Court overturns fireworks judgment

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.