental  departments,  including  verification  on  financial  books  of  public  institutions 
and  on  conflicts  of  interest  of  public  officials85.  The  office  of  the  Auditor  General  has 
competence to audit the accounts of public departments, including state-owned enterprises86. 
On  15  March  2021,  amendments  to  the  Auditor  General  and  National  Audit  Office  Act87 
were  adopted  which  provide  that,  under  specific  circumstances,  the  Auditor  General  may 
refer their findings directly to the Attorney General88.  

The mandate of the Ombudsperson, who is responsible for the integrity of civil servants, 
has  expired.  The  Ombudsman  office89  is  entitled  to  conduct  investigations  on  officers  and 
institutions performing administrative functions, including for cases of corruption, which are 
forwarded to the Attorney General. The Ombudsman office has the right to appeal against a 
decision of the Attorney General not to prosecute a case of corruption. To date, this right has 

78   Police  investigations  are  known  to  have  taken  up  to  five  years  and  the  PCAC  does  not  have  standard 
operating procedures  prescribing the duration of  a case under its examination. Information received in the 
context of the country visit to Malta. 

79   Such  as  information  on  the  number  of  whistleblower  reports  received,  investigations,  hearings  performed 
yearly, or the number and types of cases concluded, classified or forwarded to the Ministry of Justice or the 
Attorney General’s office. 

80   Information received in the context of the country visit to Malta. As noted in the 2020 Rule of Law Report, 
the  Protection  of  the  Whistleblower  Act  of  2013  covers  both  the  private  and  the  public  sector  requiring 
employers  to  nominate  whistleblower  reporting  officers  and  containing  provisions  against  retaliation  for 
employees who make a protected disclosure. 

81   According to the ACT No. XLVI of 2020 [former Bill No. 143], the case shall be forwarded to the Attorney 

general if “the conduct investigated is corrupt or connected with or conducive to corrupt practices”. 

82   Act No. XLI of 2020 [former Bill No. 154]. However, in its opinion of October 2020 (CDL-AD(2020)019-e) 
the Venice Commission suggested to give those with injured party status82 (including the PCAC) the right to 
contest the decision of the AG of non-prosecution “independently of whether they themselves reported to the 
Attorney General or not”. 

83   New Permanent Commission Against Corruption Act, modified by the Act No. XLVI of 2020.  
84   Input from Malta for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 
85   IAID has a staff of 20 audit officers, in addition to a secretariat divided into 4 departments, including one for 

investigations (with three investigators).  

86   The  Auditor  General  office  has  a  personnel  of  50  auditors.  In  2020,  40  compliance  audits  and  seven 
performance audits were conducted, and 19 reports were published (On the webpage of the National Audit 
Office (https://nao.gov.mt/en/recent-publications), for a total of 120 audited entities. Information received in 
the context of the country visit to Malta. 

87   Auditor General and National Audit Office (Amendment) Act 74. 
88   In its opinion of October 2020 on this draft bill, the Venice Commission recommended using wording such 

as “connected with or conducive to” corruption. CDL-AD(2020)019-e. 

89   For further information see part IV below.  

10 

 
                                                 
not  been  exercised90.  The  mandate  of  the  current  Ombudsperson  expired  in  March  2021, 
therefore the current Chair continues to serve until a successor is nominated91. 

The ethics rules for high-ranking officials, members of Parliament and ministers are in 
place,  including  on  asset  disclosure  and  lobbying,  although  further  changes  are 
envisaged in the integrity framework. The Commissioner for Standards in Public Life (“the 
Commissioner”)  monitors  the  ethical  conduct  of  ministers,  parliamentary  secretaries  and 
members of Parliament. The regulation on lobbying and the codes of ethics for ministers and 
members of Parliament are currently under review92. In 2020, the Commissioner presented a 
report on the Code of Ethics93, which remains to be considered by Parliament94. Every year, 
members  of  Parliament  and  ministers  submit  their  declaration  of  assets  to  the  office  of  the 
Speaker  of  the  Assembly,  while  the  Commissioner  performs  the  verifications.  The 
Commissioner  is  currently  following  up  on  eight  cases  of  potential  conflicts  of  interest  for 
members of Parliament95.  

Rules  of  ethics  applicable  to  persons  of  trust  have  been  amended  but  concerns  were 
raised on the feasibility and the effectiveness of controls. Persons of trust are required to 
submit the basic asset disclosure96. Recommendations for amendments of the draft law on the 
appointment of persons of trust were issued by both the Venice Commission and the Group 
of States against Corruption (GRECO)97. Since March 2021, following the adoption of a clear 
legal  basis  for  their  appointment98,  a  public  official  seconded  to  another  administration 
remains bound to the regulations applicable to the public administration of origin. However, 
the  Commissioner  for  Standards  in  Public  Life  has  voiced  concerns  on  the  feasibility  and 
effectiveness  of  the  control  on  the  ethics  of  persons  of  trust,  especially  for  those  that  work 
more closely with or under a minister99.  

90   Information received in the context of the country visit to Malta. 
91   Information received in the context of the country visit to Malta. The appointed Ombudsperson will have to 
be supported “by the votes of no less than two-thirds of all the members of the House” (this in accordance 
2020, 
in 
with 
https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-REF(2020)055-e). 

Constitution, 

amended 

article 

64A2 

the 

of 

92   Information  received  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Malta.  The  project’s  goals  are  to  review  the 
existing codes of ethics and, based on recommendations, review and improve the proposal for the regulation 
of lobbying, including the register of integrity, which contains the declarations of assets and positions. 

