Minister on appointment of Maltese judge to European Court of Human Rights

Home Affairs Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici told Parliament yesterday that appointing a Maltese judge to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg who was not already a judge was out of the question. He said the Maltese system required that a lawyer could only be appointed to the judiciary if he or she had the qualities to serve in the Superior Courts, which automatically meant 20 years' practising experience in Maltese courts.

Winding up the debate in second reading of the Various Laws (Civil Matters) (Amendment) Bill, Dr Mifsud Bonnici said he had to face quite an amount of grilling in Strasbourg. He had been asked why none of the female members of the judiciary had applied for the job, and he had answered that if they had family it constituted a huge consideration.

It had also been suggested that Malta bring in an expatriate female judge, as Liechtenstein had done. He had answered that this would be impracticable.

On the suggestion that he should have met female members of the Maltese judiciary and insisted on applications from them, he had replied that he would rather resign than do that.

Dr Mifsud Bonnici said it should be noted that the number of female members of the Maltese judiciary had doubled in recent years - from four magistrates and two chairpersons of the Small Claims Tribunal to two judges, six magistrates and four chairpersons of the Small Claims Tribunal.

Earlier, the minister replied blow-by-blow to comments raised by both government and opposition speakers. He said things should be much better and quicker once the post of public auctioneer had been established, even because he or she would be able to publicise auctions better. It would be in his interest to get the best possible price in any auction sale.

The auctioneer would be given the go-ahead to auction off certain perishables, such as computers, early on. Things such as shares were being included as movable property.

He would do everything possible to ensure that as many as possible of the shortcomings highlighted would be solved.

Obviously this would depend on the success or otherwise of steps taken. It seemed difficult to keep court staff happy at work, and this resulted in a high turnover. Answers to calls for applications were sparse, and final results after interviews were even worse.

The process of renovating the courts would be a long one. Dr José Herrera's concern that the executive was relinquishing certain powers to the judiciary needed to be better understood.

Interjecting, Dr Herrera said he was mostly concerned that the Chief Justice was being expected to take charge of several aspects that were not really part of the judiciary's role.

Continuing, Dr Mifsud Bonnici said he appreciated Dr Herrera's points, but the Chief Justice had huge responsibilities, and it was difficult to find solutions to all aspects or to keep everybody happy. This in fact gave the judiciary more autonomy.

Dr Herrera said he was speaking about the office of the Chief Justice, not the incumbent.

Dr Mifsud Bonnici said a judge was not necessarily a manager, but he or she should still have a grasp of management skills. Judges were appointed on merit, not on political creed.

On the subject of court experts' tariffs, he announced talks were underway with the Chamber of Architects on a procedure on valuation of property in public auctions. There was now a list of court experts that could be appointed on rotation basis, instead of having always the same few.

Dr Mifsud Bonnici agreed with Dr Franco Debono that the judiciary process in the Criminal Court was taking too long, and this problem must be addressed by considering what systems were working and what was not.

He was pleased that Dr Marie Louise Coleiro Preca now agreed that the mediation process in the Family Court was reaping some good results. There was still a lot to be done at the Family Court, and all possibilities would be looked into. Dr Mifsud Bonnici assured the House that his interest was to have the best people in the Family Court, and this was obvious from the huge dedication and attention to family problems. What was also important was that the Family Court now had less of an image of a place for family in-fighting.

Earlier, Owen Bonnici (PL) said that the law courts remained reluctant to introduce technology.

He commended the government website, which made laws and legal notices available, but it would be a good idea to upload the information stored on the two ancient, working computers at the court register. A password could be set to control who had access to this information.

A more client-friendly system would allow lawyers to put their clients' minds at rest, and alleviate a great deal of frustration.

The issue of experts was another problem, as sometimes the verdict was based on their opinions. There were cases when the appointed person was not an expert in the particular field.

Dr Bonnici said that in some cases the court encouraged the parties to agree on an architect, so as not to incur further expenses through the architects' exorbitant fees.

He said that it was unbelievable how entities with judicial power, like boards and tribunals composed of the same four or five lawyers, passed sentences so different from the courts'. The idea was to move towards one administrative umbrella which guaranteed the same safeguards as the courts.

Dr Joe Sammut (PL) said that there were no difficulties with executive warrants because sentence would have already been passed. But there were difficulties as regards the precautionary warrant because this created hardship.

He called for greater caution when applying warrants of seizure. The amendment whereby a court sale by auction would be carried out by an auctioneer would increase expenses to debtors when another solution could be found. Some movable property was sold at ridiculous prices in a court sale. Construction equipment costing thousands of euros had been sold for €800.

Court marshals should be entitled to danger money and it was high time to invest seriously in human resources at the law courts, he said.

The Bill was unanimously given a second reading.