PBS appeals judgments on MLP EU spots

Public Broadcasting Services Limited yesterday appealed two judgments handed down by the Civil Court over the broadcasting of information spots on the European Union.

The Civil Court had dismissed the PBS writ against the Broadcasting Authority and upheld the one filed by the Labour Party against it and the authority.

In the PBS writ filed against the authority and in which the MLP had been asked to intervene, PBS had requested the first court to declare that the authority's order issued on June 6 was ultra vires and null and void.

The authority had upheld a complaint filed by the MLP about the spots broadcast by the Malta Information Centre (MIC) on PBS.

By means of its decision the authority had ordered PBS to allocate broadcasting spots to the MLP to broadcast its spots about information regarding alternatives to EU membership.

The spots had to be between five and 60 seconds long and were to be broadcast by PBS in time already allocated for advertising.

PBS claimed that the authority's decision was in violation of its rights, for PBS was being unjustly forced to give air time to a political party when such time had been reserved by the television station for advertisements.

Thus, PBS would lose income from advertising when it had only a limited period in which such adverts could be aired.

PBS added that it would be seriously prejudiced by the authority's decision because the authority had ordered that the MLP's spots be aired free of charge.

On the other hand, MIC was paying for the spots it was broadcasting on TVM.

PBS concluded its writ by requesting the court to declare that the actions on the part of the authority were ultra vires and seriously prejudicial to PBS.

It further requested the court to declare the decisions to be null and void.

PBS also requested a declaration that the constitution did not distinguish between public and private television stations or between public and private broadcasting.

The Civil Court had dismissed PBS' writ and found that the authority had not acted ultra vires its powers.

The court however concluded that PBS' request for a declaration that the constitution did not distinguish between public and private broadcasting was justified.

The court noted that the constitution made no distinction between the two but the Broadcasting Act did, for it provided that PBS, as the company responsible for public broadcasting, had to observe the fundamental obligation of impartiality as specified in the constitution.

The Broadcasting Act also distinguished between the two types of broadcasting in that PBS benefited from the licence fees paid by the public while the private stations did not.

The Civil Court concluded that the decision taken by the authority on June 6 was proportionate and within the parameters of the constitution and the law. This decision was therefore binding upon PBS.

PBS yesterday appealed from this judgment and claimed that the Civil Court had failed to conduct a proper judicial review of the order issued by the authority.

The court ought to have investigated whether such order was unjust, unreasonable or oppressive, and whether PBS had been given the opportunity to be heard before the authority decided upon the MLP's complaint.

PBS also submitted that it ought to have been heard before the MLP was authorised to broadcast its own spots on TVM at times chosen by the MLP in intervals already reserved by PBS for advertising.

The authority's decision was enormously burdensome on TVM, and the authority had been generous with other persons' belongings.

PBS further submitted that the authority's decision was oppressive for it allowed a political party to dictate issues and to select time for broadcasting that had already been allocated for broadcasting.

Such broadcasting facility was being given free of charge.

PBS added that the authority's decision was going to prejudice TVM's revenue.

PBS called on the appeal court to overturn the decision of the Civil Court except for the first court's decision that the constitution made no distinction between public and private broadcasting.

PBS also appealed from a judgment delivered by the Civil Court whereby the writ filed by the MLP against the authority and PBS was limitedly upheld in respect of appellant company.

The first court had ordered PBS to broadcast the MLP's spots in terms of the authority's decision, while the authority was ordered to ensure that its directives were obeyed.

The MLP had requested the court to declare that the authority and PBS were not fulfilling their legal duties in terms of law for the PBS had failed to implement the authority's decision of June 6.

The MLP also requested the court to declare that defendants were allowing imbalance and partiality in broadcasting, and to order defendants to broadcast the MLP's spots on PBS.

In its judgment the court noted that the authority had continued to insist with PBS that the MLP's spots be aired.

On its part, however, PBS had continually refused to air these spots and that it had in effect allowed an imbalance in broadcasting against the MLP.

This was in violation of the company's obligations in terms of law.

The court concluded its judgment by finding that PBS was to air the MLP's spots, and it ordered PBS to implement the decision of the authority of June 6.

PBS claimed in its appeal that by that judgment the first court had presumed that PBS could not contest the legality of the authority's decision taken in its regard.

PBS was entitled to contest such a decision.

The company also insisted that it had not acted illegally, for it had contested the legality of the authority's decision in accordance with the law.

Furthermore, PBS submitted that it had not failed to carry out its duties, for it had recourse to judicial procedures within a reasonable time from the authority's decision.

PBS concluded its application requesting the Court of Appeal to overturn the judgment of the Civil Court and to dismiss the MLP's writ.

Dr Tonio Azzopardi signed the appeals.