93   For Members of the House of Representatives and for Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries. 
94   Input from Malta for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 
95   Information received in the context of the country visit to Malta. 
96   In compliance with the Code of ethics for public employees Appended to the Public Administration Act. 
97   CDL-AD(2020)019-e,  where  the  Venice  Commission  considered  that  “two  issues  needed  to  be  regulated 
directly in the law: the maximum number and the duration of such engagements” (i.e. persons of trust). In its 
Fifth  Evaluation  Round  On  “Preventing  corruption  and  promoting  integrity  in  central  governments  (top 
executive  functions) and law  enforcement agencies”, published on 3 April 2019 by the  Council of Europe 
Group  of  States  against  Corruption  (GRECO):  “recommends  that  measures  be  taken  to  solve  the  legal 
situation of persons of trust and to limit the number of such discretionarily appointed officials to an absolute 
minimum”. 

98   Act No. XVI of 2021, to provide for the amendment of the laws relative  to the appointment of persons of 
trust.  Today,  the  persons  of  trust  are  only  those  individuals  that  come  from  the  private  sector,  and  are 
appointed  to  a  temporary  position  in  the  public  administration.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  a  public  official  is 
temporarily  seconded  to  another  public  service  (such  as  a  Ministry  or  any  other  institution),  s/he  is  not 
considered by the law a person of trust stricto sensu. 

99   In practice, the control on the ethics (including conflicts of interests and external positions) of a seconded 
public official is mandated to the appointing authority,  which creates possible conflict of interest, between 
the controller and the controlled person. Information received in the context of the country visit.  

11 

 
                                                 
The individual investor programme, allowing for the granting of citizenship in exchange 
for pre-determined payments and investments, has been replaced by  a new scheme100. 
Documents  published  by  different  media  sources  under  the  project  name  “passport  papers” 
raised doubts about the compliance of applicants for the individual investor programme with 
the  programme’s  requirements101.  The  European  Commission  launched  an  infringement 
procedure against Malta in relation to the previous and the new investor citizenship scheme 
as regards compliance with EU law102. 

Specific  guidance  has  been  put  in  place  to  mitigate  the  risks  of  corruption  in  public 
procurement  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  In  2020,  the  Department  for  Contracts 
within the Ministry for Finance and Employment implemented the Procurement of Property 
Regulations103,  published  on  30  April  2020,  including  provisions  against  corruption  and 
collusion104.  The  Department  for  Contracts  has  also  implemented  an  online  post-contract 
module,  within  the  official  public  procurement  portal105,  aimed  at  preventing  conflicts  of 
interest in tendering procedures.  

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM AND MEDIA FREEDOM 

Freedom of expression is enshrined in the Constitution of Malta106, 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  overall  positive  overhaul  of 
defamation  laws.  The  Constitution  sets  out  the  composition,  appointment  and  removal 
procedures  and  independence  of  the  Broadcasting  Authority  and  lays  down  its  basic 
functions107. The Freedom of Information Act establishes the legal framework for access to 
information  held  by  public  authorities108.  Legislation  was  enacted  in  2020  to  transpose  the 
Audiovisual Media Service Directive109 into Maltese law. 

Amendments to Malta’s Broadcasting Act have not brought about any changes which 
would strengthen the independence and functioning of the Broadcasting Authority. The 
members of the Broadcasting Authority are appointed by the President, following the advice 

100  The  individual  investor  programme  allowed  for  the  naturalisation  of  up  to  1,800  investors,  excluding 
dependents, in exchange for substantial investments (Regulation 12 of the Individual Investor Programme of 
the Republic of Malta Regulations, 2014). The scheme was repealed following the enactment of the Maltese 
Citizenship (Amendment No. 2) Act, 2020 (Act XXXVIII of 2020). The provisions concerning the granting 
of citizenship by means of the Individual Investor Programme are therefore no longer in force and replaced 
by  the  “Maltese  Citizenship  by  Naturalisation  for  Exceptional  Services  by  Direct  Investment”  scheme, 
established  by  the  Granting  of  Citizenship  for  Exceptional  Services  Regulations,  2020.  The  new  scheme 
allows  for  the  naturalisation  of  up  to  400  investors  annually  and  1,500  investors  in  total,  excluding 
dependents, in exchange for substantial investments. Input from Malta for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

101  Times of Malta ‘Exposed: the great residency sham to obtain a Maltese passport’ of 22 April 2021. 
102  Commission press releases IP 20/1925 and INF/21/2743. On 20 October 2020, the Commission adopted a 
letter  of  formal  notice  concerning  the  investor  citizenship  scheme  and,  upon  its  change,  the  Commission 
adopted,  on  9  June  2021,  an  additional  letter  of  formal  notice  to  expand  the  concerns  to  the  new  scheme 
operated by Malta. 

103  Subsidiary legislation 601.03, Public procurement regulations.  
104  See article 187 of Subsidiary legislation 601.03, Public procurement regulations. 
105  http://www.etenders.gov.mt.  
106  Article 41 of the Constitution.  
107 Articles 118 and 119 of the Constitution.  
108  Malta maintained its 81st position worldwide in the Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index. 

This means that the country is ranked 25th in the EU. 

109  Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of 14 November 2018. 

12 

 
                                                 
of the Prime Minister and after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. Although the 
authority’s five board members are all political appointees,  given that it has clearly defined 
responsibilities  at  law  and  is  generally  transparent  about  its  activities,  the  Media  Pluralism 
Monitor  2021  considers  the  independence  and  the  effectiveness  of  the  authority  to  present 
low risk110. Act No. LVI of 2020, which amended the Broadcasting Act to align it with the 
Audiovisual Media Service Directive, has introduced no changes relating to the independence 
of the Broadcasting Authority111. 

