Court overturns fireworks judgment
Family's inconvenience 'self-imposed'
A landmark judgment, which declared parts of the law governing fireworks to violate fundamental human rights, was yesterday overturned by an appeal court.
Last March, the court had declared that the definition of an "inhabited area" in the law governing licences for fireworks displays - which allows the letting off of fireworks close to a residence as long as it does not form part of a cluster of homes inhabited by more than 100 people - breached fundamental human rights.
The Zammit Maempel family - Frederick, his wife Suzette and his children Julian and Martina - had been complaining in vain about the fireworks being let off near their house in San Ġwann for years. They had argued that, as the law stood, it did not protect their legitimate interests.
The first court had upheld their argument, ruling that the fireworks caused serious damage to the family and was therefore in violation of their right to privacy.
Yesterday however, the Constitutional Court overturned this verdict after an appeal filed by St Helen's fireworks factory, the Attorney General and the Malta Pyrotechnics Association.
The court held that the inconvenience suffered by the family was self-inflicted because it had moved into an area in which fireworks had been let off for over 70 years.
The court also ruled that the law provided a balance between the needs of the individual and those of society as a whole.
The Zammit Maempel family lives close to an area where fireworks are let off for the feasts of St Helen and St Anthony. Each time fireworks were let off, the family said, it was at serious risk of being injured and property being damaged. It also suffered damages as a result of falling debris.
The family had complained to the Police Commissioner for years but the situation had not been resolved, even though the Ombudsman had decided in its favour.
The Zammit Maempels complained of excessive noise and danger from the fireworks, including danger to property from fire, but the Constitutional Court felt that the noise and the danger were affecting the family in specific hours of specific days of the year. Moreover, the court said, the Zammit Maempels' application had to be considered in the light of the law governing fireworks.
The law regulated the hours in which fireworks could be let off and also their quality. There were also regulations governing the different places from which fireworks could be let off and the various distances that had to be observed as well as other measures such as the need for insurance policies and fire engines standing by when the fireworks were let off.
On this basis, the court concluded, one could not say that the individual was not offered protection in terms of law.
This was a case of self-imposed hardship because the family had been told of the fireworks by the person who sold them the property, the court noted.
The law had effectively obtained a balance between the interests of the individual and those of the community but this balance was delicate.
If the fireworks enthusiasts did not scrupulously observe the law, and, in particular, those measures dealing with the size of the fireworks, the noise level and the number of fireworks, then the time might come when the law would no longer be acceptable, the court concluded.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
10 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
John Portelli
Nov 4th 2009, 16:13
Are we not ALL equal or are some more equal than others. As far as I know, our constitution guarantees equal rights to ALL citizens, the right to freedom and to enjoy the security and peacefulness of your home, no matter where you live.
Unfortunately some of us feel that they have the right to deprive other citizens this freedom just because these live in a rural area.
Once again I would like to remind TOM readers the classical quote by the ex-MEPA Chairman in the case of the new pig farm next to long established residential homes "We don't have the luxury to use common sense,"
F.Reinhard
Nov 1st 2009, 00:33
Interests of the individual versus interests of the community:
Indeed that is a delicate balance. But are petard enthusiasts the community or the individuals?
Are they the majority in the community or the minority? I bet they are a minority of about 5 to 20 percent, depending on the questions you ask: and definitely petards are not 'the firework', the festas, the sociocultural tradition of the majority, but dangerous explosions! And should - in a democracy - be the minority be able to dominate the majority?
John A. Zammit
Oct 31st 2009, 18:00
I think that I know a little more than all of you about this case as I happen to hold on lease (qbila) one of the fields from where the fireworks are let off; which incidentally forms part of about 32 tumoli of land which has been held by my family on lease (qbila) from the Collegiate Church of St. Helen, Birkirkara for almost a century. It is worth mentioning that there is another family who lives much closer to the place from where the fireworks are let off and has never complained during the 45 years or so that it has been living there. All this fuss started when the Zammi Maempels took up their residence, if my memory serves me right, some 12 years ago. Another point, please do not start threatening with seeking rederss at the E.U. Courts. Last year I was at a feast at Palazzolo in Scicily and fireworks were let off from a distance much shorter than that allowed by Maltese laws for more than 30 minutes and the time was 12.30 in the morning.
joseph bajada
Oct 31st 2009, 17:34
VIVA N N NAR MALTI....TASSEW JAGHMILNA KBURIN.....DIN HI REBHA GHAD DILETTANTI KOLLHA U KULL MIN GHANDU GHAL QALBU N NAR MALTI.. IL MULEJ JZOMM IDEJH FUQ D DILETTANTI KOLLHA.
C.Busuttil
Oct 31st 2009, 17:07
@Paul Barrett
I think that damage to hearing is caused by aircrafts, cars, building construction, discos etc and not by fireworks let off for few hours during one week from 52. Try another one, this joke does not work.
@J. Oatmon
They can go to the EU how much they like and the result will be the same as yesterday. In Europe fireworks are let off without the complains of certain moaners we have in Malta. Besides the few fanatical fireworks enthusiasts entertain crowds that number in THOUSANDS every weekend in summer in various localities. Those who don't like have 26 other countries to choose as their residence!!!!!!!! This family knew very well that fireworks are let off not far from the property they bought, therefore they have no SORT of excuses. Cheekly enough because of their presence they expect others to change their traditions to accomodate them MHUX HEKK NIBQAW. The same thing goes for those who buy a property next to a church and expect that the church should stop ringing the bells because they disturb them.
J Oatmon
Oct 31st 2009, 13:22
@ Charles Sammut - I agree that "This family should seek redress elsewhere".
This family is now able to appeal directly to the EU over this matter.
With the EU, hopefully common sense will prevail, and people's lives will have a higher value than the hobby of a small group of fanatical fireworks enthusiasts.
john fenech
Oct 31st 2009, 11:42
May I point out that noise level is not objectively dealt with in the Law controlling Explosive ordinance or, for that matter, in the EU directive! While other institution indicate the noise level but not a solution!
Notwithstanding the merit of this particular case, does the Law as read today, consider the potential danger to less than 100 people trivial, improbable to happen, even if it does by some immeasurable law of physics the results will be much less devastating compared to the effect on a community of more than 100 people!?
The crucial point is - if a potential danger will cause a tragedy, then the consequence endured by one will endured by one too many! Therefore the AG and those responsible have to ensure that the safety of one is as important as the safety of many!
Charles Sammut
Oct 31st 2009, 11:19
"The court also ruled that the law provided a balance between the needs of the individual and those of society as a whole."
So this court considers the letting off of dangerous, excessively noisy petards as social necessity. I bet that if I forget my mobile phone switched on in this court and it as much as beeps once, I will be held in contempt of court!
This family should seek redress elsewhere.
Steven Camilleri
Oct 31st 2009, 09:58
Why sould i go and live in mqabba if i hate fireworks ? This is just common sense ! Why should i go to live in Paceville and complain about the noise , or go to hamrun and complain about pollution ? They knew they were going to live near a fireworks factory , or should the fireworks factory stop because of them?
Paul Barrett
Oct 31st 2009, 09:52
Perhaps this is a case where the law needs to be updated to protect the health of residents. The power and potential damage caused by fireworks - mainly the inexplicable "bangers" has increased enormously over the years. Our understanding of the damage to hearing has also increased and it seems time that these were more regulated or withdrawn altogether - they add nothing to the fabulous fireworks display and annoy a great many people.