Concerns  with  regard  to  political  party  ownership  of  and  influence  on  the  work  of 
several media outlets and broadcasters persist. The two main political parties represented 
in Parliament112 effectively own, control or manage a number of Maltese media outlets and 
broadcasters,  including  online  news  portals.  MPM  2021  considers  that  this  state  of  affairs 
means that these two parties “actively contribute towards shaping the working environment 
for journalists” while their media outlets are “a major influence on public discourse”113. This 
leads MPM  2021 to  once more  consider political independence of the media to  be at acute 
high risk in the country114. As pointed out in MPM 2020 and reiterated in MPM 2021115 the 
Broadcasting  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”. In the light of this state of affairs, a constitutional case has been 
lodged  to  challenge  a  proviso  of  Section  13(2)  of  the  Broadcasting  Act  and  the  regulator’s 
application of this proviso which, it is argued, consolidates a polarised media landscape116.  

Minor changes were made to the statute of the Institute of Maltese Journalists (IGM). 
The  IGM,  the  professional  journalists’  organisation  in  the  country,  which  was  founded  in 
1989, unanimously approved a number of amendments to its statute (including an increase of 
its board members and additional scrutiny of its finances) proposed by the Commissioner for 
Voluntary Organisations117. While MPM 2020 had pointed out that the institute is generally 
not considered as being effective in safeguarding editorial independence118, MPM 2021 notes 
a change in approach over the past  year during which the institute has “become more vocal 
about  the  needs  of  its  members,  as  well  as  proactive  in  addressing  any  obstacles  faced  by 
journalists in the carrying out of their duties.”119.  

There have been no developments with regard to media ownership transparency and no 
legislative changes are planned. The Broadcasting Authority gathers ownership information 
of  media  outlets,  but  there  are  no  obligations  to  make  this  easily  accessible  to  the  public. 
Given the relatively small size of the media market, the public is largely aware of who owns 
media companies in the country. Consequently, MPM 2021 maintains its medium risk score 

110  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, Country Report on Malta pp. 10-11.  
111  Act No. LVI of 2020 amending the Broadcasting Act, Cap. 350. 
112  The ruling Partit Laburista (PL) and opposition Partit Nazzjonalista (PN). 
113  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, Country Report on Malta p. 7.  
114  Ibid, p. 14. 
115  Ibid, p. 11. 
116  Case 47/2021 - Lovin Malta Ltd. et vs. the State Advocate, lodged on 1 February 2021. 
117  Input  from  Malta  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  47  and  information  received  in  the  context  of  the 

country visit to Malta, 19 April 2021. 

118  2020 Media Pluralism Monitor, Country Report on Malta, p. 11. 
119  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, Country Report on Malta, p. 10. 

13 

 
                                                 
in  terms  of  media  ownership  transparency120.  The  Broadcasting  Act  contains  specific 
limitations to prevent a high degree of horizontal ownership concentration in the audiovisual 
media sector. However lack of complete data makes it difficult to make a full assessment121. 

The  lack  of  a  legal  framework  regulating  state  advertising  continues  to  provide  room 
for  abuse  both  by  the  Government  and  by  individual  politicians.  This  emerges  from 
investigations  conducted  by  Malta’s  Commissioner  for  Standards  in  Public  Life  relating  to 
the  allocation  of  public  funds  for  alleged  political  advertising  in  print  media  by  a  sitting 
government minister122. Draft guidelines on government advertising and promotional material 
were issued for the first time by the Commissioner for Standards in Public life in June 2021 
and are pending consultation123. 

In April 2020, Malta Enterprise launched  a support scheme for news media providers 
to  cushion  the  adverse  effects  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  The  scheme,  which  by 
February 2021 had distributed a little over EUR 1.2 million in funds, was designed to assist 
media  operators  which  employ  at  least  four  full-time  journalists  and  which  provide  daily 
news  services.  Several  major  independent  media  houses  have  defended  the  scheme.  Other 
stakeholders, including certain other independent media houses and outlets, have commented 
that  the  scheme  lacked  transparency  in  terms  of  the  criteria  used  to  determine  the  amounts 
allocated and that it was designed in a manner that would benefit media houses owned by the 
political parties124. MPM 2021 reports that several freedom of information requests made on 
the matter remained unanswered125. For the above-mentioned reasons MPM 2021 maintains 
its  medium  risk  score  in  terms  of  state  regulation  of  resources  and  support  for  the  media 
sector126. 

The  Government  has  started  a  review  of  the  legal  framework  enabling  access  to 
information  held  by  public  authorities.  The  Freedom  of  Information  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  information  held  by  public  authorities127.  Any 
refusal  to  provide access must be motivated and can be appealed. Journalists, NGOs128 and 
MPM  2021  report  that  journalists  consistently  encounter  difficulties  when  requesting  such 
access,  due  to  outright  rejection,  significant  delays  and  absence  of  reply.  The  IGM  has 
furthermore  pointed  out  that  public  authorities  habitually  initially  deny  full  access  to 
information  and  data  while  also  raising  concerns  with  regard  to  the  handling  of  certain 
COVID-19  related  press  conferences  during  which 
journalists  questions  were  not 
broadcast129. For these reasons MPM 2021 has significantly increased the risk score for this 
area  albeit  maintaining  it  within  the  medium  risk  band130.  The  Government  has  announced 

120  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, Country Report on Malta, p. 12. 
121  MPM  2021  reports  in  particular  a  general  lack  of  data  pertaining  to  the  market  share  of  individual  news 

outlets apart from the audience ratings of the top four television stations. 

122  Commissioner for Standards in Public Life, Case Report of 17 March 2021, No. K/028.  
123  https://standardscommissioner.com/wp-content/uploads/draft-guidelines-government-advertising-

promotional-material.pdf 

124  Information received from several stakeholders in the context of the country visit to Malta. 
125  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, Country Report on Malta, pp. 15-16. 
126  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, Country Report, Malta, p. 15. 
127  Freedom and Information Act of 2008, as amended in 2012 (Chapter 496 of the Laws of Malta). 
128  Contribution from NGOs Aditus Foundation for the 2021 Rule of Law Report and information received from 

several stakeholders in the context of the country visit to Malta. 
129  Information received in the context of the country visit to Malta. 
130  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, Country Report, Malta, p. 10. 

14 

 
                                                 
that  in  the  light  of  GRECO  Recommendations  on  the  matter131,  an  independent  study  was 
launched in January 2021 to examine the issue.  

The public inquiry established to determine whether the state bears any responsibility 
for the circumstances that led to the assassination of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia 
continued hearing testimonies132. In the course of 2020 and 2021, the public inquiry pointed 
to  what  some  stakeholders  qualified  as  worrying  instances  of  political  interference,  police 
cover-up and collusion with criminals133. A submission to the public inquiry authored by the 
international free speech organisation Article 19 and supported by several international press 
associations  concludes 
its 
recommendations  implemented  “it  has  the  potential  to  form  an  important  precedent  for 
achieving justice for journalists globally” adding that the work of the inquiry “is essential for 
ensuring reparations for the victim, her family and Maltese society”134. 

is  completed  and 

the  mandate  of 

inquiry 

that 

the 

if 

Journalists continue to face a number of challenges in the exercise of their profession. 
This  has  been  confirmed  by  journalists,  the  IGM,  MPM  as  well  as  NGOs135  though  MPM 
2021 registers a slight reduction of risk compared to MPM 2020136. The Council of Europe 
Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  the  safety  of  journalists  reported  two 
new  alerts  in  2020137,  which  are  yet  to  be  resolved,  relating  to  the  opening  of  SLAPP138 
lawsuits by a British-Azerbaijani businessman against five Maltese media outlets and to the 
alleged  bribery  of  a  Times  of  Malta  journalist.  Both  alerts  are  related,  respectively,  to 
investigative  journalism  conducted  by  Daphne  Caruana  Galizia  and  to  the  criminal 
proceedings related to her assassination139. The IGM has raised concerns with regard to what 
it terms ‘the normalisation of ridicule and derision’ of journalists on social media140.  

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 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 Ombudsperson.  

131  GRECO (2019), Fifth Evaluation Round - Evaluation Report. 
132  On 15 July 2021 the board of inquiry announced that it had drawn up the report which it would first send to 
the Prime Minister and to the State Advocate and subsequently to Ms Caruana Galizia’s family. The date of 
publication will be announced at a later date. 
133  Reporters Without Borders, 2021 report on Malta.  
134  Article 19 (2021), Public Inquiry into the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia, Written submission, 31 

March 2021.  

135  Contribution  from  Aditus  Foundation  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report  and  information  received  from 

several stakeholders in the context of the country visit to Malta. 
136  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, Country Report, Malta, pp. 9-10. 
137  Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists. 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. 

138  Strategic lawsuit against public participation. 
139  Council  of  Europe,  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists  (Media 

freedom alerts). 

140  Information received in the context of the country visit to Malta. 

15 

 
                                                 
Checks and balances in the procedure of appointment and removal of the President of 
Malta were strengthened.  The reform  adopted  in  July 2020 provides that  the President  of 
Malta is elected by a two-thirds majority in Parliament, instead of a simple majority. This is 
in  line  with  the  opinions  of  the  Venice  Commission,  which  nonetheless  also  called  for 
providing for an anti-deadlock mechanism, currently absent141. In addition, the removal of the 
President  now  requires  a  two-thirds  majority  in  Parliament  and  can  only  be  decided  on  the 
grounds of a proved inability to perform functions of the office142 or “proved misbehaviour”. 
While  welcoming  the  reform,  the  Venice  Commission  recommended  that  the  President 
should  have  a  right  of  appeal  to  the  Constitutional  Court  against  a  finding  of  such 
misbehaviour, ideally before the final vote in Parliament143. 

The  strengthened  role  of  the  Ombudsperson  could  be  further  enhanced  and  the  draft 
law  establishing  a  national  human  rights  institution  is  still  under  discussion  in 
Parliament. A reform adopted in June 2020 brought the rules on appointment144, suspension 
and dismissal of the Ombudsperson at the constitutional level. In its October 2020 Opinion, 
the  Venice  Commission  welcomed  the  reform,  while  making  a  number  of  additional 
recommendations145,  in  particular  recommending  that  the  Ombudsperson  enjoy  a  right  to 
judicial  review  of  the  decision  on  his  dismissal  due  to  “proved  misbehaviour”146.  The 
incumbent  Ombudsperson  regretted  the  lack  of  consultation  on  the  reform,  whilst  making 
proposals  to  further  strengthen  this  Office147.  Furthermore,  the  Ombudsperson  raised 
concerns as regards a lack of follow-up to his recommendations and proposed that Parliament 
should  be  bound  to  discuss  the  opinions  submitted148.  The  mandate  of  the  current 
Ombudsperson expired on 21 March 2021, but no successor has been nominated by the date 
of  publishing  this  report149.  The  proposal  to  establish  a  national  human  rights  institution, 
proposed in 2019, is still being discussed in Parliament.  

independent 
A  constitutional  reform  concerning  the  appointments  to  certain 
commissions  has  been  adopted  The  reform  adopted  on  24  March  2021150  provided  that 

141  Venice Commission, CDL-AD(2020)019-e, para. 44.  
142  Whether arising from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause. 
143  Venice Commission, CDL-AD(2020)019-e, para. 45.  
144  An  Act to amend various laws  with the aim of reforming the procedure by  which the appointments of the 
Principal  Permanent  Secretary  and  Permanent  Secretaries  are  made.  See  also  2020  Rule  of  Law  Report: 
country chapter on the rule of law situation in Malta – Part IV. 

145  The Venice Commission noted that the threshold conditioning the Ombudsperson’s exercise of its power to 
refer  potential  evidence  of  a  corrupt  practice  directly  to  the  Attorney  General  is  too  high  (the  current 
threshold  conditioning  the  power  of  the  Ombudsman  is  high  as  this  power  can  be  exercised  only  if  the 
Ombudsman possesses  ‘evidence of any corrupt practice’ instead of, as recommended, ‘connected  with or 
conducive  to  [any  corrupt  practice]’).  Moreover,  according  to  the  Venice  Commission  the  Ombudsperson 
should not only be empowered, but indeed obliged to report corrupt practices to the Attorney General and 
the right to file a complaint to the Ombudsperson should not be limited to persons who claim to have been 
victims  of  any  wrongdoing.  Furthermore,  the  Ombudsman  could  enjoy  the  necessary  support  and 
cooperation from the Government. See Venice Commission, CDL-AD(2020)019-e, paras. 67, 69, 71. 

146  Venice Commission, CDL-AD(2020)019-e, para. 67. 
147  Information received from the Ombudsperson in the context of the country visit to Malta. 
148  Ombudsman  Annual  Report  of  2019.  In  this  regard,  the  Venice  Commission  recommended  inscribing  the 

power of the Ombudsman’s right to information in the constitution. 

149  Pending  the  appointment  of  a  new  office  holder,  the  incumbent  Ombudsperson  continues  in  office. 
Following attempts to find a candidate between the government and the opposition parties, on 16 May 2021 
media reported that no agreement was reached. Further consultations in that respect are ongoing. 

150  See also 2020 Rule of Law Report: country chapter on the rule of law situation in Malta – Part IV, p. 15. 

16 

 
                                                 
powers relating to the appointment of a number of independent commissions151 will now be 
vested  in  the  Cabinet  of  Ministers,  instead  of  the  Prime  Minister.  The  Venice  Commission 
welcomed  the  reform  as  a  positive  step,  making  recommendations  as  regards  the  exact 
formulation  to  be  used  in  this  regard152.  The  Venice  Commission  also  reiterated  its 
recommendation to strengthen the appointment procedures of the Electoral Commission, the 
Public  Service  Commission  and  the  Broadcasting  Authority153.  The  Government  plans  to 
discuss  this  matter  in  the  context  of  the  Constitutional  Convention.  Due  to  the  current 
COVID-19 pandemic, the timing of the Convention has not  yet  been decided. Civil  society 
organisations  have  underlined  the  need  for  information  about  the  timing,  process  and 
participation to the Convention154.  

Reforms  proposed  in  2020  as  regards  the  appointment  of  persons  exercising  top 
executive functions in the public administration were adopted155. On 24 March 2021, an 
amendment was adopted establishing a clear basis for the appointment of persons of trust156. 
Another amendment, adopted on 24 May 2021, ensures 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 requirements157. These amendments aim at following up on recommendations 
of the Venice Commission and GRECO158. 

There is a need to ensure consistent follow-up of judgments of the Constitutional Court 
where laws are found to be unconstitutional. According to the Maltese constitutional order, 
judgments  of  the  Constitutional  Court  do  not  have  erga  omnes  effect.  Laws  found 
unconstitutional  remain  in  force  until  Parliament  repeals  them.  The  Venice  Commission 
found  that  in  practice  Parliament  does  not  seem  to  consistently  ensure  such  follow  up  and 
recommended in that respect159 to introduce an obligation for Parliament to repeal or amend 
within  a  limited  time-frame  provisions  found  unconstitutional.  There  are  currently  no 
initiatives planned to address this issue160. 

151  These  comprise  the  Central  Bank  of  Malta,  the  Information  and  Data  Protection  Commissioner,  the 
Chairman of the Malta Financial Services Authority and the members of the Board of the Arbitration Centre. 
152  The Venice Commission noted that the wording remains weak (‘giving due consideration’). The formulation 
used elsewhere is: ‘acting on the advice of the Cabinet of Ministers’ or ‘after obtaining the approval of the 
Cabinet of Ministers’. Venice Commission, CDL-AD(2020)019-e, para. 84.  

153  Venice Commission, CDL-AD(2020)019-e, para. 85. 
154  Information and contribution received in the context of the country visit to Malta. 
155  2020 Rule of Law Report: Chapter for Malta – Part IV, p. 9. 
156  2020 Act to provide for the amendment of laws relative to the appointment of persons of trust. 
157  An  Act to amend various laws  with the aim of reforming the procedure by  which the appointments of the 

Principal Permanent Secretary and Permanent Secretaries are made. 

158  Venice  Commission  Opinion  (CDL-AD(2020)006),  paras.  115-129;  GRECO  (2019),  Fifth  Evaluation 

Round, Evaluation Report, paras. 24-26. 

159  See also See 2020 Rule of Law Report: country chapter on the rule of law situation in Malta – Part I, p. 15. 
Venice  Commission,  CDL-AD(2020)019-e,  para. 98, CDL-AD(2020)006,  para.  80-84  and CDL-
AD(2018)028, para. 74-79.  The  Venice  Commission  noted  that  it  is  up  to  Parliament  to  repeal  or  amend 
laws found unconstitutional. According to the Venice Commission, ‘in practice, this seems not to happen in 
all  cases  and  the  Constitutional  Court  is  faced  with  repetitive  cases,  because  the  administration  –  and 
sometimes even judges, it seems – continue to apply the provisions found unconstitutional’. 

160  The Maltese Government considers that ensuring the erga omnes effect of Constitutional Court’s judgments 
would not comply with principles of the Maltese legal system. Aditus Foundation raised concerns as regards 
the  absence  of  the  erga  omnes  effect  and  compliance  with  Article  6  ECHR  (information  received  in  the 
context of the country visit to Malta). It is also noted that in accordance with Article 242 of the Code of the 

17 

 
                                                 
 
A  reflection  on  the  role  of  Parliament  could  be  addressed  in  the  context  of  the 
Constitutional  Convention.  The  Venice  Commission  reiterated  the  recommendations  in 
respect of Parliament, notably to provide sufficient research capacity for individual Members 
of  Parliament  (MPs),  independent  legal  advice  for  such  Members  and  ensuring  that 
backbench Members of Parliament are made less dependent from government posts161. In that 
respect,  the  Government  announced  its  intention  to  discuss,  in  the  context  of  the 
constitutional reform, whether MPs should be given the choice between working full-time or 
part-time162. Discussions regarding the allocation of additional funds for the engagement of 
research officers by each parliamentary group are ongoing. 

Challenges  remain  in  the  law-making  process  as  regards  the  limited  use  of  evidence-
based  instruments  and  effectiveness  of  public  consultations163.  Previous  concerns  about 
the  limited  use  of  public  consultations  remain  valid  with  regard  to  the  reforms  adopted  in 
June  2020164.  Civil  society  organisations  have  also  raised  concerns  about  the  lack  of 
consultations  regarding  laws  which  affect  their  functioning165.  The  e-Participation  platform 
that  is  being  developed  by  the  government166,  is  set  to  be  used  to  conduct  public 
consultations167.  

Measures  to face the  COVID-19 pandemic continued to be adopted.  The Public Health 
Act168 vests the Superintendent of Public Health with the power to declare the state of public 
health  emergency,  without  the  need  to  set  the  time-frame  of  its  duration169.  The  same  Act 
provides  the  Superintendent  with  the  power  to  make,  amend  or  revoke  orders  in  cases  of 
epidemics and infectious diseases. These powers were used more than 55 times from June to 
December  2020  and  twice  (January  and  February)  2021170.  Regulations  and  orders  issued 
under the state of public health emergency can be subject to scrutiny by Parliament171.  

Civil society organisations have expressed concerns regarding access to funding and the 
role  of  the  Commissioner  for  Voluntary  Organisations.  The  civic  space  continues  to  be 

Organisation  of  Civil  Procedure  (Cap  12),  where  a  Court  finds  a  law  to  be  invalid  or  in  breach  of  the 
Constitution or fundamental rights, it must notify the House of Representatives of its judgment. The Prime 
Minister  may,  within  six  months  from  the  date  that  the  judgment  has  become  final,  make  regulations 
deleting  the  relevant  instrument  or  provision  thereof  declared  to  be  contrary  to  the  Constitution  or  human 
rights. 

161  Venice Commission, CDL-AD(2020)019-e, para. 98. 
162  As noted in the 2020 Rule of Law Report, the Venice Commission found that the Maltese Parliament needs 
to be strengthened in order to be an effective check on Government and recommended changing the system 
in order to provide for full-time work and payment of members (CDL-AD(2020)006 paras. 92-94).  

163  See 2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Malta, p. 15. 
164  Venice Commission, CDL-AD(2020)019-e, para. 95. 
165  Information received in the context of the country visit to Malta. 
166  See the Maltese Government’s contribution to the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 
167  In  particular,  the  citizens  would  be  continuously  notified  about  the  feedback  given  and  about  procedural 
steps so far taken in the consultation process. The new system will also introduce a more detailed statistical 
information about the kind of feedback provided from the departments/entities. 

168  Articles 14 ff. of the Act. 
169  The state of public health emergency was declared on 16 March 2020 and lifted on 1 July 2020.  
170  Input from Malta for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 
171  In  accordance  with  the  Interpretation  Act  of  1975  (chapter  249),  any  subsidiary  legislation  –  such  as 
regulations  and  orders  issued  by  the  Superintendent  –  has  to  be  submitted  for  parliamentary  scrutiny  and 
may be annulled or amended by Parliament within 60 days from their submission. According to the public 
authorities,  no  motions  have  so  far  been  presented  to  contest  subsidiary  legislation  put  in  place  under  the 
Public Health Act since its amendment in 2020; see contribution from the Secretariat of the Parliament for 
the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

18 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
 
considered  as  narrowed  in  view  of,  among  others,  the  conditions  for  journalists172.  Civil 
society organisations participate actively in the public debate. However, they have expressed 
concerns about new rules on fundraising activities adopted in September 2020173 as these are 
seen as creating a double hurdle for associations to conduct their activities174 and grant undue 
discretion to the Commissioner for Voluntary Organisations to refuse approval to anyone to 
act  as  collectors175.  Civil  society  organisations  have  raised  concerns  that  actions  of  the 
Commissioner  could  be  politically  motivated176.  Various  schemes  were  open  in  2020, 
including an emergency fund177 set up in 2020 to help Voluntary Organisations to overcome 
challenges entailed by the COVID-19 pandemic which was extended until March 2021 and 
provided with an additional EUR 150 000. More than 120 non-profit groups benefited from 
the  first  stage  of  the  scheme  launched  in  May  2020  with  a  EUR  125  000  funding178.  On  1 
July 2021, the Commissioner for Voluntary Organisations resigned179. 

172  Ratings  given  by  CIVICUS,  Malta.  Ratings  are  on  a  five-category  scale  defined  as:  open,  narrowed, 
obstructed, repressed and closed. The  main considerations of CIVICUS to consider Malta’s civic space as 
narrowed concern the hostile conditions for journalist and anti-corruption activists.  

173  The  Voluntary  Organisations  (Public  Collections)  Regulations  (S.L.492.03.)  and  Voluntary  Organisations 
(Charity Shops) Regulations (S.L.492.04.). According to information received from the Maltese authorities, 
legal  amendments  concerning  access  to  funding  and  the  role  of  the  Commissioner  for  Voluntary 
Organisations were necessary to implement recommendations by international organisations. 

174  The  reported  double  hurdle  results  from  the  fact  that  the  organisations  interested  in  obtaining  funding  for 
their  activities,  despite  already  being  enrolled  under  the  Voluntary  Organisations  Act,  must  request  the 
permission of the authorities every time they intend to seek such funding. 

175  In 2020 and 2021 the Office of the Commissioner for Voluntary Organisations contacted over 200 Voluntary 
Organisations regarding issues pertaining to their respective statutes. In 2020 alone 124 organisations had to 
amend  their  statutes  before  being  accepted  as  registered  Voluntary  Organisations,  whilst  31  organisations 
had their application rejected because they failed to amend their statute so as to align it with the Voluntary 
Organisations  Act. The Investigations and Monitoring Unit section  within the Office  of  the Commissioner 
for Voluntary Organisations investigated nine (9) cases throughout 2019 and five (5) cases throughout 2020 
regarding various complaints on different VO’s. Input from Malta for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

176  Repubblika’s reply to the Commissioner for Voluntary Organisations, 6 March 2021, in which Repubblika 
raised concerns that it is being targeted by the  Commissioner due to political motivations in an attempt to 
silence  it  (see:  https://repubblika.org/press-release/government-wants-ban-repubblika/).  In  his  reply  of  15 
March 2021, the Commissioner rebutted the allegations made. The rebuttal was dismissed by Repubblika in 
its statement of 16 March 2021. The Office of the Commissioner for Voluntary Organisations continues to 
carry out routine administrative checks in order to ensure compliance with the Voluntary Organisations Act 
of  the  statutes  of  organisations  already  registered  with  it,  as  well  as  of  those  which  apply  for  Voluntary 
Organisation status. 

177  The  fund  is  administered  by  the  Malta  Council  for  the  Voluntary  Sector  in  collaboration  with  the 
Parliamentary Secretariat for Sport, Recreation and Voluntary Organisations. Organisations working in the 
voluntary  sector  that  have  been  affected  by  the  COVID-19  epidemics  are  eligible  under  the  scheme  to 
receive up to EUR 5000.  

ensured 

178 Providing information on available national and EU funding for Voluntary Organisations is required by law 
and 
and 
platforms 
https://maltacvs.org/latest-news/mobile-app-vo-funding-malta-2/).  Personalised  assistance  and  support  to 
local organisations is provided in the practical aspects related to EU funding opportunities. 
179  Independent, ‘Jesmond Saliba nominated to be new commissioner for VOs’ of 2 July 2021. 

https://www.vofunding.org.mt/ 

dedicated 

digital 

(see 

on 

19 

 
 
                                                 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2021 Rule of Law report 
can  be  found  at  https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/upholding-rule-
law/rule-law/rule-law-mechanism/2021-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-consultation. 

Article  19  (2021),  Public  Inquiry  into  the  assassination  of  Daphne  Caruana  Galizia.  Written 
submission, 31 March 2021(Submission to Public Inquiry (mfrr.eu)). 

Association of Judges and Magistrates of Malta (2021) Press Release 11 February 2021(article on the 
press release: Government urged to issue a call for more magistrates (timesofmalta.com)). 

BBC  (2021),  Malta  golden  passports:  'Loopholes'  found  in  citizenship  scheme  of  22  April  2021, 
(https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56843409). 

Centre  for  Media  Pluralism  and  Media  Freedom  (2021),  Media  pluralism  monitor  2021 
(https://cmpf.eui.eu/media-pluralism-monitor/mpm-2021/). 

Chamber 
(https://www.avukati.org/2020/05/14/press-release-chamber-of-advocates-may-14-2020/). 

Advocates 

(2020), 

release 

press 

14 

of 

of 

May 

2020, 

Chamber  of  Advocates  (2021)  A  Position  Paper  of  the  Chamber  of  Advocates  —Bill  198-  the 
Supremacy 
2021 
(https://www.avukati.org/2021/03/10/bill-198-the-supremacy-of-the-constitution-and-due-process/ ). 

10  March 

Constitution 

process—, 

and 

due 

the 

of 

Chamber  of  Advocates  (2021),  MFSA  Consultation  on  new  CSP  Rulebook.  Chamber  of  Advocates 
Feedback  and  Position  Paper  (https://www.avukati.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Chambers-
response-MFSA-consultation-CSP-Rulebook.pdf). 

Civicus, Monitor tracking civic space – Malta (https://monitor.civicus.org/country/malta/). 

Commissioner for Standards in Public Life (2021), Case K/028, Allocation of public funds for alleged 
political  advertising 
(https://standardscommissioner.com/wp-
content/uploads/Commissioner-for-Standards-case-report-K028.pdf). 

in  print  media,  case  report 

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),  Recommendations  and  Declarations  of  the 
Committee  of  Ministers  of  the  Council  of  Europe  in  the  field  of  media  and  information  society, 
(https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000
01680645b44). 

Council of Europe: Consultative Council of European Judges (2016), Opinion No. 19 on the role of 
Court Presidents (https://www.coe.int/en/web/ccje/avis-n-19-sur-le-role-des-presidents-de-tribunaux). 

Council  of  Europe:  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists, 
(https://www.coe.int/en/web/media-freedom). 

Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2020), CDL-AD(2020)019-e Opinion of 8 October 2020 on 
Malta  -  Opinion  on  ten  Acts  and  bills  implementing  legislative  proposals  subject  of  Opinion  CDL-
AD(2020)006 (https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-AD(2020)019-e ). 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2020),  Flash  Eurobarometer  482:  Businesses'  attitudes 
towards corruption in the EU. 

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

European  Commission  (2020),  Rule  of  Law  Report,  country  chapter  on  the  rule  of  law  situation  in 
Malta. 

European Commission (2021), EU Justice Scoreboard. 

GRECO (2019), Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report on Malta on preventing corruption and 
promoting integrity in central governments (top executive functions) and law enforcement agencies. 

20 

 
Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  20  April  2021,  Repubblika  v  Il-Prim  Ministru,  C-896/19, 
ECLI:EU:C:2021:311. 

Maltese 
Corruption 
National 
(https://parlament.mt/media/112436/national-anti-fraud-and-corruption-strategy_en.pdf). 

Government 

Anti-Fraud 

(2021), 

and 

Strategy 

Parliament  of  Malta  (2021),  Paper  Laid  No.:  6624,  National  Anti-Fraud  and  Corruption  Strategy 
published  by  the  Office  of  the  Prime  Minister,  dated  May  2021  (https://parlament.mt/en/paper-
laid/?id=34616). 

Parliamentary 
(https://www.ombudsman.org.mt/category/annual-reports/). 

Ombudsman 

Malta 

(2020), 

Annual 

Report 

2019 

Reporters without Borders – Malta (https://rsf.org/en/taxonomy/term/150). 

Repubblika (2020), Press Release n. 117/2020 (Stqarrija PR 117/2020 - Repubblika).  

Repubblika  (2021),  Press  Release  n.  34/2021,  Reply  to  the  Commissioner  for  Voluntary 
Organisations,  16  March  2021  (https://repubblika.org/press-release/reply-commissioner-voluntary-
organisations-remarks-press/ ). 

Repubblika (2021), Press Release n. 52/2021, We congratulate four people who will be appointed to 
serve  as  judges  in  the  Superior  Courts  of  Malta.  We  wish  them  wisdom  and  courage  to  do  work 
without  looking  anyone  in  the  face,  15  April  2021  (https://repubblika.org/press-release/we-
congratulate-four-people-who-will-be-appointed-to-serve-as-judges-in-the-superior-courts-of-malta-
we-wish-them-wisdom-and-courage-to-do-work-without-looking-anyone-in-the-face/ ). 

Times of Malta (2021), ‘Exposed: the great residency sham to obtain a Maltese passport’, 22 April 
2021  (https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/exposed-the-great-residency-sham-to-obtain-a-maltese-
passport.866220). 

Transparency International (2021), Corruption Perceptions Index 2020. 

21 

 
 
Annex II: Country visit to Malta 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in April 2021 with: 

Industrial Tribunal 
Information and Data Protection Commissioner 
Internal Audit and Investigations Department 
Institute of Maltese Journalists 

  Association of Judges and Magistrates of Malta 
  Auditor General 
  Aditus Foundation 
  Broadcasting Authority 
  Chamber of Advocates 
  Chief Justice and members of the Commission for the Administration of Justice 
  Commissioner for Standards in Public Life 
  Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation 
 
 
 
 
  Lovin Malta 
  Ministry for Justice, Equality and Governance 
  Office of the Attorney General 
  Office of Parliamentary Ombudsman – Malta 
  Permanent Commission against Corruption 
  Police: Financial Crimes Investigations Department 
  Public Service Commission 
  Prof. Justin Borg-Barthet 
  Repubblika 
  Secretariat of the Parliament 
  State Advocate 

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

  Amnesty International 
  Center for Reproductive Rights 
  CIVICUS 
  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 
  European Federation of Journalists 
  European Partnership for Democracy  
  European Youth Forum 
  Front Line Defenders 
  Human Rights House Foundation  
  Human Rights Watch  
 
 
 
 

ILGA-Europe 
International Commission of Jurists 
International Federation for Human Rights 
International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network (IPPF EN) 

22 

 
 
 
International Press Institute 
  Netherlands Helsinki Committee  
  Open Society European Policy Institute 
  Philanthropy Advocacy 
  Protection International  
  Reporters without Borders 
  Transparency International EU 

23